On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/16/06, Ryan Delaney
<ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How does this differ from the policy forbidding
disruptive behavior? Doesn't
"divisive and infammatory" constitute a subset of "disruptive"?
Is "disruptive" behaviour banned? It shouldn't be. Upgrading MediaWiki
could be disruptive. An AfD of a popular article is disruptive.
Banning userboxes would be disruptive :)
Rather, unnecessarily or unbeneficially disruptive behaviour should be
discouraged, and not all heated debates fall into those categories. A
passionate debate about a near-featured-article could be quite
beneficial, for example.
However, divisive and inflammatory behaviour is generally disruptive
without having any benefits to the Wikipedia project.
Steve
I have not been able to discern a difference between the disruptive
and inflammatory causal mechanism of the categorisation or
transclusion of templates onto user pages, and the fact that user
boxes express POV's of users.
Divisive and inflammatory implies the type of effect that votestacking
has. It also describes the current outcry over the userbox deletion
according to the T1 class of deletions, perhaps ironically the cause
and the effect are based in the same action to delete.
I can easily imagine a status quo where categories are banned from
userboxes and transclusion is replaced with subst: all userboxes
without deleting the source. The subst and delete opinion of many
"experienced" (and therefore more worthy to make consensus decisions
in cabal type atmospheres) editors seems to be the cause of more
divisive and inflammatory behaviour than if they had waited for a so
called "wikipedia consensus" to appear.
Peter