Wikipedia talk:No factions of belief

message: # I wrote and support this policy, because I think it is necessary to deal with divisive behavior, while allowing limited expressions of personal belief and encouraging groups sharing an interest in particular topics.--Eloquence* 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements of support 

message: #everytime a new policy is proposed god kills a kitten. please think of the kittens.Geni 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections

message: This proposed policy is indistinguishable from the long-standing "User Box Wars" only with a prettier name.  Rklawton 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to a specific policy it is indistinguishable from? If so, could you point it out? Note that this policy refers to any method of forming factions, not just userboxes.-Eloquence* 04:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I am not referring to a specific policy but to the barrage of arguments for and against user boxes frequently referred to as "User Box Wars."  The policy as described here appears to apply to pretty much anything that identifies a user as belonging to a faction.  I take it this includes certain categories, images, descriptions, and code-words.  Rklawton 04:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, however, only factions of belief are concerned. For example, community groups which merely articulate or enforce existing policies, such as WP:CVU or Wikipedia:Esperanza, are not affected. Do you think this is sufficiently clear from the current wording?--Eloquence* 04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  Yes, it is sufficiently clear.  But, as in my case, I overlooked this clear distinction as soon as I connected "factions" with "user boxes" in my mind.  Even though the proposed policy is very clearly worded, the proposal may cause a similar reaction with others (or not).  Rklawton 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tried to clarify it a bit in the intro. Does that help?--Eloquence* 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the original was fine.  The new version works, too.  The problem I had (but hopefully no one else) is that my brain changed gears as soon as I made the User Box connection.  Rklawton 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't think anyone should be hunted down. I hope that where possible, we can facilitate the transformation of factions of belief into groups working on shared interests. And I tried to make it clear that people are free to state their beliefs, just that they should try not to group around them. Furthermore, Meta is listed as a legitimate place for belief communities to form.--Eloquence* 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds a bit utopian:  a great idea on paper, but not practical in many cases.  Rklawton 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmh, utopian? Kind of like bringing people from all cultures together to create the single largest source of human knowledge, and giving it away for free? ;-) You're right, of course: We can't legislate away all sources of conflict and division -- but I think a generic policy like this could at least eliminate some of them.--Eloquence* 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'd love to support Eloquence; it's a beautiful idea. Alas, in practice it won't work, and I fear that it will just provide a stick for one side in a POV conflict to use to beat the other side. Runcorn 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you give me an example scenario? The proposal only deals with permanent, identifiable factions, not with groups of editors who happen to agree or disagree in a particular case.--Eloquence* 06:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People will say that editors they don't like are part of permanent factions, and will concoct a case. It's not difficult to do that.--Runcorn 22:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: Why not make it say factions of belief are discouraged, rather than banning them?  It's not like we can boot someone for their factional beliefs if they follow policy, anyways.--Urthogie 13:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing the policy prohibits are factions organized within Wikipedia using tools like categories, membership lists, and so on. It does not prohibit using Meta for the same purpose, or any other wiki. I think that is reasonable.--Eloquence* 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  But doesn't the name suggest that factions of belief aren't acceptable, period?  It's called "no factions of belief", which suggests that its not only categories and lists which are the problem.  I happen to agree with you on categories and lists, by the way.--Urthogie 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The policy refers to identifiable factions within Wikipedia. Do you think that could be made clearer somehow?--Eloquence* 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But wikipedians aren't supposed to be divided. We are one in our beliefs. Ansell Review my progress! 10:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a communnist country that bans religion because it doesn't help the state.--Urthogie 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds more like a government which bans government-supported religious groups because it doesn't help the govenment. Wikipedia is not the world - groups can still happen outside. 131.111.226.61 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct; wikipedia isn't the world, its an encyclopedia-- something which aims to document the world.  Factions of belief are part of the world-- excluding them is like saying they're antithetical to our mission, which isn't necessarily the case.  Also, I don't follow your metaphor because these factions aren't wikipedia-"supported" factions-- they're merely groups that people belong to in real life.  Peace, --Urthogie 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Multiple commentators have been unclear as to whether this is about userboxes.  I suggest making it clear whether it is or isn't.  I think you'll have an easier time gaining consensus if it isn't.  I'd also suggest, having been one of those analyzing vote-stacking evidence presented at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates, that I'd be happy to support a guideline or policy saying that lists and users of categories based on factions are inappropriate and unacceptable.  Please let me know when the next major draft is available so I can chime in on that.  GRBerry 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too strict 

message: Yes, a user can go to a category (:Category:Christian Wikipedians or what-have-you) and ask everyone in that category to go and vote on an AfD. Personally, I give more credit to the Christians on Wikipedia. Here is an example (this one really happened):
:# A user decides that he doesn't like the notable Steven Levitt (disagrees with him, thinks he's a heretic, whatever).
:# He goes and AfD's it (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Levitt (2nd nomination))
:# He then informs people from :Category:Christian Wikipedians that we can all delete this heretic's article from Wikipedia (see )
:# The user that gets spammed doesn't care about the article's subject but sees it's notable so (a) votes speedy keep (see , ) or (b) closes the AfD as speedy keep (see )
Personally, I don't buy the votestacking thing. In this case, we saved quite a few of needless votes. I certainly trust Wikipedians to vote with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Regards, --Celestianpower háblame 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A  short comment on votestacking