[WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was: Proposal on userbox disagreement)

[david at election.demon.co.uk]

Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/5/06, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been
> > > nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by
> > > someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total
> > > edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum.
> >
> > Welcome to the Eternal September of Wikipedia.
>
> I suspect that, had you tried to remove the categories before this
> entire affair had occurred, you could have done so with little
> objection; and that, once this fades from memory somewhat, you'll be
> able to do so as well.

Would that this could happen tonight. I think these categories are the
worst aspect of the userbox mess; the fact that so many of the kneejerk
userbox defenders can't see what an immense potential they are for
divisiveness, ballot stuffing and organised POV editing is a matter of
no small concern. I appreciate that most of them are created without
any malign intent but it has already happened that these sorts of
things have been used to gather a mob, and indeed there have been 
attempts to do that on the userbox issue itself.

I suspect that for the moment a quiet word with the people of 
Wikiproject Userboxes may suggest that they do not automatically
include categories with newly created boxes. Then, starting with the
most egregious, systematically remove the inappropriate categories that
have appeared. Finally, a forced subst:ing of the Userboxes that are
there so that the Whatlinkshere does not work.

That would preserve Userboxes, free speech, NPOV, and prevent any
attempts at ballot stuffing. But I bet it doesn't have a chance of
becoming policy. 

David Boothroyd (en:User:Dbiv)