StrangerInParadise

What are you talking about?

I added to the talk page; I didn't change the article. CJCurrie 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I can explain this mystery: in your most recent reversion of the Buors page, you only removed the link (not the actual quote). This didn't make any sense to me, but I refrained from comment.

I plan on holding to our policy of not changing this section of the page until someone else weighs in.

I don't have any objection to you expanding the Compassion Club section, though I'm not sure what you mean by "restorations" -- I don't think anything was deleted from this section. CJCurrie 01:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Compassion

Stranger,

There's already a link to Compassion Club, earlier in the article. Hence my confusion.

Since you've adopted a more civil tone, I'll reciprocate (and maybe explain why I've been so resolute with my position):

About a month ago, an anonymous poster added three unflattering quotes from Buors on the article page. I didn't like the way this was done -- the three quotes were lined up one after an another, and were obviously posted with the defamatory intent. The only problem was, at least two of the quotes were accurate (I couldn't find a reference for the third). What's more, the quote on homosexuality struck me as entirely relevant for the page, coming from a public figure.

I recognize that Buors may not want the quote retained, but this ultimately isn't my concern -- I can't think of a more divisive social topic in Canadian politics today, and any public comment on the subject by a party leader has to be considered "fair game" for inclusion. (I did, however, try to mitigate the intentions of the original poster.)

There is no doubt in my mind that the quote is reliable, nor that it is relevant. Attacking the CC's reliability because the original post has been deleted does not strike me as a cogent objection -- especially when the Google cache is still available. Similarly, I can't see the "expectation of privacy" comment holding water on a public discussion forum. (Note that these statements are not made with hostile intent.)

I agree that the "Chomsky" quote was gratuitous, and I don't have any intention of restoring it.

Feel free to forward this message to Buors. Looking at the matter objectively, I hope he'll agree that I've taken the correct approach. CJCurrie 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Electoral record

I've been adding these tables to a number of different pages. I agree that they take up a fair bit of space, but since they're all clustered at the bottom of the article I don't see this being a problem.

My general approach is that if a public figure is important enough for a separate bio page, that person's electoral record is also appropriate for inclusion. Wikipedia has a clear policy permitting bio pages for party leaders, ergo ... CJCurrie 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry about the broken nature of this discussion. I responded to your message just before Ground_Zero's came in.

If the consensus is against having these elaborate charts on bio pages, I won't object. I don't see them as problematic, though I can accept that others might.

The "highlighting" is simply to draw attention to the subject in the context of a chart format; I hadn't thought of this as contentious, and I never considered doing anything similar for biographical information. CJCurrie 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Official welcome

Welcome!

Hello, StrangerInParadise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 01:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Buors

Thanks for flagging the existence of this article and person. I had never heard of him but the article is now on my watchlist, SqueakBox 01:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Buors update

Stranger,

I should inform you that I've done some expanding/referencing work on the Buors page. I don't think any of the changes are particularly controversial, though you may which to review them (and alert the subject) in any case. If there are any factual errors, please alert me/correct them/etc. CJCurrie 21:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Flourishes and sources

I won't dispute the quote if you can find it, regardless of the source.  ;)

(Just remember to update the endnotes section.) CJCurrie 03:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Square brackets

My understanding is that these are standard usage when indicating that text has been deleted (particularly when "..." also appears in the source material). I don't see this as particularly controversial, in any event. CJCurrie 03:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Buors retires from politics

Buors's decision does not come as a complete surprise to me. The impression I took from reading his posts (and particularly his reaction to the recent controversy) is that he never considered himself a "public figure", and wasn't ready for dealing with this sort of criticism. To some extent, I can understand his position -- he became the leader of a political party more-or-less by accident, and probably wasn't expecting the degree of scrutiny or publicity that he's received on Wikipedia. If he isn't able to deal with this, perhaps political life (even on the fringes) isn't for him.

You might be interested to know that I allowed Buors to vet the original page, when it was created in 2004 (this was long before the present controversy). At the time, he said it was fine. I'm not certain he remembers this exchange now. CJCurrie 23:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Marinol

Well, you're more involved with the article so I'll defer to you. I removed the anon's link at first because all the other links directly related to Steve Kubby, whereas that one was more tangential. --Malthusian (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So I see. I'm glad that I came across it, it's a very interesting issue but being in Britain I wouldn't have heard of it otherwise. --Malthusian (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Help has arrived

I noticed your call for help. I guess that's your question on your user page, you want to get the Kubby story into the {{In the news}} section of the Main Page? I'm looking into it and I'll get back to you. If you can expand on your query do so here. Also, where are the related Wikipedia articles?--Commander Keane 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the related articles, don't worry about that. It looks like there are Wikipedians that are conscious of the story at the Candidates page, so I'm not sure what else I can do. Perhaps it will be picked up by more international outlets and make it onto the Main Page.--Commander Keane 06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The idea that more international press should pick this up ignores the fact that on the merits this matter already more than qualifies. I understand the value of having an objective rule of thumb, but the shear dimensions of this case coupled with the international exposure it has already surely already passes the objectivity test! StrangerInParadise 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the link. Can't help on current events (I am not surprised at what happened, though) but will certainly help with the article, etc. Very depressing news. I know both Honduras (whaere I live) and the UK (where I am from) suffer from the same problems of people being criminalised for their use of medical marijuana except that there is no legal recognition of medical marijuana, not that I personally believe medical marijuana should be treated as an exception as I believe the total legalisation of marijuana for all purposes (licenced like alcohol or tobacco) is the only way forward and a recognition of the powerful role marijuana can play in helping give up addictions to a whole range of noxious substances from tobacco and (the out of control drugs of) alcohol, heroin, cocaine and crack, etc, an area in which there has been little or no research. If this issue is debated on any article talk page please send me the link as I am happy to weigh in, and good luck with what you are doing, SqueakBox 14:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, to propose an addition to the "in the news" section on the main page, please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, as someone has mentioned above. Unfortunately we can't really be of any other further help in this, other than pointing you in the right direction to raise your query. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I read the request and I understand your mission. However, I don't think a heading like this is will be included in the main page. The main page has room for only 5 or so headlines, and those headlines are a necessarily a very small selection of all news events. Many news events that are important to many people never make it to the main page, for several reasons, but one of the most logical ones is that there's just too much news to choose from. This does not make the news any less important, of course! It's just not as relevant to as many people as some other news items are. I understand that a lot of this is very subjective (a news item about a sports event might not seem as important to you as this case is) but unfortunately, that's reality... I will remove the helpme tag from your page. Please do not re-add it, it won't get you more response than you are already receiving right now. Sorry! --JoanneB 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

War on Drugs article improvement

Hey there. Just letting you know that the War on Drugs article has been nominated for improvement. Perhaps you may want to add your supporting vote or a comment on the process. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 18:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey man. I really like your userbox, but I removed it from Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis because it is not really appropriate. That article is very controversial and needs to remain NPOV. Including a pro-cannabis userbox advertisement on the page doesn't help that article stay objective. Thanks and take care. --Howrealisreal 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but you are absolutely right: I am concerned about the appearance of POV at the article because it is already easy for detractors to dismiss the content over there as being biased, POV, and pro-cannabis. I understand that you want to spread the use of the userbox, but in an article talk page it is not appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages, which states "article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article," and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." The use of the article's talk page to promote the userbox has nothing to do with the content of the article. I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to keep things professional, and that is totally different from the mindless censorship that you are accusing me of. --Howrealisreal 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is no definitive policy about userboxes. Regardless, the use of such templates, as their name implies, is that userboxes belong on user pages. I have seen your views on userboxes in general at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll (which you also linked in your comment) and cannot help but think that your pro-cannabis userbox advertisement doubles as a means of politicizing that un-related issue further. On the other hand, Wikipedia has established policies about no self-promotion (being that it is your userbox you are trying to get others to use), and about not using article talk pages as a soapbox. You claim that "I've announced a userbox, this hardly qualifies as mounting a soapbox," but by definition announcing or proclaiming something of unencyclopedic and questionable relation to the specific article at hand, surely can be seen as a soapbox. Lastly, I am not an admin and personally I do not care about userboxes for people who want to use them on their user space. Please, use the right platforms that have been established (directly relating to userboxes) and stick to discussing the health issues and effects of cannabis at that article and its discussion page. Regards, --Howrealisreal 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pro-cannabis

The category associated with this template was deleted. Please stop adding it to the template. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to note that you walked very close to the WP:3RR block there. I understand that you were frsutrated, but edit warring isn't productive, it's just a test to see who is more stuborn. Talking is better! - brenneman^{T}{L} 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism

Edit warring is frowned upon even when you don't break WP:3RR and I'm frowning. Another, even more serious matter is calling editors who disagree with you "vandals". Please don't do that, it's considered a personal attack. Zocky | picture popups 11:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MfD - community assent

Wanna look? Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent — Dzonatas 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question

No, I wouldn't want you not to revert vandalsim on my page. I wasn't really sure what was going on and thanks for clarifying, SqueakBox 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Community assent

Thank you for your vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent. A deletion of a proposal seems irregular when the guidelines state to use the approval and rejection system. Hopefully, this does move forward the efforts to validate pages. — Dzonatas 23:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: In addition (re MarkSweep)

Thank you for the comment/clarification. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No; I will not take action when I have not spent time carefully reviewing the entire situation. In addition, because you've already posted the matter at WP:AN/I, if immediate action is really needed, I'm sure one of the many administrators will act after discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of right versus wrong, or clear-cut, immediate reversion needed. As I haven't had the time to fully review the circumstances of the dispute (nor do I wish to at this time), and the matter has already been placed for discussion, I will not act. Thank you for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

mark sweep and guanaco again

Hi, please don't go "looking for bail" for users who are blocked. I think presently the situation has enough attention to it that people will do the right thing -- given time. I know it seems urgent now, but twelve hours in the face of finally reaching a compromise here seems small. thanks, ... aa:talk 07:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks about the userbox deletetion warining ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your messages

Greetings. I noticed you sending a message in highly loaded language on dozens of talk pages about the userbox policy poll. This is a pretty unacceptable way of going about things, and it does not in any way help to find consensus on the matter; you've gone beyond simply informaing into presenting a highly loaded presentation of the issue designed to encourage people to "vote" a certain way. I urge you to take back this message and not to continue such behavior in the future; I'm placing a notice about this message spamming on the poll so those closing it may take its effect into account. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are two big reasons why this is inappropriate:

1. Massive assumption of bad faith. "Rogue admins", "sabotage", "reported damage". This is the language of someone who thinks people holding the other view are deliberately out to destroy something.

2. Vote stacking. It's not good. This is the reason people are against userboxes in the first place. It's just not on to go rally people you think will support you and urge them to sway a discussion a certain way.

This sort of thing only exacerbates any factionalism that was already there. This doesn't help solved the problem; it only makes it worse! Instead of making a solid, well-reasoned argument against the points of the proposal on the talk page and letting that stand -- which is the only way consensus can work -- you're going around doing the equivalent of putting up flyers on everyone's door, and it becomes a game of numbers; who can go rally the most support for their position. This is more damaging than any placement or remvoal of any brightly-colored box. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Spamming user pages is severely frowned upon - users have been penalised by the AC for spamming ten user pages - and I stopped counting yours after thirty. That it was a personal attack message is not tolerable on Wikipedia, hence the block. I've noted it on WP:ANI for the review of other admins - David Gerard 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not use a bot. I contacted one-by-one a list of people who were affected by a recent wrongful action. I did not attack anyone personally, except to characterize their actions as rogue, which they were. Finally, I am entitled to speak with as many people as I like on a matter of common interest. Please lift this block immediately. StrangerInParadise 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am entitled to speak with as many people as I like on a matter of common interest" — It turns out this is not the case. I strongly advise you to read and understand the reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK. He was banned for ten days for talk page spamming; 31 hours is a much shorter time, possibly to an out-of-process degree - David Gerard 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

David, out of curiosity (and please take this is no more than abject curiosity, I'm not trying to sway either side of this), do you think that the ruling applies to non-article discussions? It seems counterintuitive that it is not okay to ask people to discuss an issue. I can see it being very important to not do this when it comes to editing an article. However, when we are talking about a policy issue, "pov" is absolutely essential. We are being asked, in effect, to share our points of view. This is common practice "in the real world," with many organizations (be they PETA, the NRA, or your local congressman) snail-mailing or phone-calling their constituents asking them to act en masse to sway some body (be it the public or their respective politicians). That having been said, I find SIP's actions to be, at the very least, tacky. ... aa:talk 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" in question is a straw poll, where the purpose of the straw poll is primarily to determine whether the policy has consensus. In such a case, where the policy is not only in discussion but is gathering consensus, ballot-stuffing really can mask a possible consensus. (In any case, trying to sway discussions through numbers is not cool.) --AySz88^-^ 06:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You all ignore the fact that the participants are mostly of those who have an ax to grind regarding userboxes, a self-selected audience. If I had wanted to stuff the ballot, I could have laid in hundreds of notes to polarized user groups from random ips, instead, I spoke to 40-or-so by hand of a fairly neutral group who were directly affected by this ridiculous proposal.

Also, citing an arbcom ruling rather than policy shows how contrived this is. Mindspillage asked me to reconsider, he said nothing about policy or blocking. How can you say inviting participants to a Wikipedia-wide issue is disruptive? How can you say that I should somehow have known that? The real question is, why is this thing not on the main page? The answer is, because most would oppose it, but the anti-userbox admins think they know what is best, and are pulling every trick they can to cram this through.

If you want to design either a jury-pool process or a general election process to decide such things, I'll be happy to help you.

How is this a personal attack, except to note that the mass blanking happened and the perpetrator is documented? Face it, the ban came only because what I said is unpopular with admins. MarkSweep made hundreds of blanking edits using admin tools, speciously twisted rules into knots and disrupted hundreds of users. He got a slap on the wrist, and polite applause. I've received notes from admins on this page threatening me for suggesting that his actions constitute vandalism, which they clearly do. I pass a note pointing out what was done to a small subset of the hundreds of users affected, I am banned for 31 hours. How is this not political? Now I'm afraid to contact my own friends here, whom I know to be against this, but do not know about it.

Tacky? Pretending this proposal is put before a representative audience is tacky, as is the slash-and-burn approach taken in the first place, as is the attempts by MarkSweep to fit me with a gag until the end of UPP (that is REALLY tacky), as is the naked political calculation on my AN/I as to how this speaks for their pet proposal, and how it should be played. The fact is that this proposal will never have community assent because of its deep flaws, and I am resented for pointing this out. Tacky is pretending in the face of all evidence that there is a basis for consensus here.

StrangerInParadise 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see I've been blocked again. Mindspillage's statement is in part patently false: yes, I do not believe I did anything wrong, no I did not indicate in any way I would continue to do so. I was unblocked for several hours and did not do so. Common decency indicates the block should be lifted, or am I simply being punished for my views? StrangerInParadise 07:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-blocked only because the admin that unblocked didn't add to the discussion or mention it to anyone...see WP:AN/I for my full explanation. Sorry :( Rx StrangeLove 08:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

His note was quite clear: I should not have been blocked in the first place. It is particularly galling that most of what was said at AN/I was demonstrably false, but I cannot even participate. StrangerInParadise 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, three of my personal pages have been deleted by Pathoschild, the author of the proposal I criticized. Only one was used in the UN campaign (User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP). Another was not used, and in any event no different that the lobbying on the poll itself (JesseW, the Juggling Janitor comes to mind), the third (User:StrangerInParadise/PCI) was used to personal contacts and pages I frequent at Wikipedia and only said that there was a vote, but did not make a recommendation. How far will this thuggishness go? StrangerInParadise 08:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one thank you for the heads up. Spaceriqui 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks w/ deletion of my userpage

Thanks for your help/note "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin". My Talk page seems to still be screwed up, I'll be fixing that as I get around to it. -- Writtenonsand 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kludge against userbox deletion

You may notice on my userpage (if it isn't currently deleted :-) ) a minor kludge I've implemented to help thwart rampant userbox deletionism. I've added a text caption to my userboxes which functions somewhat like the ALT attribute on HTML graphics; when userbox graphics are deleted, the text remains visible. For example, as I write this, the graphic for userbox:buddhist does not exist, but my page continues to proclaim "This user is a Buddhist". Everyone should feel free to disseminate and use this technique as desired. -- Writtenonsand 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

misplaced concern

Hi. I'd like it if we could, uh, bury the hatchet. I am not sure why you are so offended by our interactions. I have a couple things to say.

First, regarding the userbox policy poll. I can understand your being upset about it. It isn't a perfect solution. I tried to understand why you were so vehement about it, and I had a look at your edit history. It seems to me that maybe you missed a lot of the fireworks. There have been some pretty incredibly poisonous things happening over the last few months. It has died down somewhat, but I think we're all still living under the mushroom cloud of some of the following:

• Kelly Martin's nuclear war on userboxes and subsequent RFC/etc
• Mistress Selina Kyle's RFAr and claims of oppresion based on aspergers
• The ArbCom elections
• Tony's attack on userboxes
• -Ril-'s crusade against "biblecruft" and SimonP

and others I can't remember right now. All this happened around the beginning of the year. I see that you were only just starting when this all happened. Those of us who have been here for a while remember a time before all the politics and soapboxes. The UPP isn't perfect. But it is a truce. And I think most of us are desperate for a truce.

Second, I think you misunderstand my position on the "userbox debate." Have a look at some of my edits from the most heated times. I think you'll find that we agree more than we disagree. But as I said, I am very much hoping for a truce. We can work on an imperfect policy once it's adopted. But with no policy, we have to face the "rouge" of admins like MarkSweep deleting things out of a frustration which is just as profound as yours or mine.

Third, let us look at both of our edit histories. This is not an edit count measuring contest. Instead look at the spread:

• mine
• yours

We have a similar trend, although yours comes a little while after mine. Note that the trend for you since January until now has been to spend proportionaly less time working on an encyclopedia, and more time doing what we both seem to despise -- politicking. For myself, it was the comparison of March, 2005 to January, 2006. I had a pretty similar number of edits, but the spread very much disturbed me. I spent far more time this January farting around in politics than I did writing and editing articles.

I made a commitment to myself to spend as little time as possible in the Wikipedia meta space, and instead to focus on articles. The problem with this is that we are all required to spent time there. We do need to request that articles be moved or deleted, and sometimes we run across a vandal who needs a 24-hour block, or whatever. But spending so much time on policy is almost not required. Just think of all the people who are carrying on the policy debate. Why not watch, and cast your vote in the straw polls when they show up? It takes a lot less time to read a discussion than it takes to read the discussion and come up with supporting diffs and links for a few replies to the fracas. I would wager that it is far less productive to contribute than it is to read and simply vote. Your mileage will of course vary. But, consider it.

Lastly, I want to stress that the WP:UPP is not only a small representation of the community. Very, very rarely do more than a hundred wikipedians get together to make their opinions heard on a subject. See WP:100. To have the kind of participation we have had at UPP is really phenomenal -- regardless of which way the "vote" goes. I don't believe that vote-stacking is the evil that Tony and others thing it is. I think it's a perfectly normal facet of any community in which votes are cast. However, it really pisses people like him (and others, of course) off when it happens. In the case of the UPP, it wasn't really necessary. Anyone who had a userbox deleted, and followed the trail to AfD/TfD/CfD (or even read my userpage) would have found it. And they did. And they voted.

I think all of this comes at least partially from your newness to the community. I hope I haven't mischaracterized this, if you've changed accounts or something. But it seems to me like this is (I hate to hear myself say it) "one big misunderstanding." We don't disagree. We actually agree on a lot of stuff. Let's work together and build an encyclopedia. The userbox thing, whichever way it goes, is much less important. Try to make the same commitment I did: to work some factor more in the encyclopedia than in the "politics" space. I didn't really pick a number for that factor, but I'd be real pleased with four.

I look forward to editing with you in the future. ... aa:talk 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

If you will read my statement again, I was not making any actual recommendations as to what penalties should be imposed on anyone. What I was saying, and this is whether we can agree to disagree, is that there were too many userboxes, and that the userboxes were divisive and disruptive. I was saying that the ArbCom would have to decide how they planned to deal with the problem of conflict over userboxes. (I think that we can agree that the conflict over userboxes is disruptive.) I don't plan to be advocating for Mark Sweep, because I don't think that end objective of getting rid of the inflammatory userboxes justifies the inflammatory tactic of wheel-warring. Robert McClenon 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Declared-bias advocate

"De nada"... I agree with most of the arguments you made in your oppose vote at WP:UPP. To use the label you suggested in the talk page of that policy, you may count me as a declared-bias advocate. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:)

I just don't like people trying to toss out as many oppose votes as they can to get a flawed policy through. I don't like the idea of getting a flawed policy up and then working on it once it's policy, because as you can see from further up on the talk page that alot of admins are just sitting there waiting for the go ahead to start mass deleting userboxes from everyone's userpages. Seraphim 07:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

voting bloc

They are all over the place. However, only some of them are frowned upon. Would you be interested in collaborating on a discussion of voting on wikipedia? ... aa:talk 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD reversion

I see that you reverted the changes to CSD G3. I'm not saying you were wrong to revert, but I would have appreciated if you had at least given a fuller reason on the talk page. There is ongoing debate on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about this and related changes to CSD. I invite you to join in with those and add your views, in particular why you think "that's way to much power, "disparaged subject" is way to broad", so a broad consensus can be reached on this matter. Thanks, Petros471 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This particular expansion of the criterion is currently being established on the talk page, and has quite a bit of support. I would suggest that you raise your objections there, rather then reverting what is currently a consensual expansion. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Phish

We are having a dispute on the Phish page in relation to the band infobox. People continually insist on including Jeff Holdsworth in the "current members" area of the template, even though he was with the band for three years between 1983-1986 in the bands 20+ year career. Granted, he was a founding member, but shouldn't he be considered a "past member" in the infobox template? That was the resolution that was reached on the discussion page, but people of random IPs continually rv so that Holdsworth is part of the "current members". Thank you for any possible help. --Moeron 01:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox policy

It seems that by recruiting massive numbers of inexperienced editors, you managed to heavily skew the userbox policy poll from what was overwhelming consensus to a mere supermajority. Ok, fine. :)

What adjustments to the policy could be made which would persuade you that it is a workable compromise to a serious issue? And which would persuade you to engage in the exact same sort of campaigning in support?

What I seek is something with a very very broad consensus, and it strikes me that you are well positioned to help with that.

I must confess that I can not understand what your objection is to the proposal as it was made, but probably the best approach would be for you to explain to me just what was wrong with it?

--Jimbo Wales 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, a comment about your user page discussion

You wrote "Telling people they cannot declare themselves Christian believer or Unreconstructed Trotskyite or Extra-crunchy Hippie Freak does not reinforce the culture of NPOV. Showing how these people have an immediate common basis for dialog based on NPOV does."

I think that you've failed to understand what I see as the essence of the problem, and the essence of the solution that you opposed. There is to my knowledge absolutely no movement to tell people that they cannot declare themselves Christian believers or Unreconstructed Trotskyite, etc. By and large, as far as I know, there is no substantive movement to suggest that people generally ought not to declare such things on their userpage if they really wish to do so. This concern about free expression is therefore a red herring in the userbox debates.'

Rather, the major concern is that Userboxes suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions, that badges of group identity are the endorsed and sanctioned way to be a good Wikipedia, which is absolutely not true, and very much against our longstanding cultural norms. Here, we are Wikipedians, which means that we try our best to leave our biases at the door, and to treat all others with respect and kindness. We don't organize ourselves into group campaigns to influence the content of articles by sheer force of numbers, we engage in thoughtful and kind discussion to find a consensus.

The core of the proposal, then, is to move userboxes out of the Template namespace (which suggests that they are endorsed by the project and generally encouraged) into the User namespace. I think that this is a very nice compromise -- and one which has been tested successfully in German Wikipedia, by the way -- which allows a balance between individual free expression, and the overwhelming consensus of experienced editors that Wikipedia works best when it is not a field for group warfare.

Will you please reconsider your opposition, or offer whatever constructive tweaks to the proposed policy which you think would address any other concerns you may have?--Jimbo Wales 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

is it possible to create a User Template namespace? that might just stop this whole thing, and at this point I would propose standing on my head while juggling if i thought it would solve this problem AdamJacobMuller 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The concern about free expression is far more than a red herring, perhaps you misunderstood my comment. To avoid the misunderstanding, I've changed the word declare to badge. The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive.

Your comment that Userboxes suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions is similarly belied by the vast majority of those who have userboxes and include themselves in categories but war with no one and treat others with respect and kindness. If article content can be affected by shear force of organized numbers, then that is a problem with how articles are refereed, a vulnerability which will not be addressed by adding to the mix an irrational intolerance of POV, as those so inclined can easily- and invisibly- organize off-site. Process must evolve to meet such a challenge, UPP tries and fails to defer that challenge to a later time. I have several suggestions for how to go about this properly to be made under separate cover.

Further, your statement "that badges of group identity are the endorsed and sanctioned way to be a good Wikipedia[n]...is absolutely not true", does not stand up to examination. I know several good Wikipedians who endorse and sanction such badges by using them, including myself. To declare us bad Wikipedians (or inexperienced Wikipedians, misguided Wikipedians, divisive Wikipedians, etc) at a stroke is to disdain the contributions of a large number of people. This would be, IMHO, divisive, misguided, inexperienced, and bad. The fact that so many bad Wikipedians ran around defacing userpages and deleting templates and categories involving thousands of presumably good Wikipedians indicates to me something of a back-handed endorsement. Such disdain for process and disrespect for others are real problems. Userboxes are not.

BTW, AdamJacobMuller's question is entirely reasonable, and the answer is "yes, it is possible to create a User Template namespace (along with User Category namespace), quite easily in fact". Why didn't we simply do this and gain widespread consensus, rather that trying to fight a culture war by placing limits on transclusion?

This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.

In principle, one should be able to lift Main, Help, Category and Template and get a complete NPOV encyclopedia out of it. Because of the ways in which categories and templates are currently used, this is not the case today. I think we agree that this is a fundamental problem which compromises the product. This is a simple matter to correct technically by creating four new namespaces— User template, User category, User template talk, User category talk— and asking people to migrate. Few will fight to keep POV items in the encyclopedic namespaces. These namespaces are the door at which I would leave my biases.

The perceived issues with factions and vote-bussing are small to begin with, and can be further resolved by encouraging affinity groups, which would develop trusted leaders who can moderate with opponents. This would reduce the thrash from individual POV warriors, improve transparency and stability, and stimulate dialog. Further, non-majoritarian processes can be developed to referee content questions in articles, giving concerned parties the reassurance that they are heard even when facts go against them. NPOV is a basis for dialog between passionate opponents, not a sterilizer of controversy.

StrangerInParadise 09:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to comment on your non-compromise (and to note, to begin with, that you were asked to find a compromise - a form of diplomatic collaboration in which all sides attempt find items they agree upon and then give ground on issues they do not until all sides may accept to proposed solution.)

I spent an hour and more putting together a carefully crafted argument, with citation, links to policy today and historically, and a point-by-point destruction of your lovely rhetorical sophistry.

Then I realized that Wikipedia is not Usenet. And Wikipedia is not a place for free speech. It's a place to work on a free encyclopedia.

The essence of your argument is to place the interests of individual contributors ahead of that goal. Interests not at all limited to but certainly including arguing, vote-stacking, POVioring, and vandalising. In your proposed "compromise" you have compromised nothing, but instead asked the project to expand its mission to become a wiki MySpace.

This should be dismissed with prejudice.

If there were even the slightest attempt at a compromise I would encourage JWales and the community to continue to discuss with you. However, there is not. I would encourage them to invite you to leave, since this project clearly is not a project with whose mission or goals you are either familiar with or supportive of, and you should find a place you are comfortable with.

- Amgine 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded below, asking that you somehow avoid assigning me absurd motives, not realizing that I was already too late. My bad for not having read carefully. Your notion that, The essence of [my] argument is to place the interests of individual contributors ahead of that goal only shows you have not thought about what I have written, making your assertion that you understand my argument well enough to reply in a careful and well-documented fashion unconvincing, as is your pose that you are in a position lately to lecture anyone about vandalism.

Since I am in a patient mood, I'll simplify my statement, and leave it to others to decide whether I have succeeded in a diplomatic collaboration.

• Clearing the template and category space of POV can be accomplished simply, quickly and peacefully by providing a new set of namespaces to which to migrate. This accomplishes a primary goal of the project, to have an NPOV product.
• The cultural and procedural problems perceived to be caused by userboxes and Wikipedians by category are small, and will not be solved by UPP, but only masked by it.
• The vulnerability to vote-stacking must be addressed with intelligent process, not more whining that it should not happen.
• There is an opportunity to solve the deeper problems of factions by encouraging and engaging them (instead of denying they exist) and allowing leaders to form within them.
• Far greater than any of the above problems is the decline of respect for process, and by extension for administrators, which is so corrosive that leadership by example on NPOV issues becomes highly problematic, with administrators perceived as a class of priviledged editor pushing an agenda.
• Wikipedia is a complex project served by a community of (conservatively) tens-of-thousands of collaborators. To provide them with collaborative tools in which they express opinions, declare affinities and make announcements is not the moral equivalent of creating a free blogsite, free webhosting, or free soapboxes, it is simply good sense.

Typically, Amgine, you have lost patience, and suggested that those who disagree with you should be encouraged to leave, all this amidst a rant on the virtures of compromise in a discussion to which you were never actually invited, but in which you were included as a courtesy. If only you could take credit for such complex ironies! Let me know when you are ready to bring that carefully-crafted argument, rather than hurling unsubstantiated assertions and stomping off.

StrangerInParadise 18:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"...solve the deeper problems of factions by encouraging and engaging them (instead of denying they exist) and allowing leaders to form within them." I think this might be what is tripping your argument up. The fight to move towards NPOV can be interpreted as a fight against POV factions and affiliations: most especially, a fight against external or real-life factions (like "Democrats" and "Republicans", or "Labour" and "Conservative" if you'd prefer). Activism and factions (especially the externally influenced kind, maybe not so much the internal kind) haven't been accepted in Wikipedia for as far as I remember, and it's probably futile to try to change that. --AySz88^-^ 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You (and likely many others) say, The fight to move towards NPOV can be interpreted as a fight against POV factions and affiliations. This is a flawed thesis, I don't think this is what actually happens on Wikipedia, to any of us. What actually happens, to individuals and groups, is that they come to recognize the difference between NPOV and POV, and use the tension between the two to explore differences. The whole idea of fighting POV is nonsense, we only keep it from the encyclopedic namespaces. We are guided in part by our POV into encounters with others, where our views are challenged for their accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. The ability to engage whole groups who have an internal awareness of their membership is an opportunity, not a problem. As leaders evolve, and reasonable members seek one another out to resolve inter-group differences, stability grows. Again, this is not a change, this is moreso how things are really done, especially as people are members of many different groups, and may find a reasonable supporter on one issue is a reasonable opponent on another. In part this is why process is so important as a common ground in the absence of other common ground. StrangerInParadise 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You have still not proposed a compromise

As you have said you would do. Amgine 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I have now in effect done so, I never said that I would propose a compromise, only that I would reply. Adding four new namespaces (User template, User category, User template talk, User category talk) and declaring them POV-friendly, is of manifest good sense, the vast majority would gladly comply in migrating userboxes, Wikipedian categories, and anything else appropriate. There would be solid consensus. This is a reasonable compromise.

StrangerInParadise 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I note you have not proposed a compromise. You have proposed Wikipedia change its mission and goals. - Amgine 17:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I suggest you review those goals, and explain how my proposal differs from them. In doing so, try (if you can) not to assign me absurd motives. StrangerInParadise 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing four new namespaces for userspace? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. I think that gives entirely the wrong impression. We are not encouraging people to build mini sites about themselves on Wikipedia with all of their random interests. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. In addition, your proposal does nothing to solve the very real problem of vote-stacking; if anything, with specific user categories, it just makes it easier. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, attended by tens-of-thousands of volunteers who need a means of collaboration. I am giving no different impression from the status quo, though those who are so concerned about these impressions are doing more to distract from the mission of tending to an encyclopedia than any of the MySpace-style abuses, the worst of which are of little actual consequence to the project. Just what Wikipedia needed, its own Taliban! Besides, considering that most people are tending to articles on their random interests, is this really so bad? Drop in on #wikipedia and listen: much of the time it is random silliness, analysis of StarTrek or MontyPython— how useful would it be to wade into that yelling, "Jimbo's house is to be an encyclopedia, but you have made it a Bureau of Silly Walks!". User pages are no different. Lighten up!

As to vote-stacking, I've make a few analytical comments on the subject in my proposal, which is more that UPP will ever do to solve the problem. I'll repeat what I said above, factions are inevitable, and can be engaged for good. Actually, I would encourage use of User category talk pages to build rational coherence and leadership among factions. Dialog, respect and process, not impratical attempts at cultural purification, will address vote-stacking.

My proposals and concerns are exclusively about making a better encyclopedia and preserving Wikipedia's culture. It is these culture warriors' misguided attempts to return us to a purer, fictional past that are the real threat.

StrangerInParadise 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are waaaay out there. You're calling us the Taliban fer godssakes. And there's no possible comparison between an offsite, unofficial IRC channel that people happen to use and an onsite, Wikipedia-hosted userpage. And "culture warriors"? C'mon. You're way out there one the narrow tail. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think it ironic that admins can wrongly delete large quantities of material in templates and userpages without being blocked, but for suggesting that such behavior bore a resemblence to that of the Taliban (who in an obsessive desire to return Afghan society to an imagined prior state of purity, went about burning books and smashing televisions, radios and artwork in both public buildings and the homes of others) was enough to get me blocked. Of course this is culture war, and, as it is being waged, an elitist culture war, else my suggestion to add four namespaces and ask people to use them would be an end to the matter. This would have wide-spread consensus, purify the namespace, and open the way to resolving other problems.

BTW, I am not anti-elitist, I simply think that those claiming lately to speak for the elites are mistaken.

StrangerInParadise 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was very surprised by your post on Jimbo's page because you seem to fail to understand that the change you are proposing would have unexepected and possibly detrimental effects. Creating a userspace area as you are suggesting is likely to attract a large number of users looking for easily editable website which has great bandwidth and freely available hard drive space. Look at the mighty (and financially strong) google and it's release of Gmail as an example - it was released slowly so that the impact to their servers and their other infrastrcucture could be controlled. The wiki software is not designed to allow such an introduction; thus it would require a time-consuming effort on the part of the volunteer developers (and who knows if they would even be willing to do it - most freely give of their time but want to make an impact on the mission) and the time of the 4 (or is it 5) employees would distract from the mission to create an encyclopedia. Additionally the wikiway where concensus drives what is included on the page would be very difficult to control - what is ok - can nude pics looking for dates be ok? what about using them to soliciting for money? Then who is going to do recent changes patrol so that goatse doesn't show up on userpages, etc. I could continue with other likely scenarios - I mean just look at the arguments around this issue and imagine a free-for-all myspace where anyone can edit anyone's page. That is why you are getting such a strong negative reaction. Trödel•talk 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but a careful reading of what I have written here would at least indicate that I have thought the matter through. It may be possible I have "failed to understand", but I am certain that I disagree with all of your conclusions, specifically,

• that the change would provoke an influx of new usage (no, there is no evidence to suggest that it would)

The influx of users around the time that Infoboxes were introduced and thier preoccupation with them is evidence that an increase in users, while not a sure thing, is something that any rational executive, like Jimbo, would have to consider when deciding how to move forward. As to the opposition - I think that some of the people who speedy deleted userboxes (Tony Sidaway for example) are generally very good editors with even temperments. There may be some that are interested in a "jihad" but some definately are not.

The points below: development design and scalability are all presumptive on this assumption - that there will not be a new influx of users. Since we see this issue so diferently - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree - Trödel•talk 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are correct about such an influx, only scalability would change, not the other two, and your argument doesn't consider the need to scalefor growth in usage, which would dwarf the risk you're citing. I think you are reaching with your statement about userboxes causing an influx of users anyway, but even if it were so, neither UPP nor my proposal would cause a change in this. I know it is a popular argument, but it just does not stand up. This is about an ideological issue trying desperately to pass as a practical one. StrangerInParadise 17:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• that the change would introduce a new regulatory challenge with respect to commercial, graphic, or other inappropriate content (same as userpages currently, same regulatory mechanisms, which would be simpler for the reasons I have laid out)
• that the change would involve a significant development effort (it would not, full stop)
• that the change would involve a design change (it would not, full stop)
• that the change would involve a scalability change (it would not, full stop)

The proposal would involve a modest configuration change (which MediaWiki is designed for), which would have to be propagated through the datacenter. It would also require a modest bit of documentation to describe the usage of the new namespaces, and the procedures for editors to make the changes (which, BTW, are simpler than those required by UPP). The statement Wikipedia is not MySpace is true, and a very useful guideline, but is simply not relevant to what I propose.

Finally, one small last point of disagreement: certain people are reacting negatively because they had hoped to indulge their distaste for certain modes of activity with a jihad, and I'm telling them it is not effective, it is not necessary, and it is not even desireable. This adjustment to their thinking will take time.

StrangerInParadise 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not MySpace. We are striving to be as professional a source as possible. Encouraging a bumper sticker mentality by making four new namespaces for userboxes runs directly counter to that goal. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you want to go make a website stating all of your personal interests there are many places that can help you with that — Geocities, MySpace, whatever. Looking at your contribution history (and the lack of article edits) I can't really understand why you're here. Let me reiterate: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And as for alleging that there is some sort of an ongoing culture war, don't be absurd. This is merely a reigning in of the users who don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about. You seem to be under some false impression that you have a right to put whatever you want on Wikipedia, but you most certainly don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a free webhost that anyone can use to host whatever material they want. Images that aren't being used in encyclopedia articles are consistently being deleted and the same is going to happen to all of these unencyclopedic templates and categories mucking about with Wikipedia's raison d'etre. --Cyde Weys 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of mining my edit history for weak ad hominem arguments and assigning me absurd motives, you should carefully read what I have written, as your remarks indicate that you have yet to do so. Why do you say my four new namespaces are just for userboxes? Why do you continue to prattle on about MySpace? I have one brief user page which is devoted entirely to Wikipedia-related issues: why do you continue to imply that I want a free webhost, claim a right to edit, or seek to put whatever I want on Wikipedia? Why should I trust you to rein in anyone based on what you think their understanding of Wikipedia is when you have yet even to demonstrate the barest grasp of mine? Seeking rules to validate your substituting your cultural judgements for those of others is culture war; your poor grasp of my position is an example of why it is dangerous. You can say, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, until you are blue in the face, but you are not convincing me that you know what an encyclopedia is, much less what should be involved in a massive colaborative volunteer effort to create one. StrangerInParadise 06:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

Dear StrangerInParadise: I very much regret having to do this, because I greatly value your work here on Wikipedia. However, on the basis of this edit where you make references to Wikipedia editors as "Taliban" I am afraid that I can't see any other way of giving you a chance to cool down, take a step back, and try to re-evaluate the tone of what we're trying to do here. I personally think that you're getting far too heated about the recent userbox issues - far, far too heated - and that you should please try to bear in mind that we're trying to write an encyclopaedia. Personal attacks aren't allowed under any circumstances, I'm afraid, and civility is well-entrenched as a tenet of Wikipedia policy. I can, as always, be reached via e-mail or at the #wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode, if you'd like someone to talk to about this, or have any questions about the above. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia, and please do feel free to edit when the block expires. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on conversation via IRC with this user, I've removed the block. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would've liked to know what he had said. Speaking of which, where is he? Besides calling us the Taliban does he have any ideas for compromising on the subject of userboxes? --Cyde Weys 03:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User template and category namespaces, encouraging affinity groups

Let's see if I can precis your compromise suggestion here so that we can discuss it without all the baggage that has encumbered the discussion so far.

1. You suggest that two extra namespaces, and two associated talk namespaces, should be created to be used for templates and categories to be applied in userspace.

1. You suggest that, instead of deprecating factionalism on Wikipedia, we should accept it as inevitable and should instead be "encouraging affinity groups, which would develop trusted leaders who can moderate with opponents."

Taking the points in order, I think I can see what you're trying to say on extra namespaces. If Jimbo's problem is that having the templates and categories outside the userspace makes them look officially sanctioned and gives them the wrong idea about Wikipedia, a logical solution would be to extend the userspace with associated namespaces for categories and templates.

And your second point is consistent with your view that the statement "Userboxes suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions is similarly belied by the vast majority of those who have userboxes and include themselves in categories but war with no one and treat others with respect and kindness."

In short, your suggestions are entirely logical, given your views.

However, I do take serious issue with your views. Templates are still templates, and categories are still categories, no matter where they are. Putting them into separate namespaces would be very easy to do and would require few, if any, changes to MediaWiki's core software, but it wouldn't change the perception of newcomers one little bit--rather it would only serve to cement in the mind of the newcomer the idea that expression of political views is the purpose of Wikipedia, or plays some part in writing an encyclopedia.

And with your second point, indeed, you make this view explicit. You want us to involve this project in some kind of negotation with exponents of different views, so that what goes into the encyclopedia should be the result of a debate between factions, "moderated" by their "trusted leaders".

This is not how Wikipedia works. We have a principle here called the "neutral point of view", and it's regarded as absolutely fundamental to the writing of the encyclopedia. According to this view, we don't take votes or engage in negotiations on content between people of different ideological or religious viewpoint. Instead we each individually strive for a neutral description of all significant views on a subject (whether or not they are represented amongst Wikipedians). What you suggest is incompatible with that. The people who have come to Wikipedia in order to represent this or that faction are here for the wrong reason and, quite often, will be told that in no uncertain terms.

So I hope that you'll see why, although I recognise that you have made an honest attempt to bridge the gap, your suggestion for a compromise is not compatible with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt at a baggage-free précis! Your recognition that this is a good-faith compromise proposal is appreciated. There are a few things missing in your précis and a few subsequent assumptions which may be skewing your perception of my views. After fixing that, we may still disagree on a few points, but the gap could be much narrowed (we'll see!). Here are some key corrections,

• You write (characterizing my view), "If Jimbo's problem is that having the templates and categories outside the userspace makes them look officially sanctioned and gives them the wrong idea about Wikipedia, a logical solution would be to extend the userspace with associated namespaces for categories and templates.".
  • The key problem is NPOV in the encyclopedic namespaces (Main, Template, Category, and Help). This is a fundamental problem: because of this, one cannot take the content of these namespaces and make an NPOV encyclopedia, which compromises the product. If one wishes to use or fork the encyclopedia, one should not have to expend further undue effort to purge it of POV (whether one's goal is to neutralize or adapt it to one's own POV). Adding the new namespaces is the quickest way to purify the product, by giving the bulk of the POV which remains a place to go within the community. It is a simple exercise in applied osmosis. The effort to do so will have broad consensus, and will be quickly accomplished.
  • The apperance of official sanction is a non-problem. Much of what is now common practice was born of innovation in the absence of official sanction. While Wikipedia may encourage forms of dialog proven useful from experience, and prohibit outright disruption, it does not simply close the book on new forms of dialog as unsanctioned, or even unsanctioned until proven worthy of sanction. You and I, as highly-experienced Wikipedians, may look at certain cultural developments with dismay, and attempt to inculcate by persuasion and example what we see as useful approaches to dialog. We should not, however, use prohibitions to achieve exclusive adoption of those methods. You and I, as highly-experienced Wikipedians, may disdain, deplore, or even condemn certain practices, but the threshhold for acting on a condemnation by enacting a prohibition should be extremely high. With userboxes and usercategories, we are nowhere near there yet, consequently, we as a community have done far more harm to the project by attempting such a prohibition.
  • Corollary: there is a space within which I as a Wikipedian crying "Death to TLAs!" need to feel confident that someone won't actually turn around and make a rule or enact structural impediments against it (which would be worse than the actual problem).
• You have me suggesting that, "instead of deprecating factionalism on Wikipedia, we should accept it as inevitable and should instead be "encouraging affinity groups, which would develop trusted leaders who can moderate with opponents". This is reasonably fair summary, though many of the conclusions you draw from this lead us far afield.
  • In no way am I proposing a compromise of NPOV. Specifically, in no way am I suggesting that even the large-scale advocacy of a POV somehow confers standing in content upon that POV. In this sense, none of the forms of dialog that I discuss suggest a negotiation of allowable POV in content. Nor am I suggesting that an editor should act for any other reason than to improve the encyclopedia. This is, I think, the lynch pin to your assertion that my suggestion for a compromise is not compatible with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Nothing in those principles suggest a preclusion of factions, provided they are commited to the improvement of the encyclopedia.
  • Inherent in your conclusions is the assumption that most Wikipedians in an advocacy category are somehow motivated to inject as much POV into the encyclopedia as possible. Your statements assign fairly broad, unencyclopedic motives to such people. This does not stand up to examination. Many of them will contain experienced Wikipedians committed to NPOV, and when they act to protect it, they bring credibility and lead by example in a way that bypasses the notion- common to controversial topics- that the absence of apparent support is a bias against an underrepresented view (requiring a POV warrior to step up and tell it like it really is).
  • Let me give you a practical example: a newbie comes to Cannabis (drug), doesn't read it that carefully, decides he's gotta make a point, "Although many claim that marijuana is bad for you, this is not so". He likely gets reverted within minutes, "rv off-point, weasel, unsourced". If he has encountered a {{User pro-cannabis}} and Pro-cannabis Wikipedians and has seen the names of the very people reverting him, it accelerates his acculturation. This apparent paradox— an advocate enforcing neutrality— conveys a far more powerful impression of what it means to be Wikipedian than imposing a false impression that POV or factions do not exist. It is also a way to avoid refighting old battles.
  • As to inter-factional stability, I'll quote myself here, As leaders evolve, and reasonable members seek one another out to resolve inter-group differences, stability grows. Again, this is not a change, this is moreso how things are really done, especially as people are members of many different groups, and may find a reasonable supporter on one issue is a reasonable opponent on another. In part this is why process is so important as a common ground in the absence of other common ground.
  • The vulnerability of vote-stacking exists, and needs to be addressed by process which makes sheer numbers irrelevant. WP:UPP does not address this problem, it only masks it. Much of WP:STRAW, WP:Consensus, et cetera, does address the issue, in part by acknowledging that a poll is conducted to create the basis for consensus in a way that numbers are irrelevant, but also acknowledges intractable differences. Usercategories can provide a tool to resolve these: use a User category talk page to hold an internal straw poll. This alerts moderates to the issue, who can provide leadership in filtering non-encyclopedic issues from an external discussion.

In summary, we need to extend the userspace to accomodate what it has clearly already become. We should not think in terms of officially unsactioned yet grudgingly permitted behaviors. These modes of interaction should be explored for their benefits to the project, rather than rejected preemptively because of an overnarrow reading of what it means to be Wikipedian.

StrangerInParadise 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A hopefully constructive modification

It seems that the separate namespace issue won't fly. And I think that's right because I think it fails to address the heart of the matter, which is whether or not official wikipedia pages and/or namespaces ought to encourage factionalism.

But it seems that the namespace proposal goes a bit further than what you need to achieve what you want to achieve. Let me quote you on something: "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive."

Suppose we omit the bit about user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already.--Jimbo Wales 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In my reply to Tony Sidaway (which I was composing as you were posting this), I address the concern of whether "official wikipedia pages and/or namespaces ought to encourage factionalism", in part by deconstructing official, and factionalism. I'll not expand on the point further until you (and Tony) have a chance to read it. That said, I agree that dropping the "transclusion clause" would be a very constructive compromise, and the acknowledgement that restrictions on userboxes are no different than those on userpage content generally is also helpful.

Noting especially the broad array of user semiotics which would logically inhabit a putative User template namespace, such as Babel, Wikistress Meter, talk page conventions, wikivacation, etc., as well as the sorts of neutral categories of users that would occupy a putative User category space (namespace Category should not contain userpages, period) such as Portuguese-speaking Wikipedians, Wikipedian Doctors, User Wikipedia/Association of Members' Advocates, et cetera, I ask you to consider how useful and necessary such namespaces would be in their own right, and whether a concern regarding factionalism and impressionable newbies is a strong enough reason to avoid creating them.

StrangerInParadise 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Usertalk spamming

Hi there,

Just thought I'd leave a note to discourage you from spamming userpages with requests to vote oppose against the proposed userbox policy. All interested parties will find their way to the page, without your help and certainly without your advice on how to vote. Ironically, one of the main reasons why userboxes are considered bad is to avoid such vote-stacking. Thanks, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[Sigh] You're a bit late to the party, discouraging requests to vote against a poll closed over a week ago. I've already commented on how unlikely it was that all interested parties will find their way to the page. Given how it was publicised in such a way that mostly userbox opponents would be likely to see (and with a mild recommendation that it be passed), the vote was stacked in advance. This has more to do with inherent biases, rather than an intentional overall design.

When you look at the placement and tone of the non-individual announcements of UPP, you see inherent biases,

• (on WP:Userboxes) A proposed policy on userboxes has been created to help decide what should be considered acceptable for userboxes. Your input is appreciated. It has also been proposed to migrate some userbox templates to the user namespace. Some have already begun this process and you may wish to do the same for your userboxes.
  • (on WP:Userboxes#Straw Poll) [constantly changing mention of poll with various biased and erroneous statements, e.g. Old userboxes in Template: space are going to be dealt with, claim of moratorium, etc]
  • (on WP:Proposed policy on userboxes) There is an ongoing poll about an almost identical policy in Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll
• (on WP:Current Surveys) An attempt to end the userbox wars.
• (on Template:Cent) Userbox policy (voting)
• (on WP:PUMP (policy)) Userbox policy This is a policy proposal onn userboxes, developed by Pathoschild from an original by Doc glasgow. It picked up quite a lot of favorable comments in Pathoschild's userspace and so after discussion I've moved it to WP:UBP (which believe it or not hasn't actually had any concrete proposals on the main page for weeks)
• (on WP:PUMP (policy)) An End to the Userbox WArs? In case anyone missed it, a poll opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll which, I think, stands a chance at ending the bloodshed. Current tally is 26 yay and 4 nay (not that it is a vote or anything).
• (on #wikipedia header) [generic announcement, text now gone]
• (on select cannabis-related talk pages and WP:Deliriants, in an announcement of a new userbox User pro-cannabis) New Pro-cannabis userbox...also, consider weighing in on Userbox policy poll. Stand up and be counted while you still can.

These were the primary means of bringing people to the poll, apart from word-of-mouth. All but the last two bear the implicit message, "this is a good and right thing to support", all say nothing of adverse consequences. The comment, stands a chance at ending the bloodshed, seemed quite poignant, until one asks who on the pro-userbox side ever shed blood in the first place, then it just seems a bit chilling. The biased and erroneous statements in various revisions of WP:Userboxes#Straw Poll are particularly egregious, as it was on the page most likely to be seen by those in favor of allowing userboxes to continue. The rest of the page bore various statements collectively bearing a subtext of, nothing to be done, Jimbo's weighed in, accept the inevitable by userifying.

That said, it states in WP:STRAW#Voting etiquette that, If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias. If I had been aware of the guideline, I would have posted a more neutral message, though one which clearly stated that the existence of the UN Wikipedian category was at stake. It would have made sense to have put a link to WP:STRAW on the page, if it was intended to be a straw poll governed by those rules— which is not entirely clear even now, as the page had more of a Wikipedia-wide referendum feel to it. In WP:STRAW you find,

A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions. Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do. Instead, just give everybody a chance to chip in with a simple yes or no. Straw polls may trigger discussions instead—that's not a failure, it just means you know that the issue is not clear-cut, which is what you set out to determine in the first place.

A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.

Further, given both the rhetoric and the rogue actions of certain admins, it appeared very likely that had this poll passed with a higher margin, the policy would have been immediately slammed into effect with a (false) claim of consensus. Consider that I posted only to 43 UN Wikipedians as a small sample. I intended to place the message on 55 user talk pages, which happened to be the number of UN Wikipedians in S-Z at the time. The category has 50 new pages since then. Thousands of Wikipedians had been disrupted by rogue admin actions, such as mass blanking and deletions of templates and categories. I only invited a small, representative sample to the discussion, for which I was blocked, and for which certain rabid supporters of the proposal hurled abuse at me for weeks afterwards. If this was truly not a binding vote, and the intent was not a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority, why would anyone care?

StrangerInParadise 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Knifers Pot tea Green Dragon Medicine show Maui-wowie Gravity bong British Legalise Cannabis Campaigns Three Pillars of Sikhism State law SR Class SL Surface (TV series) Wildensee Mexican Texas Cannabutter URB597 Japanese Tit AK 47 (strain) Stoned US Marijuana Party

Cleanup Drug urban legends Long Day's Journey (Angel episode) Cynthia Voigt Merge Web feed Web syndication Anabolism Add Sources Hard and soft drugs Leary biscuit James Geddes Wikify Shottie Konstantin Rakutin Cyber Wars Expand Collective business system Cantheism German Revolution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I basically support the user boxes. I wasn't happy with this when it was wikipedia NPOV association pages, the classic of which was User:Cognition's anti-pot association which was eventually deleted (with my support) and replaced with the I-don;t-use-drugs userbox which I think is okay as it isn't giving people reasons to rant, instaed it just communicates that I am say a non-gambler, non-drug user etc. There is a world of difference between saying I don't use pot and saying pot makes people lazy, SqueakBox 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

comment from my talk page

This is a divisive issue everywhere, and considering the huge numbers of Wikipedia editors, it's certainly one that affects many of them. You can't separate Wikipedia editors from the general population and if it's a divisive issue out in the world, it's a divisive here. The diversity of Wikipedia editors is staggering and Wikipedia is not immune to issues that divide people. We don't need editors telling other Wikipedia editors that they don't qualify for the same human rights as everyone else. How can anyone think that's a good idea, much less defend it? You're free to have your own political beliefs, but don't go pointing fingers at certain groups you disapprove of and attacking them. Rx StrangeLove 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

People don't somehow change when they enter Wikipedia, nor do they drop their political beliefs or personal philosophy. What's divisive outside Wikipedia is divisive inside, you can see this in action in the constant POV edit wars all over Wikipedia.

Including the Same-sex marriage page where there are not one but two reminders that it's a controversial topic. There's no need for prior restraint here, it's already been a divisive topic. We're not using T1 on the expectation that something may become divisive...it already is.

Wikipedia isn't different, read the RFCs, ArbCom pages...read the articles in the protected page log. People bring their prejudices into Wikipedia with a passion and fighting POV warriors wastes more time then any 5 other issues. And to say that userboxes show our diversity is to ignore talk pages in which people are actually speaking to each other. It's incredibly disingenuous to say we'd have the appearence of a bland homogeneity without userboxes. Read the talk pages and tell me that I need to see a userbox to see our diversity. Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think this is getting anywhere. You keep shifting the terms of the debate...now it's "Divisive means that the userbox itself divides us to the point that we cannot edit." No one claims that and raising it to that standard is not realistic and not part of the discussion. Admins aren't in the censorship game...and just asserting it doesn't make it so. There's just too many ways for editors to speak their mind (including subst-ing userboxes). We'll just have to agree to disagree.... Rx StrangeLove 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To those who have wondered at my disappearance, I have been indefinitely blocked

I have been blocked indefinitely by User:Alkivar, who claims to be enforcing an unspecified ruling of Administrators, ArbCom or of Jimbo Wales himself. He has not listed the incident on WP:AN/I, nor has he recorded this on the log of blocks and bans of the one ArbCom ruling to which I am subject, nor has he (to my knowledge) acted at the specific behest of the ArbCom. Also, my userpage has been blanked and locked. Effectively, I have been disappeared because someone did not like what I had to say.

I am subject to a "standard personal attack parole" by order of ArbCom, for having said that MarkSweep's actions were wrongful deletions in bad faith, and that this (per every revision of WP:VAND) constitutes vandalism, in various fora, including #wikipedia, WP:AN/I, WP:UPP (including messages to 43 UN Wikipedians where I used the terms rogue and sabotage, rather than vandalism) and ArbCom itself. The terms of the approved remedy did not include an indefinite ban, and certainly did not include any bypass of the normal procedures which accompany such an act.

Here is the text of the two remedies which pertain to me, nowhere in which is authority for an indefinite block,

• StrangerInParadise is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year. This remedy shall apply to all accounts.
• If, in the view of any three uninvolved administrators, Guanaco, MarkSweep, or StrangerInParadise are disruptive with regard to userboxes, or related talk, category, template, or project pages, they may be banned from all userbox-related pages for a period of up to a year. Violations of a ban imposed under this remedy may lead to short blocks of up to two weeks for repeat offenses. All blocks and bans should be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Log of blocks and bans. This remedy is to apply per person and not per account.

Although I can only speculate, it is possible that I have been banned in response to my participation in either or both of two discussions,

• A deletion review for Objectivist-related templates, in which I questioned the deletion of two userboxes by an ArbCom member, and he decided to take it personally (User:dmcdevit who proudly acknowledges having written the terms of my parole himself for just this purpose). I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it was dmcdevit or myself who acted uncivily or assumed bad faith here.
• A discussion of whether User:Cyde was justified in closing a deletion review early, in violation of process.

Ironically, I am effectively required by my parole to assume that indefinitely blocking me and blanking my userpage with no documentation (apart from the comment, "you've been warned, rewarned, RFAr'd. warned YET AGAIN... and still cannot remain civil... goodbye") was a good-faith error on the part of Alkivar, so I will leave it to others to decide the matter.

I am in this position solely because I have stood up to those who delete userboxes out-of-process, and stood up for those admins who have been punished for standing with me. I would appreciate any acknowledgement that this has been read, and that others are aware of my situation.

—StrangerInParadise 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I reduced your block to one week (and posted the notifications), but only because this is the first block since the case closed. I will do nothing next time. If you continue the way you are going, you will end up indef. blocked anyway, but that is ultimately up to you. NoSeptember ^talk 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the next time somebody walks up, indef-blocks me and walks away, you will do nothing? Why is that? For what reasons are editors indef-blocked, usually?

As to this block, why have you not lifted it? This is a sincere pro-forma question: as you uphold the block, the finding that I should be blocked at all falls to you. As I do not believe that I have not violated my parole, I would like the opportunity to address you on this point. Also, may I ask how you learned of this?

Contrary to the opinions of my detractors, I do make a habit of assuming good faith: I assume then that restoring my userpage was an oversight, and that you did not intend to leave it blanked. I do not mind it remaining protected so long as I am not myself able to edit it.

Thank you for your continued attention in this matter,

—StrangerInParadise 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're page is on my watchlist because I watch users who have conversations with Jimbo. I have not watched the ArbCom case, so while I reduced the block for consistency with the ArbCom remedy, I do not plan to review Alkivar's judgement about your civility. It is posted on AN/I, Alkivar's talk page, and the log of blocks, so someone with a knowledge of this case will see it and may review it in that context. NoSeptember ^talk 15:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I'll just wait to see who turns up, then. Thanks for the follow-through. Of course, I am interested in your opinion, since your first comments indicated that you had some feelings on the matter. Perhaps you could help me develop my civility, while I am waiting my block out- call it rehabilitation.

My questions remain regarding the reasons for which editors are indef-blocked, usually? Also, could you explain whether there is a reason to force my homepage to blank? Is this usually done? Is there a reason it should be done now?

Thanks again,

—StrangerInParadise 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see from below that you want more answers, though I explained my involvement already. Some more tidbits:

• My citation of the ArbCom case was only in reference to the appropriate length of the block, not an analysis of the situation that led to the original block.
• I didn't blank your user page of your content, that was done previously. I removed the indefblock template that no longer applied once I reduced the time of the block.
• My primary intent of changing the time limit was to remove the focus of the block from its length, and put it onto the merits. The indef. blocks of two other users have been reduced to one week in the last few days as well, this is not so unusual.
• I am not interested in digging into the merits of the case, there are 800 admins out there, it is clear that several admins have looked into it (based on the replies here and on Alkivar's talk page), and yet the block remains, so I am content.
• In a couple of days this block ends. Your concern should be on seeing to it that you don't merit any future blocks. A one year block is just around the corner if you go down the incivility path. That should be your focus, not this current block or your user page.

NoSeptember ^talk 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are 800 admins, few of whom know that there is a problem, since your notices did not mention that I claim the block is wrong. BTW, I am blocked- and IP-blocked- not just blocked from my userpage. What "several admins" have looked into this: there have been two, who declined to get involved. Why have you done so? You can read the ArbCom orders (two short paragraphs) and see that there is no cited violation of it, yet you logged it as such (Alkivar didn't). You have no reason to feel contentment in this: by making this look a bit more normal, you have contributed to the wrong, rather than correct it. There is still no documentation of anything meriting any block. If I am wrong, please explain.

I have been at Wikipedia for over four years, why am I being treated like this? How can you say to me that I should just say nothing and wait out the block, much less pretend that I somehow deserve it?

—StrangerInParadise 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• If Alkivar does not want the block logged, I hereby give him permission to remove it. Feel free to request that he do so.
• I know that you are blocked from all pages except this one.
• You are correct that I did you no favor in reducing your block. It moves you quicker to a one year block that will stick (if you keep getting yourself blocked).
• I am sure you have notified more admins on IRC than have made replies on wiki. Others have seen the ANI notice. We all know that not everyone who investigates will make a reply.
• NoSeptember ^talk 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You reply, but you do not respond. There is still no documentation of anything meriting any block whatsoever. If I am wrong, please explain. You should not be able to perpetuate the block, and take no responsibility for it. You make comments to me and to Alkivar to suggest it is justified, but do not say why. How offensive is it to have done nothing wrong, and have an admin dismiss you as some sort of perp because he can't be bothered to look any further into it?

You should either remove this block, or state why you feel it is valid and take responsibility for it, as Alkivar has clearly not done so. Definitely, you should remove the ArbCom log entry, not simply give Alkivar leave to do so: he has cited nothing which constitues a parole violation. Let Alkivar answer for his own actions. He hasn't invoked a remedy, so I cannot appeal it. He hasn't explained how the mild remarks [2][3] he cites are even uncivil, much less how they justify an indefinite block of this account. He rests his case without making it. It only appears that you are covering for him- in good faith, certainly, but covering nevertheless. The benefit of the doubt you have extended to him is unwarranted.

This entire thing is a travesty, to which your actions only apply cosmetics,

—StrangerInParadise 03:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked after all these days, a quick update

User:StrangerInParadise/UserAIP

• Alkivar blocked me indefinitely, with only the log comment, "you've been warned, rewarned, RFAr'd. warned YET AGAIN... and still cannot remain civil... goodbye". The comments he cites are in fact quite mild, and are neither uncivil, nor disruptive, nor a personal attack.[4][5] Although he mentions the ArbCom, he does not cite a violation of its terms.
• NoSeptember happened by, changed my block to one week, citing an ArbCom case but not explaining how it applies to anything I have done. He did not say in his notices that I claim there is no basis for the block, which is a problem as an admin wouldn't know that anything is amiss. He has not returned to answer my questions, specifically why he appears to support the block, but will not take responsability for it nor insist that Alkivar do so. He listed the block to the ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Log of blocks and bans, but doesn't take resposibility for doing so (by explaining why the ArbCom ruling is involved).
• Alkivar added this comment as to why he has done what he did, but not how this is in any way in policy or supported by ArbCom, nor why he thought it unnecessary to document at WP:ANI, etc. He has refused further communication.
• DragonflySixtyseven restored my user page, which was left blanked, and asked Alkivar for an explanation, but has declined to intervene further.
• Johnleemk, who served as clerk in my ArbCom matter and is responsible for recording the decision, has come by to ask why I'd would object, as he seems to think I have violated the ArbCom ruling. I have asked him to explain how (hint: the remedy does not mention simple incivility, which this isn't anyway). He has not returned to do so.

Several who know this is an abuse of policy are ignoring the matter. Some have wondered why I would even complain, as I have only been blocked for a week now- where is my gratitude? How much good faith am I expected to assume of those who behave like this? Are Alkivar's actions what passes for civility on Wikipedia?

Can anyone explain how these actions are justified?

—StrangerInParadise 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It is policy to follow arbitration committee rulings. You violated one. Is it any wonder you were subject to the remedies and enforcement as laid out by the ruling? Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, how did I violate the ruling (be specific, no one else has)? —StrangerInParadise 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You were trolling, attacking other users, and being incivil, and when called out for it, you responded by Wikilawyering (see above). You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand that your actions are unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not troll. I have not been uncivil. I have attacked no one. I have in no way violated parole. If you disagree, provide specifics: you will be the first to do so. —StrangerInParadise 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thin ice

Look, you already know you're on very thin ice. You just barely had your indefinite block commuted to one week. And one of the first things you post when your block expires is this trolling nonsense?! C'mon, are you trying to get indef-blocked or something? Because many of us would be more than happy to oblige. --Cyde Weys 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Noting of course that a penalty to one of your accounts will be applied to the other account and future accounts as well - David Gerard 14:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Restricted to one user account

There is a motion here to extend the remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al to restrict you to using one account only, and it appears that it will pass. Please inform the Arbitration Committee which account you would like to continue using; you may do this by private email if you wish. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

I seek to do so in hopes that the reputation you have, and that you have attempted to draw on to lend credibility to your words with this account, will be taken into consideration in your further participation in Wikipedia. (Where previously, you could use this account without affecting the reputation of the other.) You will be notified when it passes. Such motions pass by support from a net majority of active arbitrators; it will be in effect as soon as someone closes it properly. You are restricted to using one account and one account only, no matter the purpose; any other account used by you will be considered to be a sockpuppet. (Using more than one is discouraged to begin with, for that matter, but as there are legitimate reasons for many users to want more and impossible to prevent it from happening, we do not forbid it.)

As for the block, why don't you ask Alkivar or NoSeptember? I did not place it; enforcement is not generally done by arbitrators.

As for the personal attack parole, I don't know and am not going to go combing through your edits to find out if anything you have posted is technically a personal attack. However, you have been continuing to assume bad faith of others, and to go about lawyering when blocked rather than acknowledge any wrongdoing; it is unbecoming and perhaps you will think better of it if you do have an established identity whose reputation is worth keeping. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana Wiki

Hi there,

I saw your contributions over at the Marc Emery article, and thought you might be a good person to talk to about this.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi SIP,

Actually, it's not that specific articles HAD been speedy deleted, it's that there is more flexibility on MW than on WP for particular kinds of articles. For example, an article entitled "How to build a bong" or "How to roll a joint" wouldn't make it very far on WP :)

Hope that clears up the misunderstanding :)

-- nsandwich 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Breach of personal attack parole

For this further breach of your personal attack parole, "to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith" [6], I've blocked your for a further week. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to whom it was that I attacked, or on the part of whom and how I failed to assume good faith? —StrangerInParadise 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a justified block to me. --Cyde Weys 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Undelete., I'm renting Good Night and Good Luck, and savoring the many ironies, for example: it's OK to be a communist on Wikipedia, so long as you are not a card-carrying communist.

— StrangerInParadise, WP:DRV 05:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an attack on communists and card carrying communists -- Tawker 06:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Good Night and Good Luck but since the main focus of the film appears to be McCarthyism this would not appear to be what anybody reasonable would describe as an exemplar of WP:AGF. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that I'm endorsing the block. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[sigh] Marxists would laugh at the idea that this was an attack on them, Tawker. Phil, McCarthyism was an exercise in bad faith at times, that would also be an irony- one of many, but not the one I mentioned. I was refering to having a template:user marxist on your home page seemed like being a card-carrying communist, i.e. the issue is more of tolerance than good faith, you see the difference. The fact I can make a joke about tolerance and get blocked is, of course, more irony.

I wasn't attacking anyone, and the fact that the two of you are standing there guessing whom it was exactly that I did attack is perhaps a sign that maybe this was a mistake. The section below explains my actual voting criteria, I didn't get a chance to add it. —StrangerInParadise 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather, what struck me is that persisting to make this about the specific ideology, when you know full well it's about the template namespace, is willfully disruptive and provactive. It also makes you look woefully ill-informed, but I suppose that's beside the point. Incidentally, can we assume that you've abandoned your "real" account? Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I made an observation on something that I found ironic, you assign all sorts of dark motives, and toss casual insults. Why do you feel free to do so? How is your statement less of an assumption of bad faith and a personal attack than anything I've said? You may make no assumptions about my accounts, why are you so keen, anyway? —StrangerInParadise 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the comparison between McCarthyists and administrators who delete userboxes as a de facto assumption of bad faith, and an attack on those who perform such deletions. Characteristic of StrangerInParadise's habitual poisonous style since early March, and certainly not the evidence of reform that I'd hope to see in a person who has been placed on personal attack parole. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That is how you took it? Poisonous? After your first post, which I welcomed, your subsequent posts towards me have been dripping with malice, and yet I've done little more than question your reasoning or clarify mine. Why is that? Why the hissing? —StrangerInParadise 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The vote I was editing on User:NoMarxism

...just before Tony blocked me for somehow attacking persons unnamed

• Undelete. I should explain my reasoning on this a bit more fully, this also applies to most of my DR votes as well: if a template is CSD-T1, this means that it is divisive or inflammatory to the degree of disruption. If it were any less, why do we care? On the majority of DRs, the evidence of this is not provided. My questions are,

• Is there disruption?
• Is the template an instrument of this disruption?
• Has administrative best practices been applied?

I could imagine disruption on the topic of Anticommunism, but see no evidence of it. Were there disruption, I can't imagine it so far beyond the control of admin best practice that deleting this template is a significant line of defense against it. I heard mention of disruption on Objectivism, but saw no evidence of it. —StrangerInParadise 05:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

You're wikilawyering again. There is no presumption that a divisive or inflammatory template must be causing active disruption in order to qualify for speedy deletion. This reminds me of your recent edit on User talk:Mindspillage in which you outline, amongst other things, a whole raft of duties for clerks that only exist in your imagination. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I? That you don't see a duty on the part of clerks to insist on proper documentation is a bit frightening, since you are a clerk (when not yourself in the dock). There is no cited evidence that I have ever violated parole, let alone how, yet I have been blocked twice. So then, this poses two questions,

• Who has a duty to ensure that postings to an ArbCom matter are documented, if not the clerk?
• Are undocumented assertions allowed, and why?

As for the T1 standard, why would a divisive or inflammatory standard exist, if not in connection with disruption of Wikipedia? How does one know if a template is divisive or inflammatory, then? I have just told you how I know, and vote accordingly. That is how process works. How is it that such a standard is only in my head, yet admins delete userboxes with no more than looks divisive to me!.

This is a body of community-driven administrative policy, to which principles of law (evidence, statutory interpretation, due notice, process) are applied. To accuse someone of Wikilawyering for applying them in his own defense is the moral equivalent of accusing someone of using logic to do so, as if it were a bad thing. Your actions- along with mine, those of Mindspillage, etc- are subject to community review, ArbCom review and Foundation review. This is undermined when you don't document your reasoning and don't post to WP:AN/I.

—StrangerInParadise 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm about ready to propose an indef-block on this user. SiP simply doesn't get it. When repeatedly confronted with his disruptive behavior and personal attacks, all he ever does is rules lawyer and proclaim that he has never done anything wrong. I see no signs whatsoever of any acknowledgment of having ever done anything wrong, despite ArbCom and many other admins all saying the contrary. This user is patently incapable of being anything but disruptive. --Cyde Weys 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

About to? You have already, making unfounded accusations in doing so (trolling? read WP:TROLL, please). If you feel this way, you should give specific evidence of which edits are so disruptive that they merit an indef-block. Bear in mind that part of my defense would be to show, for each one, how many of your edits I can find that are even moreso. Why do you seem to equate criticism with disruption? —StrangerInParadise 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: userbox proposal

A few minutes ago, I noticed that on a previous poll on userbox policy change that you would like to create a new namespace for userboxes. I had the same idea and a few hours ago wrote an essay on the subject, including creating a namespace for userboxes. I would welcome your input on this matter and would hope you could help me get these ideas into a proposal for a policy change- because, in my opinion, the current conflict is hurting Wikipedia, and I would like to resolve it as soon as possible.

Thanks, // ^The True _Sora 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Cyde, are you clerking now?

Cyde, please consult the above statement from Mindspillage, You will be notified when it passes. Is your block of this account notice on behalf of ArbCom, or have you taken to closing ArbCom motions prematurely as well? I've read the motion carefully, and see no evidence that the arbiters have yet declared it passed.

Meanwhile, I would appreciate being unblocked,

—StrangerInParadise 08:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you made your mind up yet? Seven of nine active arbitrators have voted to support the motion. As it happens, I am a clerk. I'll unblock you on direct instructions from an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:SteveKubby.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SteveKubby.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SteveAndMichelleKubby.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SteveAndMichelleKubby.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HelenaKennedy.gif

I have tagged Image:HelenaKennedy.gif as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ChrisBuors.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChrisBuors.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:CannabisLeaf.jpg

File:CannabisLeaf.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Feuille de Cannabis.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Feuille de Cannabis.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:KubbySFOArrest.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KubbySFOArrest.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)