Wikipedia talk:Toby

message: This is the restored, potentially questionable thread; for the benefit of Toby's friends, the censored version is forked to Wikipedia talk:Toby/censored. I'll try to keep the threads synchronized from this point, but I make no guarantees. — Xiong熊talk* 00:27, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
=== Moving right along ===
Splash, I most certainly did not intend to offend you; I mean to offend Somebody else, who shall remain nameless. I have only respect for you, Sir. 
You know, I did a double take on your remarks, because I completely missed your intent on first reading. I thought you took exception to something I wrote -- but now I think you mean the collection of images I included in my remarks. 
You see, I don't personally find any of those images unviewable, with the sole exception of :Image:Pikachu.png. (That one turns my stomach, and no, that's not a joke -- it really annoys me. Yes, I can tolerate it, barely; at least it's not as bad as Hello Kitty, which I consider to be the incarnation of the Anti-Christ and a gateway to hard drugs. That is an image I must inline.) 
I would not only welcome Autofellatio on Main Page; I would stand on my chair and clap if :Image:Lynching-of-lige-daniels.jpg was there for the entire month of February. Yes, it's offensive -- amazingly so. I'm only sorry it's not one of the even more charming photos taken with the victim wearing a placard announcing his "crimes", surrounded by the toothlessly grinning, inbred murderers posing for the shot. Some of the most offensive photos in our history have been the most educational, often those taken during wartime. 
I'll go so far as to say that it is the offensive images that tell us the most about ourselves -- not merely because of the interesting question of which exact images offend some, but because -- almost by definition -- images that offend are those that speak deeply about the human condition. Sex and Death are the boundaries of our lives, and it is there that taboos sprout, as we foolishly attempt to control not only the Universe, but our own lives, down into some aseptic, white-coveralled, utopia/dystopia in which if anybody ever shat, it would come out as a pretty lavender pill. 
Serious proposal or performance art? Must it be either-or? Why can't it be both-and? Have we become so humorless and gray already, that we cannot abide debate that engages the soul, as well as the brain? 
Although potentially questionable content may well include the written word, it is images that seem to push buttons faster than anything else -- thus, when we debate potentially questionable content management, we really ought to do so surrounded by potentially questionable images.  
LizardWizard, please, don't throw yourself out of joint trying to figure out what Toby sounds like. This is both the solution to our censorship/decency problem and a way to shut up those whiney prudes. It all depends on which side of the fence you find yourself. 
We foist Toby on nobody; he is a free choice, and the choice can be unmade or made again at any time. 
Why do you think Toby will "censor too much"? Because you think Somebody Else will Toby something you don't think should be Tobyed? Hey, that might happen -- and it probably will. But so what? You're a free soul; if you attempt to view a page and find yourself looking at Toby, just turn him off. Or do you think you must dictate to all those who would really rather not see that? 
In any case, we can, in the broad sense, control Toby so that he is not suppressing the output of the entire Project. We're not stupid -- or at least, we don't have to be. We can react to customer complaints at least as efficiently as the Bank of China, perhaps as well as the California Department of Motor Vehicles. 
If Toby-users complain that Toby is forgetting to watch enough potentially questionable content, why, we just fix Toby. If Toby-users complain that nothing on the site seems to be accessible anymore, well, we just fix Toby. Toby's ridiculously complex forgetting algorithm can be fiddled with endlessly. Don't forget the power of the machine. We can identify, if need be, Tobyfiers who regularly login and Toby hundreds of obviously innocent articles -- note that we do not do this manually, and we do not fool with Toby directly, by un-Tobying pages -- we simply train Toby to listen to such compulsive Tobyfiers a little less closely. 
We will know that we have Toby tuned just right when the venom from all sides is roughly equal in intensity. 
The key is to be completely neutral in our instructions to Toby. We don't tell Toby, "Never remember Main Page". Main Page may well have potentially questionable content on it Someday. We do say, "Toby, forget heavily-read pages faster than others." If a page is heavily read, then there is a greater chance that a reader will Toby it -- so, if there really is questionable content on Main Page, Toby will remember, even if each click is only worth five minutes. If not, well, then that one wacky nutball who Tobyed Main Page for a photo of fat old Pavarotti will buy himself five minutes of peace, and then we'll move on. 
(To be more precise, the Toby-users will move on; the rest of us won't know and won't care, because Toby touches nothing. Toby only watches if you ask him to watch -- for you. 
The first rule of Toby is not "Don't talk about Toby." The first rule is just "Don't talk about why you put Toby on a given page or image." Why? Because it doesn't matter why, and any reason is debatable, and we respect those who aren't real good at putting their opinions into words. Maybe we don't respect them most of the time, and certainly not on any matter of importance -- but Toby is unimportant. Hey, I think a six year old is smart enough to be told by a reasonable Mother, "If you see something you don't like, click Toby." But I don't expect that kid to be able to explain the action. And although we'd probably like it if we knew grade schoolers weren't surfing the Project, we don't. 
We don't rationalize Toby on a case-by-case basis; that way leads to contention and agenda-driven micromanagement. But we most certainly do talk about Toby's overall methods -- that's why we're here. — Xiong熊talk* 01:30, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
:Well, Toby is certainly starting to sound worth a try to me. I'm not sure how well it'd work out, but I'd certainly like to have an experiment. However, do you really think Wikipedia (except the Simple English Wikipedia) will be of much use to a six-year-old?
:As to autofellatio or lynching on the main page, and the topic of the worth of offensive images in general, I agree with the worth and the need for these things to be exposed; however, they don't need to be trumpeted to the world (through the Main Page or even through inlining in articles), because Wikipedia has PR concerns (can you imagine the uproar resulting from a story about "Best-known Internet encyclopedia puts guy sucking own dick on front page"?), and because of worksafety/schoolsafety, which as an HS student is always my top concern in debates about WikiCensorship.
:And finally, re "performance art": OK, but it doesn't excuse making this page (of all pages) non-worksafe, and it must be reconciled with professionalism. (Re professionalism: this dovetails nicely with the PR concerns I mention, and contrasts oddly with your comments somewhere above on this page about money.) ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork 

message: Splash, I most certainly did not intend to offend you; I mean to offend Somebody else, who shall remain nameless. I have only respect for you, Sir. 
You know, I did a double take on your remarks, because I completely missed your intent on first reading. I thought you took exception to something I wrote -- but now I think you mean the collection of images I included in my remarks. 
You see, I don't personally find any of those images unviewable, with the sole exception of :Image:Pikachu.png. (That one turns my stomach, and no, that's not a joke -- it really annoys me. Yes, I can tolerate it, barely; at least it's not as bad as Hello Kitty, which I consider to be the incarnation of the Anti-Christ and a gateway to hard drugs. That is an image I must inline.) 
I would not only welcome Autofellatio on Main Page; I would stand on my chair and clap if :Image:Lynching-of-lige-daniels.jpg was there for the entire month of February. Yes, it's offensive -- amazingly so. I'm only sorry it's not one of the even more charming photos taken with the victim wearing a placard announcing his "crimes", surrounded by the toothlessly grinning, inbred murderers posing for the shot. Some of the most offensive photos in our history have been the most educational, often those taken during wartime. 
I'll go so far as to say that it is the offensive images that tell us the most about ourselves -- not merely because of the interesting question of which exact images offend some, but because -- almost by definition -- images that offend are those that speak deeply about the human condition. Sex and Death are the boundaries of our lives, and it is there that taboos sprout, as we foolishly attempt to control not only the Universe, but our own lives, down into some aseptic, white-coveralled, utopia/dystopia in which if anybody ever shat, it would come out as a pretty lavender pill. 
Serious proposal or performance art? Must it be either-or? Why can't it be both-and? Have we become so humorless and gray already, that we cannot abide debate that engages the soul, as well as the brain? 
Although potentially questionable content may well include the written word, it is images that seem to push buttons faster than anything else -- thus, when we debate potentially questionable content management, we really ought to do so surrounded by potentially questionable images.  
LizardWizard, please, don't throw yourself out of joint trying to figure out what Toby sounds like. This is both the solution to our censorship/decency problem and a way to shut up those whiney prudes. It all depends on which side of the fence you find yourself. 
We foist Toby on nobody; he is a free choice, and the choice can be unmade or made again at any time. 
Why do you think Toby will "censor too much"? Because you think Somebody Else will Toby something you don't think should be Tobyed? Hey, that might happen -- and it probably will. But so what? You're a free soul; if you attempt to view a page and find yourself looking at Toby, just turn him off. Or do you think you must dictate to all those who would really rather not see that? 
In any case, we can, in the broad sense, control Toby so that he is not suppressing the output of the entire Project. We're not stupid -- or at least, we don't have to be. We can react to customer complaints at least as efficiently as the Bank of China, perhaps as well as the California Department of Motor Vehicles. 
If Toby-users complain that Toby is forgetting to watch enough potentially questionable content, why, we just fix Toby. If Toby-users complain that nothing on the site seems to be accessible anymore, well, we just fix Toby. Toby's ridiculously complex forgetting algorithm can be fiddled with endlessly. Don't forget the power of the machine. We can identify, if need be, Tobyfiers who regularly login and Toby hundreds of obviously innocent articles -- note that we do not do this manually, and we do not fool with Toby directly, by un-Tobying pages -- we simply train Toby to listen to such compulsive Tobyfiers a little less closely. 
We will know that we have Toby tuned just right when the venom from all sides is roughly equal in intensity. 
The key is to be completely neutral in our instructions to Toby. We don't tell Toby, "Never remember Main Page". Main Page may well have potentially questionable content on it Someday. We do say, "Toby, forget heavily-read pages faster than others." If a page is heavily read, then there is a greater chance that a reader will Toby it -- so, if there really is questionable content on Main Page, Toby will remember, even if each click is only worth five minutes. If not, well, then that one wacky nutball who Tobyed Main Page for a photo of fat old Pavarotti will buy himself five minutes of peace, and then we'll move on. 
(To be more precise, the Toby-users will move on; the rest of us won't know and won't care, because Toby touches nothing. Toby only watches if you ask him to watch -- for you. 
The first rule of Toby is not "Don't talk about Toby." The first rule is just "Don't talk about why you put Toby on a given page or image." Why? Because it doesn't matter why, and any reason is debatable, and we respect those who aren't real good at putting their opinions into words. Maybe we don't respect them most of the time, and certainly not on any matter of importance -- but Toby is unimportant. Hey, I think a six year old is smart enough to be told by a reasonable Mother, "If you see something you don't like, click Toby." But I don't expect that kid to be able to explain the action. And although we'd probably like it if we knew grade schoolers weren't surfing the Project, we don't. 
We don't rationalize Toby on a case-by-case basis; that way leads to contention and agenda-driven micromanagement. But we most certainly do talk about Toby's overall methods -- that's why we're here. — Xiong熊talk* 01:30, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
:Well, Toby is certainly starting to sound worth a try to me. I'm not sure how well it'd work out, but I'd certainly like to have an experiment. However, do you really think Wikipedia (except the Simple English Wikipedia) will be of much use to a six-year-old?
:As to autofellatio or lynching on the main page, and the topic of the worth of offensive images in general, I agree with the worth and the need for these things to be exposed; however, they don't need to be trumpeted to the world (through the Main Page or even through inlining in articles), because Wikipedia has PR concerns (can you imagine the uproar resulting from a story about "Best-known Internet encyclopedia puts guy sucking own dick on front page"?), and because of worksafety/schoolsafety, which as an HS student is always my top concern in debates about WikiCensorship.
:And finally, re "performance art": OK, but it doesn't excuse making this page (of all pages) non-worksafe, and it must be reconciled with professionalism. (Re professionalism: this dovetails nicely with the PR concerns I mention, and contrasts oddly with your comments somewhere above on this page about money.) ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving right along 

message: Is nobody ever happy? Are we all completely unable to compromise? Like I said before, no matter what you think, there is a sizable segment of the Community that disagrees with you. 
Somebody screwed up my perfectly fine and reasonable compromise -- forking the debate into a censored and an uncensored version -- by making a messy page move. What got into his head, I'll never know. Some folks think that not only do they not want to see, they don't want you to see, either. Well.
I've swapped the censored and uncensored versions around this time. Next time I see this kind of malicious mischief, I'll move the censored version and the uncensored version and leave Wikipedia talk:Toby blank, with nothing but a pointer to each version. 
I dunno about some folks. Rodney King took so many blows to the head that he's permanently brain-damaged, and was still able to urge us to get along. Maybe that's a bad example... — Xiong熊talk* 18:49, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
:Look, this page is censored for the same reason that we don't have huge pictures of penises on every relevant page: it's not necessary, an impediment to viewing, and pisses people off to no gain. I find this comment - "But I cannot imagine, personally, how grown people think to debate potentially questionable content management without looking at potentially questionable content. I guess we really need Toby." - silly. I have no desire to have any articles blocked from my view; I have no desire to take graphic images off articles that deserve them; I have no desire not to see autofellatio when browsing Wikipedia alone. But, people, I USE WIKIPEDIA AT SCHOOL. I'm sure many, many people browse it at work or school, and will not only be annoyed, not only get people pissed at them, but be disciplined harshly if they accidentally get, e.g., a large penis on the screen. This is what I've constantly been saying.
:Besides, there's the PR. Can't forget the PR. I know this might not be the most relevant page for PR concerns, but seriously, if the proposal is written in language a child can read, surely the talk page should be appropriate for a child...? ~~ N (t/c) 22:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I see what you mean by the need to illustrate, though I still wish you would have put a big bold warning and spacer. ~~ N (t/c) 15:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork again 

message: This proposal is childish. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia -- a unified, coherent presentation of all knowledge. It is not to categorize bits of that knowledge as "safe" or "unsafe" according to anyone's POV, or anyone's complaint or grievance. There is no way to support any kind of coherent tagging scheme without turning the encyclopedia into a soapbox for whatever POV is supported by that tagging scheme, or whatever Mrs. Grundy cares to besmirch articles with grievances.
By "coherent" I mean that the scheme actually expresses any distinctions. A tag which can be defensibly applied to every page and image is not a coherent one; if a user can tag anything and simply be expressing their own personal opinion, then the tagging system is incoherent. Moreover, it's contrary to Wikipedia's core NPOV policy: the encyclopedia is to be governed by a neutral point of view, not simply the aggregation of grievances. --FOo 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is childish and contrary to policy 

message: Copied from uncensored page.
:Image:Birthday cake.jpg
• Nickptar, I appreciate your expression of support. You don't see why I think these potentially questionable images must be present to illustrate the debate; I don't really empathize with your view, either. That's why we need Toby -- so that all parties can have their cake and eat it, too -- or not, just as they please. 
• UnlimitedAccess suggests we can just assume that most potentially questionable content is not going to show up on the screen of anyone not actively searching for it. 
I disagree, and in any case, that's insufficient. We need to supress the display of very nearly all potentially questionable content for users who require this suppression. Nothing is perfect, and we can't guarantee Toby will be watching everything, all the time -- but he will do a much better job than the Community at large, including some of us who have a very hard time seeing the other side of the debate. 
An important feature of Toby is that although Toby can be enabled and disabled by any user, Toby's icon is visible onscreen at all times when enabled. A supervising teacher or fearful cubby rat is reassured that the next click of the mouse will not bring disaster. While many of us disdain such hand-holding, it is highly valued by others. 
You need to understand the way the web really works in the ordinary home. A youngster, perhaps as young as 8 or 9, sits at the screen for hours and surfs around. Having demonstrated good judgement (as Mom sees it), he surfs with minimal supervision. Mom looks in from time to time, but does not sit with him and look over his shoulder. (Perhaps she should, but she does not. Really.) Now say we get Toby up and running; Mom will turn it on and insist it stay on. Sooner or later, the curious young male surfs on over to Autofellatio -- a topic of burning and very pertinent interest. Stymied by Toby, he turns the fucker off. Mom walks in, sees a photo of a man doing an impossible act -- but Toby is not there! Guess who gets blamed? (Hint: Not us.) 
: ...if someone searches for "human feces" and is surprised by the "offensive" content...then they shouldnt of been searching for it....
I agree with you, but then I place a very high value on personal responsibility. You might be surprised to learn that there is a very large fraction of the greater population that does not. They think that governments, corporations, organizations, teachers, and parents have a positive duty to treat everybody like a tiny infant, and keep them safe from every imaginable harm, even if they are grown adults and freely choose a risky activity. I don't agree with them, but I don't think our Project needs to be a basket of test cases. 
These windmills are not actually in Holland. 
Meanwhile, there is a vast gray area between Autofellatio on Main Page and photos of windmills in Holland. 
:Image:Lynching-of-lige-daniels.jpg
Say a grade schooler looking into Black History Month comes across the highly disturbing :Image:Lynching-of-lige-daniels.jpg. Now, there are some grade school teachers who might insist that the whole class study this photo, and meditate on the nature of the human condition that created it. Some would condemn the murder, some would pray to their gods. But other teachers would see something like that -- in a perfectly reasonable context (Lynching in the United States, where it appears top-right sans warning) and scream. Such people are often quite disruptive and persistent when annoyed. 
We need Toby. In the example, the first teacher can simply reach over, click Toby, and tell him, "Toby, we want to see this, now." The second teacher is not only spared the sight; she can see (from the placeholder left behind, the text link or caption) just what she's been spared. Now we've made a friend, not an enemy.
• VisibleInk asks if the issue is not all about images, and why they can't just be globally disabled; Nickptar thinks that's a good idea, too. The gentleman from Nebraska suggests that this should be done by the user, directly from within the browser. 
This is, of course, two distinct points, which I shall answer distinctly. Yes, images are disproportionately flagged as potentially questionable content; there is something about a full-color photo that seems to push people's buttons faster than the written word. But no, that's not all of it. Many of the same people who find an image distasteful would not really want to read the accompanying article, either. Mom may not pick up on the article Autofellatio as fast as the photo, but she'll get just as pissed -- at us, if we're not careful. Same goes for Boss -- he may be really slow at first, but he will catch on. 
As the gentleman from Nebraska says, yes, browsers can be set to disable images. Some users even know how to do this; others are unable or unwilling. But I have yet to see a browser that can disable potentially questionable text, or tell the difference between the vast majority of perfectly tolerable images and the few potentially questionable ones. We don't want to force the user into deciding between all images or none. — Xiong熊talk* 20:28, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
:Now, again, I support Toby, but it's no solution to schoolsafety, because I might want to read about pornography or autofellatio at school, and probably wouldn't put myself at too much risk by doing so (if I had a decent excuse), but I just wouldn't want to see the images. Hence disabling image inlining. I'm glad you've adapted to the fork solution. I'll try to keep the pages synchronized as much as I can. ~~ N (t/c) 22:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More points answered 

message: Yeah --SPUI (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, this is actually a serious proposal? It's, uh, interesting. Strangely addictive. Like certain illegal drugs. --SPUI (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy feces this is great

message: *Object.
"As far as developer support goes, well, who do you think these guys are? Demigods? LAMP jockies are perhaps not a dime a dozen, but they can be had -- I daresay there are quite a few within our Community who are not even on the development team. We can't all work for no money! It's a commmon and popular skill, and the more money we pay in wages, the more and better talent we will attract. Does everybody here understand clearly that, at last count, WMF had exactly one full-time paid employee?"
"Our Community, like any other association of free humans, can do pretty much whatever we like, within the bounds of our collective power. Given several thousand active Wikipedians, if we want a feature added to the engine, we can have it. I'm real tired of our current, infantile business model."
"All we need to do is: 1. Stop pretending there are no other people in the world; and 2. Stop pretending there is no money."
Wikipedia is not a business. It does not have a business model. We are here to create an encyclopedia and should not let monetary issues get in the way of creating policy. As far as Wikipedia's policy is concerned, there is no money. The entire idea looks highly unprofessional, childish, and unencyclopedic. The proposal itself on this page looks like a marketing idea, if not a theme for a cult. Toby would look hideous anywhere on a page in contract with our current layout, no matter how small it is. The only way I might consider having the slightest possibility of letting the thought pass into my head of supporting this, Toby would have to be completely invisible.
Creating the uncensored and censored versions, for example of marketing ploys, was a dirty trick and is reminescent of how people with political agendas often pass out pictures of aborted fetuses and mangled bodies.
"Stymied by Toby, he turns the fucker off. Mom walks in, sees a photo of a man doing an impossible act -- but Toby is not there! Guess who gets blamed? (Hint: Not us.)"
Why would we get blamed in the first place, legal or otherwise? He looked up autofellatio himself, likely from another sex topic. WP:NOT censored already removes that responsibility. If I look up an article in an unwikified paper encyclopedia on genitalia, I'll likely see a diagram, perhaps a picture of a victem in the article on a disfiguring disease. Wikipedia is except from laws covering "obscenity" because these are being used in an educational manner.
The idea Toothpaste 13:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I went to the uncensored version of this page, and, WTF? Why the hell do we need pictures of THAT on the talk page of a proposal? That's one of the biggest WP:POINTs i've seen in a while!
Anyway, just say no to Toby. Anything to censor wikipedia in any way is not encyclopedic. If you don't want to see the images, disable them in your browser. And then you won't have to see THAT, which silly people put on talk pages of policy proposals! *UGH*
--Phroziac (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, of course. --Phroziac (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually i haven't seen any porn on wikipedia yet. I sure don't get anything from that threesome with the tophat dude picture. --Phroziac (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, thus proving my point. The sensitive and easily offended rein in the the more liberal members (non political sense), and that works both ways, it establishes a balance, "Toby" could upset that balance. - UnlimitedAccess 16:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: This whole concept is ridiculous. You're saying that Wikipedia (the source of the information) should directly provide the means for end users to block its own information, when it should be the highly configurable middle man that does this job (ie, the browser or other software). If someone thinks their kids will see offensive photos, they need only block the downloading of any photos whatsoever. Rather than having an anonymous vandal deciding what can be seen by people who only wish not to see nudity, it should be entirely left up to the end user to decide how to use (or not use) the internet and all of its contents. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-27 22:47
* I think Toby is silly. Elfguy 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous

message: ...is that this is fundamentally an attempt at developing a technical solution to a social intercourse problem.  I'm skeptical that this will accomplish anything other than adding yet another confusing user interface element getting between users and the information they need.  (Note that I'm not talking about censorship here.  Just usability.) Nandesuka 05:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes down with bureaucracy :). - UnlimitedAccess 09:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Trouble With Toby 

message: I had a word with Toby.  He told me if I didn't want to see something I shouldn't look at it. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I had a word with Toby

message: I find the tone of this proposed guideline to be childish, patronising, and frankly quite ridiculous. We're actually being asked here to talk to an imaginary robot like he's some kind of teddy bear. What is this, Wikipedia or kindergarten? I'm all for discussions on content or ways to solve these ongoing editorial issues, but this is ridiculous. --IByte 13:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childish and ridiculous 

message: <SPAN STYLE="color: #FF0000;"><B>Please read before you post!</B></SPAN>
I realize this discussion has gotten very long, but I think it is still important to read what has gone before, in order to get a realistic idea of what Toby is and what Toby is not. There are a great number of pretty bad ideas that are not Toby -- and I'm not suggesting any of them. 
It's disheartening to come here day after day to answer the same objections, as if nobody has the patience to read. I'd like to suggest that if I've answered your objections, don't just repeat them. At best, that's carelessness; at worst, it's spreading FUD.
We all have agendas and you're welcome to advance yours. But the way it works in a scholarly Community is that you discover a potential flaw in a proposal and mention it. If that flaw is shown not to exist, you have to move on, and find another potential flaw -- it just doesn't make any sense to keep setting up the same straw man so you can knock him down again. 
=== Two sides to Toby ===
Please note that there are two Toby implementations in play here: 
* Original Toby is able to filter out text as well as images. Content is assigned to Toby click-by-click by any reader. As time passes, Toby "forgets" these clicks, so infrequently clicked items pass out from Toby's filter. Frequently-clicked items remain. 
* Simple Toby just filters all images, period. Images are replaced by placeholders. 
=== Toby is not a cop ===
Toby has absolutely no power. Anybody can ask Toby to watch; anybody can ask him to stop watching. Either way, the effect is immediate. This has nothing to do with whether one is logged in or not -- indeed, logging out and logging in under a different user name will not affect Toby in the least. 
Toby is turned on with a click -- two clicks, really: The first click takes you to a simple choice page: Toby or not Toby. Toby is turned off the same way: The first click takes you to the choice page, and another click takes you right out. No arguments, no hassles. 
=== Toby is not an editor ===
Toby does not tag pages in any way visible to the user -- reader or editor. 
* Original Toby keeps track of "his" content internally -- there is not even any way to review which content he is tracking without turning Toby on and browsing the Project. 
* Simple Toby filters all images, so there is not even anything for him to remember. 
Either way, Toby touches nothing and neither creates nor destroys any content. To a reader who does not require Toby's services, Toby has zero footprint. 
=== Toby's face is useful ===
There are very good reasons to have an icon representing Toby. This has nothing to do with whether you personally like Toby's face. Toby represents a service in a clear, identifiable way. This particular image -- incorporating the slashed-red-circle NO -- is acceptable to a great number of people whose backgrounds, biases, and outlook you may not relate to very well. And that's the way it should be. 
There is a definite advantage to providing the Toby-service through a clickable icon. This lowers the bar to its use -- and while you may not really think that's a good thing, why not? The whole point of Toby is that we respect other's needs. It's not nice to put something needed *just* out of reach. Let's put it right down where even the dummies can find it. 
I don't think some of us want to believe what minimal computer competence some of our readers have. With great popularity comes great responsibility, and now we need to take care of the same people who still touch a keyboard in fear that black smoke will come rolling out of the vents if they type the wrong word. To such people, the Preferences screen is intimidating. Naturally, we want to be able to control Toby on an individual basis from Prefs -- but the butt-simple stupid interface is a little picture you click on to make stuff go away. 
As I've mentioned before, displaying a Toby icon while Toby is watching is greatly reassuring to that certain segment who will actually want to use Toby. Let's be nice, and give the customer what she wants. 
The rest of us can go into Prefs and disable Toby entirely, so even that little icon does not show. 
I'm asking you all to have a little humanity and empathy for those without all the advantages -- in skills, in brains, in cosmopolitan thinking -- that you enjoy. 
=== Toby makes no judgements ===
It is basic to this proposal that we do not define the type of content Toby filters. We do not label it as "bad", "non-child-safe", "adult" -- or in any other way. No point of view or bias is being advanced -- none whatsoever. Indeed, we forbid speculation or explanation of Toby, precisely to avoid the trap of labeling content. Toby does not label content in any way -- Toby does not judge. 
It is pointless and divisive to try to define the type of content that some do not want to see, or why. Toby does not do this. 
Please dispense with attacks on Toby based on anticipated bias. Of course any reader using Toby will see a biased selection of content -- that's the whole purpose of Toby. But Toby's agenda is controlled by consensus -- consensus of those who think they need Toby. Anybody who disagrees is welcome to turn Toby off. 
=== Toby is everybody's friend ===
Toby stands ready for all, never intrudes unless asked, and goes away when he's not wanted. What more can you possibly ask? I don't know who will use Toby; nor do I care. Anybody will be able to do so, and that's enough. 
We're ever so much bigger than we think. This is not a tight little cliquey clubhouse. It may seem that way at times, but that's because very few readers ever turn over the page and start commenting on Talk. Very few indeed -- a fraction of a percent. The great unwashed masses out there have opinions incredibly divergent from any of ours -- and they are our customers; they are our readers; they are the ones we work for. 
We are not met here to amuse ourselves, to serve our own purposes alone. If we were, then we'd stop licensing our content out freely -- we'd encrypt the site and charge admission. We give this Project away freely to the entire human community as a public service -- and it is high time we began to serve.
— Xiong熊talk* 08:46, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
:Do you have to do this marketing spiel every few days? You certaintly didn't address my objections (see further above) and I really doubt most objections can be overcome. -- Joolz 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's cut the poo-poo 

message: Toby stands ready for all, never intrudes unless asked, and goes away when he's not wanted. What more can you possibly ask? I don't know who will use Toby; nor do I care. Anybody will be able to do so, and that's enough. 
We're ever so much bigger than we think. This is not a tight little cliquey clubhouse. It may seem that way at times, but that's because very few readers ever turn over the page and start commenting on Talk. Very few indeed -- a fraction of a percent. The great unwashed masses out there have opinions incredibly divergent from any of ours -- and they are our customers; they are our readers; they are the ones we work for. 
We are not met here to amuse ourselves, to serve our own purposes alone. If we were, then we'd stop licensing our content out freely -- we'd encrypt the site and charge admission. We give this Project away freely to the entire human community as a public service -- and it is high time we began to serve.
— Xiong熊talk* 08:46, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
:Do you have to do this marketing spiel every few days? You certaintly didn't address my objections (see further above) and I really doubt most objections can be overcome. -- Joolz 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby is everybody's friend 

message: Everyone who wants to hide (i.e. "Toby") some kinds of images also wants to see some other kinds of images. If Toby hides anything that anyone wants hidden, then both the flaccid vs. erect penis picture and the main picture of George W. Bush are going to be hidden to Toby users. Each camp will find that Toby restricts the images they do want to see. Or they will just think we have a stupid encyclopedia that doesn't even have a picture of a penis/a president, if Toby is that invisible. Either way, Toby will not do what they want. FreplySpang (talk) 00:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Toby is opt-in, so people won't think that we don't have a Bush picture, unless turning on Toby is the first thing they do and Toby provides no indication that there was supposed to be a picture somewhere. Still, you're right that all images would become invisible because vandals would tag everything. Oh, by the way, can we stop calling it Toby now??? ~~ N (t/c) 01:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby isn't ''everyone'''s friend, because he isn't mine.   

message: You write "Indeed, we forbid speculation or explanation of Toby". So we would have a policy of which it is prohibited to discuss or dispute its content, and this is supposed to help consensus? That doesn't make sense to me, it sounds rather oppressive. (And I'm being driven to the brink of insanity by the ongoing habit on this page to refer to this proposed policy as if it were a person/cuddly robot.) --IByte 01:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no judgements" leads to consensus? 

message: :If Toby is implemented, I will write a bot that "Tobys" images, at random, at a rate of 1000 images a day.  How will your "Toby" system react to that? --Carnildo 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnildo's bot threat 

message: Looking at your demo I see that its the same article, only without images. Wouldn't this just waste a bunch of time? Would every article I write have to have a Tobified and an unTobified version? And having a censored and uncensored discussion is useless cause people may want to go to this page or the other to list their concerns. And one other thing, why do you say 'look at the censored if you are above 21'? That really IS asserting that Toby seems to be censoring Wikipedia for minors. And the law has nothing to do with that as none of those images are porn, and there are very few images at wikipedia that can be considered porn, and most of those are up at IfD anyway. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You never addressed my concerns. Such as the 'must be 21' part which I don't see mentioned anywhere else. You just left a message on my talk page saying I'm shitting on you. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, the page fork is only needed for this demo. "Toby" would do it automatically. I've deleted the "over 21" part - I think this is the second time that's been done. It's just silly. I'm waay under 21 - will you give me a talking-to for viewing the uncensored version? ~~ N (t/c) 00:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fork certainly adds to the confusion since it has no bearing on the Toby proposal, anyone object to me just redirecting it back to here and removing the confusion at the top of the page? (or one or the other) - P.S., since you've viewed the uncensored version, instead of a talking to I suggest a sick bag is more in order :p - Joolz 00:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, keep the fork, it suggests well what a Tobyed page would look like. And I pride myself on a strong stomach.  ~~ N (t/c) 01:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practicality? 

message: Based on comments:
Supporters:
*Xiong
*SPUI
*Nickptar - worth a try to see if it works out. It probably won't.
Objectors:
*Toothpaste
*Redwolf
*Phroziac
*Joolz
*IByte
*FCYTravis
*UnlimitedAccess
*BRIAN0918
*Zscout370
*Nandesuka
*Karmafist
*Radiant
*WikiFanatic
*Peter Isotalo
*Ral315
Feel free to take your name off or add it to either list. Toothpaste 04:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't necessary. The policy is obviously rejected by everyone's standards but Xiong's. — Dan | Talk 17:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporters and Objectors

message: This page survived a MD which can be viewed here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MD

message: 220px|right
There are roughly 350,000 users registered on Wikipedia; statistical analysis shows that about 20,000 of them are somewhat active editors. At the time I write, exactly 41 distinct user names have commented on Toby -- including at least one blatant sockpuppet created either for personal amusement or deliberately to discredit the proposal. 
This says nothing about Community consensus; and even less about the desires of our readership -- which, judging by our rise in Alexa traffic rankings, must be in the several millions. 
Toby is not some trivial procedural point; Toby is the beginning of a workable solution to a long-standing, highly contentious, extremely important problem. It is absurd to think everything about it will be perfect -- ever -- and even more absurd to think it can be perfected in three weeks by 40 editors, many of whom clearly have failed even to read the proposal, let alone make any attempt to improve it. Some editors have made substantial contributions and improvements -- Thank You -- and many early hit-and-run editors have had their objections answered fully and repeatedly.
• If you want to comment, read the proposal first. If you don't understand what you've read -- and yes, it is complex -- don't be ashamed to ask questions. 
If you make a good-faith effort to read about and understand Toby, and you still have questions, nobody will think you a fool for asking. If you comment without reading, or without thinking, you will remove all doubt. 
300px|left
• Warriors: Try to understand that yours is not the only viewpoint. I don't know how to explain this. None of the gods (and I respect them all) have the power to anoint you sole arbiter of what is and is not good. Your right to control what people see begins and ends with what you see; perhaps, with what your children see. 
Toby is equally disliked by those who oppose and those who support censorship. The former object because Toby performs any service at all, to anybody; the latter object because Toby does not force his services on everybody. 
Is nobody here sane enough to see that these views are (a) mutually hostile and incompatible; (b) both so widespread that neither side will ever gain absolute victory over the other; and (c) both bigoted, narrow-minded, and destructive of personal liberty? 
In a free society, nobody gets to impose his tastes on others. Wikipedia is a public service; we must take into account a range of personal tastes. 
• Detractors: Before you comment, please think about what you are about to say. Are you contributing, or are you just making noise and venting your anger? 
300px|right
This is a wiki. I notice few editors are shy to put obnoxious tags all over Toby. Why not direct those energies more wisely, and improve Toby instead? Do not say "Toby cannot be improved." That's just silly -- everything can be improved except perfection. Is Toby perfect? If you don't think so, then think of a way to make Toby better. That's why you are here -- I hope. 
On the other hand, if you, personally, cannot think of a way to improve Toby, then why not face up to the reality that Toby may just be as good as it's likely to get? At some point, we need to do something; and nothing we do will make everybody happy. 
Wikipedia is not a bubble universe, isolated from all external pressures and reality. We have to live in the world as we find it, with maturity and honesty. Part of that means accepting reasonable solutions to other people's problems. 
Right now, Toby is the only proposal we have for potentially contentious content management. Toby is distinct from all other prior proposals in three important respects: 
1. Toby does not label any content in any way. None of the terms tried previously for content labeling, such as "Adult", "Foo-safe", "Erotic", "K-12", "Objectionable", etc. are used here. Nobody says why content is watched by Toby, so an entire arena of debate simply does not exist. 
2. Toby's watchlist is invisible. Toby does not tag content in any way. Neither markup nor display for non-Toby users is affected. The entire database Corpus -- Autofellatio to Bush -- is exactly as it has always been. No duplicate pages are created. 
3. Toby is not there for you unless you ask. Users who browse to Wikipedia by any means see the exact same Project as always; nothing is censored at any time. Toby simply gives users a choice -- a purely personal choice -- to ask Toby not to display items to these users that are on Toby's watchlist. Any user can enter or leave the Toby-system at any time; nothing is locked, forced, or demanded. 
Thus, I restore the  tag to the proposal. Please leave it there. This is the proposal on the table, and it's <SPAN STYLE="color: #FF0000;"><B>darn</B></SPAN> good, too. If you have a better idea, let us know about it. 
— Xiong熊talk* 09:11, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
:We are reading your proposals, and we are expressing our opinions about them, and we know that Wikipedia has over 20,000 editors, but only a few of those are active in Wikipedian policy and would rather spend more time editing. Forty is a plentiful amount of users commenting, in fact, it's much more than usual, and you are supposed to trust the people commenting to be representative of the community, and from what I've seen in IRC, they are.
:Toby is naturally NPOV and it goes against our foundations to provide any means of censorship, voluntary or not. To have Toby anywhere on the page of a non-Toby user is ludicrous, though fortunately, this seems to have been dropped. As for your icon, Wikipedia is not child friendly in the manner you suggest and we do not dumb ourselves down to the point where we have to represent each option with a cartoon icon. Your other idea, Simple Toby, to disable alll images, would be best put up as a separate policy as it is so different from your first.
:We do not compromise our founding values for money because when you compromise those values, you do not get what you started with. Toothpaste 09:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Xiong, this is silly. Whether intended or not, your action gives the appearance that you're mad that your policy was soundly rejected (which it most certainly was) and are looking for excuses to continue talking about it. You know it is ridiculous to suggest that every one of Wikipedia's active users (or even any particular quantity of them) must comment on a proposal; in fact, 41 is an unusually high number compared to other such proposals. In any case, as long as you're insisting, let me register my complete disagreement with every facet of this policy, particularly its juvenile appellation. I'm afraid your long-winded comments (all of which say the same things) aren't doing much to convince anyone. — Dan | Talk 15:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, can I change my AfD vote from weak Keep to Delete with extreme prejudice? It says 'rejected' for a reason, what do you think that reason is? (Before you start: don't bother, it's a rhetorical question!) --IByte 23:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This proposal has been soundly rejected, it has garnered little support from the wikipedia community and this is not because people haven't read it, it's because people have read it, do not like it and do not want it. I think you should move on, Toby is over. (On other topics, I hope you don't find my use of bold patronising or annoying.) -- Joolz 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Then why don't you do like SPUI, and make a "censored" and "uncensored" user page yourself? SPUI's uncensored page has plenty of stuff that I would consider less worksafe (and more "offensive") than Autofree. ~~ N (t/c) 21:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've stayed out of all this discussion so far, but my observation is that the more you keep agitating for this defeated proposal, and insist that its opponents (who, by your own admission, range all across the political spectrum) are "destructive" and "don't understand", and claim that the opponents have the burden of proof against your proposal instead of you having the burden because you're the one trying to change the status quo -- the more others will turn against your proposal.  Maybe it's time you quit while you're behind. *Dan* 23:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I was right about that; it seems all the opponents are rabid anti-censorshipists -- which ought not to bother me much, since I'm firmly in that camp. But I was forced to acknowledge -- after the third IfD of the notorious image -- that some bone must be thrown to the opposition. Nobody in this project is further to the left than I am on this point; nobody else dared nominate the notorious image -- in good faith -- and urge it be put on Main Page. If I can see the other side, however far from my view as it is, then surely any rational editor on the left can see it, too. 
Dern tooting right opponents have the burden of proof -- I've put up an extremely robust solution, answered all objections, and got little back except biased rants that disregard all the facts and set up the same tired straw men to knock down over and over again. Show me why it won't work for you -- show me how it will mess with your day -- show me how it will wreck the Project -- and then, perhaps, you'll actually be discussing Toby, and not merely wandering in and peeing in the corner. The ball is in your court. — Xiong熊talk* 21:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Where do you get off calling the arguments of people who disagree with you "invalid"? Where do you get off saying we must hold some position? I think Toby is worth a try (although it probably won't work), but I disagree that it's as huge an issue as you're saying. ~~ N (t/c) 23:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed 

message: Well, I've been watching all this unfold and see essentially that the main problem is that the opposition to Toby is due to most feeling that it is a censorship, a violation of NPOV and generally not in keeping with this Wiki. My stance is thus...I am not in favor of tagging images or articles except for deletion purposes...and even that I have only done a few times, leaving it up to others for the most part. I've surfed through thousands of articles in Wikipedia and come across only a few "objectionable" images or subject matter, but that is my perspective. Toby offers a manner in which we can possibly help to promote this Wiki to be "safe" for schools and the workplace, as well as for those that simply want a web based reference source that isn't cluttered with, well, inappropriate and unencyclopedic items. I would support the implementation of a Toby-ish type of screening if it were to be implemented. However, I would prefer a MUCH more strict screening beyond anything Toby offers because without such parameters, there is no way Wikipedia is going to become much more than it sometimes is now...a political warzone peppered with some smut, some preposterousness and a lot of arrogance. At times, Wikipedia has no more credibilty than a blog or a tabloid and that is a damn shame for people that put great efforts into truly trying to make it a lot more than that. Jimbo Wales stated, essentially, that we don't have pornography on the main page of Wikipedia due to editorial taste amd judgement...but what good is the book if all that meets this criteria is the cover? Maybe Toby isn't the answer, but it certainly is a step towards  improving our credibility.--MONGO 11:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there have been a number of objections that it is unworkable, which it is, see my comments under the Comments section above, for instance. -- Joolz 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your comment. I understand you think Toby does not go far enough. I'm sure you understand that many think Toby goes too far. This may just be the only possible compromise, and hard enough to win acceptance as it is. You may find that Original Toby fits your needs better than Simple Toby -- please note that there are three distinct versions under discussion. Simple Toby does not do all that Original does; Simple just masks image display. Simple Toby may be the easier, faster implementation, that's all. — Xiong熊talk* 22:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: Given the fact that you keep insisting your ideas are the best thing since sliced bread, even though nearly everyone who discussed them with you disagreed, these discussions are not worth my rise in blood pressure. So here's what I'm going to do: we 'agree to disagree' and I will make no further comments on this from now on. If I'm right, your proposals will continue to be soundly rejected by the community, with or without my involvement. If I'm wrong, your proposals will make it, and once again my individual acceptance or rejection won't make much of a difference. This statement also applies to The Wiki Way and Zap. Have a nice chat with the rest of the Wikipedia community. --IByte 15:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly one of the wisest comments I've read on this page, or even on the much wiser uncensored talk page. Surely, if little Toby poses a real threat to this Community, you can rely on a few of the other 19,999 active editors to discover the danger, explain it clearly, and man the barricades against the Toby Invasion. Meanwhile, you can take a well-deserved rest. Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 22:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm out, here's the deal 

message: :: Maybe it's simply the case that the overwhelming majority of editors don't see any value in some silly cartoon... what, exactly is Toby, a robot or a funny-animal?  that attempts to nag you about what images your mom doesn't think you should be seeing, or something like that.  Maybe they're "ill-informed" or "stupid" or whatever insults you want to throw, but that's what their opinion is, and it's certainly not going to change it to go in and unilaterally reopen the proposal every time it's marked as defeated. *Dan T.* 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming majority of editors have not spoken at all. Toby is a robot -- more correctly, an anthromorphic tool. Toby does not nag anybody; if you read the proposal, you'll have a better idea of what Toby is and does. The proposal will remain open as long as I draw breath, or until Somebody has the gray matter to actually erect some plausible objections and the Community has taken the opportunity to comment. — Xiong熊talk* 22:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army of One 

message: :copied from uncensored page
When I think what I was able to do with the demo, I start to thinking that we don't really need any sort of Community support to enable Toby. True, I began by planning Engine changes, to be implemented by the development team -- but that's so far-fetched a hope! Even if the whole Community got solidly behind Toby (as the Bridge over the River Styx froze over), when would the developers get around to it? It's not like we're paying them to work.
It's clear that Simple Toby can be implemented with nothing but a few lines of JavaScript, and that might be the most efficient implementation. Indeed, I've about convinced myself that Original Toby can be written in JavaScript, hitting an external Toby server. (The elegant way, to a fine point, would be to have the JS code hit the watchlist of User:Toby, but that username is already taken.) The only thing missing is the convenient sidebar link for the newcomer to the site, who will have to search for Aftermarket Toby and install it -- otherwise, all the same functionality will be available, including instant-on, instant-off, and of course the shared watchlist. 
Hell, if you throw me a few donuts, I could probably flange up even Custom Toby without any cooperation from the developer team -- the whole thing a JS bookmarklet, download it here. 
If you think about it, this is one reason why opposition to Toby really doesn't make any sense -- it's not as though anybody has the power to stop Toby from being -- or being used. 
The big advantage to Proposal Toby is security. With only one version of Toby running local to the server, Toby's watchlist has increased integrity. No chance of spying his watchlist or deleting items off it to advance any agenda. Although most Aftermarket Toby users will happily run the JS stock, there will be a subset of the user base (as always, the most creative, therefore the most unruly and mischeveous) who will hack Toby into a long line of bizarre variants. Naked Toby (replaces all images with Autofellatio), Commie Toby (changes all text instances of "Taiwan" to "the renegade province of"), Toby on Wheels (use your imagination!). None of these bother me as much as the possibility that an evil user will fiddle with Toby's watchlist directly, thus messing with other, Straight Toby users. 
That's a shame, because the obvious alternative is to have Toby hit an external server after all -- my external server -- which puts me in control of Toby's watchlist, which means you all have to trust me not to fool with it. Gee, I'm starting to like Proposal Toby better all the time.
— Xiong熊talk* 22:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that - as I've found out the hard way - user JavaScripts can't edit a page until the whole page (offensive content and all) has been loaded and displayed. I wish it would work, though. Copying to censored page. ~~ N (t/c) 23:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can simply hide everything with CSS (display: none or other tricks) and remove the rule from within the script after you made the changes you wanted to the page. --cesarb 01:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad scientist 

message: Toby was never a policy proposal, and I'm sorry I ever restored the proposed tag. I didn't put it there in the first place; Nickptar aka N did that. I was wrong to put it back -- indeed, I should have removed the proposed tag as soon as I saw it. To be completely honest, I simply wasn't paying attention; I was too busy explaining Toby over and over again. 
I concede that Toby is not a proposed policy! Never was! Don't bother to vote; YOU WIN. Toby is a concept for a tool, and does not require or even suggest that any editor do, or refrain from doing, anything. Indeed, the Toby concept has matured and grown through so many stages that it no longer looks as if developer attention will be sought. Toby is not policy, not a proposed policy, and certainly not a failed policy. Toby is in a completely different category from any of these. 
All meatball:VotingIsEvil, and it is especially evil and wrong to play with a "poll" here! For one thing, the poll concerns something that will not affect anyone who does not wish to participate; that is like 100 people standing out on my front lawn holding a vote to decide what Joe Blow will be permitted to eat for lunch. For another, the poll is rigged, since it's been instigated by detractors, all standing around waiting to throw in their black balls. For a third, it's pretty clear that none of the detractors have a clear idea what they are voting on, nor are they able to express any clear, honest, factual objection. 
Stop crapping on what you don't understand. Stop hoping the entire world is going to do as you like. Let others do as they will, right up to the point where they start crapping on your shoes. You may think we're crapping in our pants, but that's our right. 
At this point, congratulations! You have polluted Toby with all of the nasty, evil contention he offers to avert. This page has become worthless and you can all amuse yourself, dancing on the corpse. 
But this is not going to affect Toby at all. Toby will be built and released to the public anyway and there is not a damn thing anybody can do to screw that up. You can vote yourself blue in the face, but you will wake up some morning and Toby will be there -- not for you, so if you have any sense, you won't really care -- Toby will be there for those who want Toby only -- which has always been the point!
But then, if you could live with that, you wouldn't be crapping all over this page, would you? So I guess I will just have to entertain myself with the thought that when Toby is finally released, he will really annoy you all -- and there will not be one single thing you can do about it. 
Have a nice day! — Xiong熊talk* 07:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[meatball:VotingIsEvil]] 

message: This poll is to determine consensus, I have no opinion on Toby, (though I used to) and so when I protected it I was not out of line. There was some small edit war that would not end any time soon over  and . IMO the consensus was to reject vs. Xiong who thinks its still proposed. I guess we're also trying to save Xiong from work thats amazingly unneccisary as I can't think of too many people who would want Toby. So anyways let's take a poll...
===Rejected===
# Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll (yes polls are evil, but still) 

message: # Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected

message: I'm putting this poll back up. Polls are allowed to be used as a last resort, and aside from that, this particular one only states what has already been said. This is what "but still" refers to. Almost everyone here feels that the community rejects this particular proposal. I call it a proposal, for lack of a better term in compliance with you, because it would change an element of how Wikipedia works. People express consensus over how, or if, those elements should be implemented. If anyone supported Toby, they would have seen that the majority here does not support Toby and would have had even more reason to speak up. The people that express consensus over a proposal are supposed to be representative of the community as a whole. If you do not speak up, it can be assumed that you do not care, or, things seem to be going your way enough in the conensensus that you feel not the need to express your opinion. If you do not speak up, you have no voice. Currently only three people have supported Toby that I have seen. Only one seems to think that consensus from the community is not against it, or else wants it to be implemented regardless of consensus. With Toby, you seem completely against consensus, and, following that, ironically, the wiki way. Feel free to come to #wikipedia on the freenode server if you want a more live discussion. Toothpaste 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll removal

message: Please lift the protection:
1. The  tag is inappropriate, since castle-jumpers are monopolizing the discussion and excluding serious debate. This is a proposal, and a credible one, and obviously is going to take much more time to work itself into something useful to the Community. Nothing is gained by branding it as rejected, since unlike policy proposals, this is a design proposal -- it does not call for any editor action, cannot be cited to support or attack any editor's action. Toby does not attempt to set guidelines for editor's behavior; therefore there is no need to label the proposal in order to discourage editors from relying upon it. The only value of the tag is to attempt to strangle debate. 
The tag should be removed and replaced with , as before; or left untagged, as I wrote it; or tagged appropriately as an engine design feature request. In any case, intelligent discussion should be fostered, not suppressed. 
2. There has been considerable debate, but the proposal itself has not been edited. I prefer to allow other editors to implement changes directly, but as they have not done so, I intend shortly to rewrite the proposal itself to take note of its greatly expanded scope. The page in question -- as written -- is less a proposal of any kind, and more the type of text I intend for Help:Toby -- at some distant future time. 
At this point, there are actually three distinct variations of Toby under discussion: 
* Simple Toby;
* Original Toby; and
* Custom Toby
any of which can be implemented as: 
* Engine Toby; or
* Aftermarket Toby
This makes a total of six different approaches to a potentially questionable content display management solution. The proposal does need to be rewritten from scratch to reflect this. 
3. I will not belabor the fact that you and I have a personal feud going on -- nor do I wish to open that here. But this means it is inappropriate for you to take action in this matter. Having done so, I urge you either to step out of this conflict of interest, or do right. — Xiong熊talk* 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a powerful argument, and I agree with a lot of it. But that doesn't matter, consensus has ruled against you. There's a slow edit war between you (who is minding 3RR) and several others. I think at one time Nickptar was for Toby, but he seems against it now. Now, let me tell you the truth: I thought Zap was one of the stupidest things I've seen, but I don't mind Toby anymore. I know that it doesn't apply to anyone cept those who want it. But I think the reason so many are against this is that they can't think of anyone who would even use Toby. I have no opinion on Toby nowadays, and I protected it from a neutral view. If you get a conensus of some sort, I'll be watching its talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: From what I have seen, I haven't seen too many Toby supporters. And locking the page as is is the protected policy, I'm just trying to stop an edit war, really. If you wanna work on improving Toby, copy the source to a subpage of your own and edit it, and the result will be added when its unprotected. There's a straw poll being taken on toby's talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Here was my intention of the poll: if one person, just one respectable editor, who's not you, thinks its proposed, I would change the tag to state as such. If we had just one person willing to use Toby, I would not mind. However, you are alone. You are the lone wolf posting  vs. the many posting . I know about Toby and I know that it doesn't affect those who don't want it. But no one wants it! So find a respectable editor willing to use Toby, and we will make Toby . And sorry for taking so long to respond, my power was out. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[User talk:Redwolf24#[[Wikipedia:Toby]]]] 

message: what is this?  --68.49.32.245 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  O_O