Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: One Two

Contents 1 Free Press vs Respect, Factionalism, Copyright, Servers 2 Human nature 3 Protest 4 Seriously 5 The thing that frustrates me the most 6 rejected 7 My $0.02 8 No categories 9 The way forward 10 Pathoschild's suggestion 11 Userboxes are the new Thomas a Becket? 12 First Google goes evil, now this... 13 My rule 14 The policy is now in action 15 I'm out 16 Pathoschild's policy proposal 16.1 Comments 17 Categories and templates on user pages (including in boxes) 18 Controversial change - no images or transclusion 19 Straw poll on new policy 19.1 Support 19.2 Oppose 19.3 Abstain 20 Redundancy between templated userboxes and disclosure of POV 21 this "userbox burning campaign" is running out of control 22 Technical Solution. 23 UBX cats are a must 24 Concerns, point-by-point 25 UBX as images? 26 POV 27 Proposed Policy 28 Recent removals 29 Should the text of a userbox be changed months after it's created? 30 The most pointless debate ever 31 Further Proposal 32 Issue with principle B 33 A note 34 Preventing personal POV in userboxes is neither feasible nor conducive to community 35 Why we should keep userboxes 36 There is no such thing as a NPOV

[edit] Free Press vs Respect, Factionalism, Copyright, Servers

It sounds like the major issues are: Respect for Others, Factionalism, Copyright, and Server Usage.

In terms of respect, I believe that so long as a userbox does not exhibit negativism nor contain offensive content that would not normally be allowed as part of a user page, the userbox should be allowed to stay. They are just a part of a userpage, and really do not need content regulation. For organization reasons, it is clearly quite difficult to maintain a directory of userbox templates, but the community seems to be handling it just like we handle other problems such as stub sorting, and infoboxes. So in terms of organization we need to maintian the directory of userboxes, but I don't think this requires an extensive policy.

In terms of factionalism: A userbox is just a template for inserting Wiki markup quickly and synonymously accross pages, it is no different then saying the same thing or writing the Wiki markup on your page itself. I do not believe that identifying yourself - your language, your passions, your beliefs - causes factionalism within a professional project. I do not read a person's user page before reading their edits, rather I read their edits and perhaps their user page. Even in disputes I do not think that we judge based upon who a user is. Understanding each other clearly, where we came from and what we believe, often makes it much easier to resolve disputes. Many conflicts both in our day to day lives and globally would be much easier to resolve if the parties truly understood each other.

As for the issue of copyright, there is concern, copyrighted items cannot be used on Wikipedia if the copyright owner does not release them. However this dispute has centered largely around political parties, which are not a good indicator, as these organization want positive press everywhere. The bottom line though is that copyrighted material cannot be a part of wikipedia outside of fair use. Whether logos of political organizations fall under fair use is a seperate issue and is irrelevant to the larger discussion of userboxes.

Finally, server usage: Some facts might be merited here that only admins and above have access to. Do the Mediawiki servers spend a lot of CPU time rendering user pages? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Regardless, userboxes themselves are not really the issue here, but rather the size of userpages in general. Again, this is a seperate isssue that relates more widely to user pages in general and should be discussed elsewhere.

I hope we can resolve this in a professional manner. --Matthew 03:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue with factionalism is that userboxes make it easier for those who have a factionalized mindset to enage in factionalizing actions. For instance, they can recruit votes/comments/reverters simply by seeing who, for instance, has a relevant userbox. Michael Ralston 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And by doing so, they render themselves ineligible to participate if it becomes controversial, for they have declared themselves to be non-neutral. Jamesday 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User page resource consumption is not going to be significant. Those are not what people go searching for or finding. If it's not being looked at much it's unlikely to be a problem, ever. Please do take care not to write "copyrighted" when you really mean "copyright infringing". Jamesday 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The main factionalism problem is with userboxes in their current format ie as templates (whether in template space e.g. {{user ExamplePOV}} or as a subpage e.g. {{User:Cynical/ExamplePOV}}) is that they can easily be used for faction-based vote-stuffing (by using the 'what links here' on the template). If the only allowed way to use a userbox was by copying the raw code (ie <div>...</div>) into a userpage (and images were not allowed for the same What Links Here reason) then people would still be able to express themselves without dividing all WP debates into faction-based camps (e.g. the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia deletion debate) Cynical 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human nature

It's human nature to form groups of all sizes and for all sorts of purposes. It's also our nature to signify our membership in groups by wearing and displaying symbols. Each of us tends to belong to more than one group and some groups themselves belong to larger ones; thus each of us bears many marks of membership.

Group purposes vary and are oftimes at odds with other groups; sometimes they are destructive to all of us. Signs and symbols all are harmless in themselves; but people invest them with meaning, making them powerful. It is not possible to conceive of a human society that does not engage in group behavior or the display of symbols.

Every society suppresses subgroups that threaten the larger group; and so their symbols. It has occurred to many great leaders that their positions and agendas would be secure if only all competing groups and subgroups could be eliminated; and all symbols replaced with a single standard behind which all must march.

This political system is called fascism. John Reid 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What, you didn't get the memo? Wikipedia is now under the direct control of the Wikepdia Fascist Directing Committee. Any expression of individuality is verboten. For these thugs, Wikipedia is everything, the Wikipedians are nothing.

MSTCrow 10:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

All hail Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Where do I get my freedom fries by the way? Bi 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that i see no point in this mass destruction of userboxes. Their is nothing wrong with them. I agree wikipedia should not be my space but userboxes just make it more enjoyable to have a user page and to display random information regarding yourself. Isnt their such a thing as freedom of expession anymore or is Wikipedia the online China? Tutmosis 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey MSTCrow and Tutmosis, can you tell us what life was like during the time when you and your family were locked in torture rooms and rape chambers for failing to obey Big Brother Jimbo? I'm doing a research project on this subject in order to alert the world to the great evil that lurks behind the face of Wikipedia, so it'll be great if you can help me here. If not, I perfectly understand; the horrors of seeing your freedom-loving comrades summarily shot and hanged by the Evil Wikipedia Secret Police are impossible to simply forget. Bi 19:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't very pleasant. Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum don't apply at all here, as Nazism was national socialist, not fascist. Are you trolling...?

MSTCrow 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just exercising my Nature-given right to free speech. Bi 10:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to raise the spooks of Goebbles &co here. Fascism is the technical term for a system of social organization that attempts to suppress all subgroups and their symbols and uphold a single group and symbol: Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. It's notable that fascist movements invariable concentrate heavily on symbols. So do other political movements; but fascists are remarkable for the degree to which they exclude all competing symbols.

I do not begin to suggest that anyone is in danger of brownshirts in the night. But it is clear that many UBX opponents feel their worst effect is to permit users to identify themselves as members of groups which are not The Group; to display symbols which are not The Symbol.

Interested users may wish to display {{User Totalbox}}. John Reid 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are an idiot. Bi 08:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I shall take that comment, in context, as a compliment. John Reid 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protest

I propose a peaceful protest against this wikipedian war against indentity. I propose all should clear user pages to demonstate what wikipedia would enjoy better: clone, secretive users or expessive users who are not afraid to show their pov. No one reads a userboxes as a source of npov information so i see no point what all this talk is about npov issue of userboxes. Tutmosis 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Go for it. And make sure to clean every last userbox off your page to really stick it to the man. Hell, if everyone did this, our problems would be solved. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I did!. Im glad I helped solve your problem of the human expression epidemic. Tutmosis

Oh no! Has Tutmosis been secretly executed by the Evil Gestapo during this time? Help! Bi 19:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely oppose this policy and would like it killed, thank you. --Z.Spy 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bi, stop being a proponent of Godwin's Law. Stop trolling.

MSTCrow 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MSTCrow, for exposing the true nefarious agenda of those "free speech on Wikipedia" advocates such as yourself. When you offend people it's free speech, but when I offend people it's trolling. Which rape chamber will you lock me up in, by the way? Bi 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Better protest, put lot's of userboxes on your page.--God of War 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Even better. Subst all your userboxes! That'll show the bastards! --05:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously

I mean, Userpages should NOT be part of the NPOV policy so as long as these boxes are on USERPAGES, it should be perfectly okay. Drahcir ^{my talk} 02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The thing that frustrates me the most

... is that I don't think userboxes should be in template space. But instead of simply laying that down as a policy and giving people 30 days to scoot their boxes over onto their user pages, or finding some other solution to the issue, a vague policy is being used to slash and burn user boxes. So here I find myself, arguing against the deletion of userbox templates, not because I think they should be in the article template space, but because there is no reason in the current policy, even with CSD T1 (under my interpretation of it, which, of course differs from the next guy's, and thet next guy's, and...), that many of these templates should be deleted.

If the problem is user templates in encyclopedia space, pass a policy that As of 15 March, all POV userboxes will be removed from template space. But instead, userboxes are getting cut down for no amazingly good reason, causing strife and destroying good will toward the project and each other. The worst part of this, more than the deletion of lines of code (which are easily replicated again, locally, on user pages) is finding myself bickering with good editors who have added excellent content to this encyclopedia. But because we disagree about the application of this CSD, we squabble, and I have no doubt are tempted to abandon the assumption of good faith.

All of us, on every side of this issue, should demand better policy. JDoorjam Talk 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. In the mean time, maybe the current borked policy will encourage everyone to put in code old-school and get on with their lives. Alternatively, if they're too lazy to do it themselves, we can try to do it for them... for a fee. :-) Bi 10:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been sitting on the fence on this one because I haven't seen anyone else taking the 'side' that I am on: there's nothing wrong with the content of userboxes on a user's own page, I fully support freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But templates are tools to create articles, and categories are tools to make finding content in a very large encyclopedia easier. I don't believe templates should be used as pigeonholes to describe users, nor should categories be used to categorize users. Everyone is different from everyone else, and have the right to say so, but when they are lumped together with others of similar but not identical viewpoint, who then claim to speak for everyone in that category, their individual rights are eroded. As I see it, deleting userboxes violates free speech rights, but using templates and categories to implement userboxes is just as bad, especially since it creates a lot of irrelevant cruft in the namespace intended to write articles (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). I guess I would be happiest if all userbox templates and the associated categories were first expanded as code into all the pages that use them, and then completely wiped from Wikipedia, with a policy against creating any new ones. Aumakua 03:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll? I think you will find that to your liking. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rejected

I've removed the {{rejected}} tag as I don't think it's appropriate. Note I also didn't put the original proposed box back. I put in a very small note saying that it was a discussion. I think it's premature to say (unilaterally) that it is rejected (as it is premature for me to say that it is policy). No harm intended. aa v ^ 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I added to the wording to point out the controversial nature of the proposal, and linked to the debate. I agree that it hasn't been rejected (especially as Jimbo effectively duct-taped it in there), but with that said, if this policy were a donated kidney, with all of the anger and inflammation it's caused so far... I'd be worried that we're approaching the "R" word. (I know, Cyde, you hate metaphors used as arguments; I hope you'll humor me.) JDoorjam Talk 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been rejected by the community. There's a need for a UBX policy but it must be rewritten from scratch. Tempers are too high and feelings too strong for this to be accepted. Let it go, and let's move on. John Reid 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My $0.02

Wikipedia owes its existence to those of us who day in and day out create new articles, add to existing articles, fix articles, administer Wikipedia, etc. Without us, the users, Wikipedia would not exist (or it would, as three pages by some unknown guy named Jimbo). But thanks to the Wikipedians, the English Wikipedia is close to having one million articles. This project has received much press, some bad, but much good. Given that we, the Wikipedia community, are responsible for the success of this project, is it too much to ask that we derive some fun and pleasure through it? We are asking little here. In exchange for helping this encyclopedia evolve into what it is today, we would like a tiny bit of space on some computer servers to tell the world who we are and to express some opinions (outside the encyclopedi article space). This does not seem like an unreasonable request.

To those who claim that userboxes are devisive and waste time, I must point out that more time is being wasted in this fruitless debate that is spent on creating userboxes and adding them to user pages. What has caused the most division here is when certain admins. have decided that they can use their power to do whatever they want and to thrust their own POV upon the Wikipedia community. This is not the first issue on which this has happened and as long as human nature continues to be what it is, it will not be the last time. --Nelson Ricardo 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Nelson Ricardo. I could not have summed it up better. Thanks for your well put opinion. Unlike wikipedia i enjoy seeing user harmless pov. Tutmosis 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your arithmetic is flawed. Even if you do make real contributions to Wikipedia, you're at the same time also benefitting from contributions of other editors, when you use Wikipedia to look up information you aren't familiar with (or do you never do that? honestly?), so in that sense your contributions are already repaid many times over even before you plaster your first slogan on your user page. Try again. Bi 10:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

True. (But people who contribute nothing benefit, too.) I did not get into the whole subject of community building, which I suppose I should have mentioned. Not factions, but community. Peopple get to know one another by knowing about each other. User boxes just facilitate people sharing information about themselves. In the real, non-Wiki world, I have co-workers who are devout Christians, some who are Muslim, some vegetarians, some who like meat. I myself am a gay lapsed-Catholic omnivore. Despite all of our differences we manage to get along. Any time there are disgreements, it has to do with the work. Real-world politics, religion, orientation are not brought into work-related disagreements. We respect each other's differences and people are not afraid to tell coworkers that they are Catholic or protestant or Irish or Italian or what-have-you. --Nelson Ricardo 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your points would also be useful if not for the fact that the people that contribute the most articles and improvements to articles have much fewer userboxes. The people that have the most userboxes and userbox related edits contribute far fewer useful article edits on average. People don't need userboxes to have fun or contribute to the project. We had lots of fun when there were none of them. They're simply not what this project is for, and there are plenty of longstanding policy pages that support that. In fact this was a much more enjoyable place to contribute before a vocal minority decided it was their inalienable right to make a template to express anything they want on their userpage. Is it too much to ask that people focus on building the encyclopedia and leave their personal views to their private homepage/myspace/livejournal, etc? Any marginally talented editor doesn't need a userbox to know POV when they see it in an edit. Edits should be judged on their merits. In short there is simply no net value to having userboxes. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time here because the vocal minority is unlikely to be swayed from their position no matter how obvious it is their position is not helping the project. - Taxman ^Talk 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also couldn't agree more with Nelson Ricardo. Userboxes are a bit of fun, an opportunity to find some like-minded people in the community, a chance to express yourself in a convenient and visually pleasing way, and something that does no harm at all, as far as I can see. As an editor, I have not been more likely to pander to points of view that I have anyway, just because some of them are expressed on my userpage. Nor has putting a few templates on my userpage made me lazy; if anything, it's made the project more fun to be involved in, and made me more enthusiastic about it.

I'm pissed off that I now see that some of my (small number of) userboxes have disappeared in the last few days with no consultation at all with me, and that I now find myself wasting time and energy worrying about this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I see no need for the actions that have been taken here, I believe they harm the community, and I object to them. Metamagician3000 07:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out below -- please, at least read what other people wrote before you jump to conclusions -- the ability to "find some like-minded people" is precisely a problem: it facilitates things like vote-stuffing. No matter what you believe or don't believe, this is a real problem: such a thing has happened before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it... but something's indeed broke. Bi 19:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens I'm supporting the policy. For various reasons I do think it's untenable to keep these political etc userboxes in template space forever, and I acknowledge that there had apparently been one or two annoying bushfires involving the use of templates to organise votes, or whatever. But there was no reason for the pre-emptive action that was taken, which caused much upset. It was not "broke" for me as one of the zillion users not involved in the abovementioned bushfires. I was perfectly happily editing real articles in good faith before I noticed that my userpage had been changed without my knowledge, and I then had to work out what had happened because no one had consulted with me or even informed me. My userpage just suddenly changed without explanation.

This whole deal could have been handled much better. E.g. there could have been widespread consultation on the need to ultimately get userboxes out of template space into userspace. A date could have been set by which it would be done, some months in the future, and a process of substitution could have been adopted in the meanwhile. This would have required developing policy, but I'm sure that a policy similar to the one now being voted on would have been agreed widely if the whole issue had been handled sensitively.

I can see nothing to suggest that something is "broke" in any serious sense. But I do realise that there have been some minor problems (in the scheme of things) with having userboxes in template space, and that if it had been allowed to continue and increase it could ultimately have given the public a wrong impression of the encyclopedia. To that extent, I can see the need for a policy that gradually shifts templates into userspace. But nothing was so "broke" as to justify a sudden, unannounced purging of userboxes containing religious viewpoints, including such things as one of my userboxes (which has since been restored) that said I understand the theory of biological evolution. If something like this exercise had happened at a real-world workplace, I can assure you from years of experience in labour relations work that the employer concerned would have had a major dispute on its hands and a very radicalized workforce thereafter. You just don't make change by sudden, unannounced action. As I always advised employer clients, you must do so according to a timetable, with full consultation, transitional arrangements, and appropriate protections of people's interests to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the change sought. Read the change management article to get an idea of what is involved. None of that was done. The actual policy proposal does attempt to do some of this, but it was put forward only after sudden, unannounced action had already upset many people.

I don't understand why some people still want to deny this and defend what was done. I'm sure that if a few people just swallowed their pride, put up their hands, and sincerely said "Sorry! We made a big mistake!" a lot of the heat would go out of this issue and the past could be forgotten. That would give what is actually a quite sensible policy, which I have indeed voted for, a much better chance of general acceptance. I'm amazed to see some people still being downright aggressive towards users who are upset, rather than showing understanding of their hurt and concern.

Conversely, none of the above takes away the fact the policy proposal itself is quite good. People who are voting against it out of hurt and anger really should look at it on its merits and give it their vote, even though I understand how they feel. Metamagician3000 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Nelson Ricardo on this one. I do my best to make decent edits and a little bit of fun is all I ask in return. Do the userboxes take up loads of server space? No? Then I say, 'Don't Be A Dick'. Let us enjoy ourselves a little. Yes we also get a benefit educationally, but frankly a bit of fun doesn't go amiss, no-one cares about POV on userpages and it's just pedantic and boring to stop people from prettying up otherwise fairly dull pages. VJ Emsi 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No categories

It is of many people's opinions that userboxes should not contain categories, the reason being that it helps group Wikipedians into various factions. Also, categories are in the main space, not user space, and shouldn't be used for silliness like, "Wikipedians who play clarinet at an expert level". And finally, categories are just ugly ... when people have lots of userboxes the bottom rows of their userpage become an endless list of categories. Is there consensus on this? --Cyde Weys 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories are in their own namespace, not the article namespace -- just as are templates. Alai 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that the Category namespace was originally made to help categorize articles in the main articlespace, you know, helping the original purpose of building the encyclopedia. The use of categories to group users by various attributes is silly, unencyclopedic, potential to abuse, self-referential, and it really does harm the quality of the Wiki. Remember, the list of all the categories (from A to Z) is available directly on the main page. A good portion of curious Wikipedia users just browse randomly through categories, looking for things that catch their interest. Now when a lot of those categories are unencyclopedic user nonsense, that's a bad thing. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-namespace-specific use is pretty well-established, though, so the "main space" statement is both not technically correct, and confusing in practice. Aside from the "good" userboxes, it's used endemically for the Wikipedia namespace. The terminology of "self-references" being used outwith application to the article space is very strange, and I wish we'd get rid of all such Zondorisms clutterly up meta-pages, framing things in such terms. Meta-content isn't inherently good or bad in itself, the question is whether it ultimately benefits the actual content. That's a judgement call, and one that's not going to be straightforwardly framed in terms of namespace issues (though that might bring a certain amount of clarity to the remaining issues, that are currently being obscured by such considerations). It's a further judgement call as to how much meta-meta-harm it's reasonable to incur in getting rid of actual and possible meta-harm. Alai 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories are automatically generated and usable as red links, and go blue when someone describes what the category is for... but there's no amazingly good way, short of removing them one by one from people's pages of eliminating categories. And I don't want to get into the aesthetics business; "ugliness" of a user page isn't hugely compelling to me. The "faction" argument is the only one I think I agree with, and one that is often brought up for categories and template userboxes. When have categories and userboxes been used to recruit people? How often does that happen? JDoorjam Talk 13:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia for one instance of userboxes/categories being used for recruiting POV-pushing. There are some links to earlier instances in that article. This is a relatively new phenomena, so it's not a question of how often it happens, but of stopping it before it becomes the norm. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich also used Christian user categories and userbox templates to organize a massive vote on a series of twelve articles that were up for deletion. It caused a huge mess and eventually ended up in an RFC and a currently ongoing RFAr. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. "Wikipedians who play clarinet at an expert level" looks pretty benign to me, unless there's some holy war going on involving clarinets that I don't know about. But if there's a reasonable uniform policy that accidentally excludes these, then I won't exactly be complaining. Bi 10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the eternal, bitter POV struggle between the brass and woodwind sections. I think the uniformity is a very important point. Ideally I'd like a policy that there's a genuine bottom-up consensus for (give or take some prodding), but at the least we should we end up with is a crisply-defined criterion, that doesn't depend on hopelessly subjective (and self-applicable) judgements like "divisiveness". Thus if it happens to be something like "get this crap out of the category and template namespaces", that's nice and simple and easily applied. (Leaving us with in theory no worse issues than we have at present with people voting to keep the guidelinewise unkeepable, and not rename the clearly NC-noncompliant (or vice versa in either case).) If we instead end up with the top-down imposition of a policy, which in turns depends on a top-down case--by-case implementation, people will be antagonised far more thsn need be. Alai 13:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy should be "Get this crap out of the category and template namespaces." That's a very reasonable policy, and reserves those two for what they were originally intended for anyway, categorizing and templatizing the main encyclopedia content. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding WP:BEANS, I won't go into the details that I foresee. However, if users want to group on a particular pov, they will. There are many ways to do this. If there is a technical hurdle (perhaps not), making categories in user boxes forbidden may help. If there is an organizational hurdle (e.g., the use of Category: for user purposes), perhaps making available a User_Category: namespace would help. I really think this argument is something of a paper tiger. ... aa:talk 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a separate Category namespace for users is that there really is no reason for users to be categorizing themselves in the first place. And your argument about, "This can always be circumvented, so why bother", is flawed. Let me offer an analogy: do you lock the doors to your home? Why? Thieves can always just break into your windows. And there's no point in covering your window with iron bars because thieves can always just cut through them with a gas torch, right? You see where I'm going with this? You shouldn't give up security/prevention mechanisms because they aren't 100% effective, because none of them are 100% effective, and in the end you're left with no security rather than decent security. If removing categories and userbox templates gets rid of most of the user factionalizing and recruiting, which it sounds like it will, it should be done. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessarily correct. The major difference is I can facilitate categorization with four lines of perl on wikipedia (again, beans). However, if you were to break into my home, I'd happily shoot you. So the comparison isn't valid. It's trivially easy for me to "break" wikipedia, and trivially easy for somebody to break into my home. However, the stakes are entirely different for the two. Removing all the userboxes will only result in users who hate those who removed them. Even if they're in the minority, they are in the vocal, activist minority. And no, nobody is holding wikipedia hostage, but we owe it to ourselves to come to a compromise. ... aa:talk 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason why someone can't just "happily shoot" the screaming minority. Bi 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The way forward

I think, in the end, we need a policy that says "30 days from 14:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (or whenever), all templates will be deleted from template space. You may move those templates to your user page by subst'ing them. If you cannot subst them, go here and you will find a list of Wikipedians who will gladly help pack your little boxes in slightly bigger boxes and move them over to your user page. This policy is about cleaning out template space and is NOT a judgment on the content of any userboxes."

After that, the policy is that Babel boxes and expertise boxes (e.g., "This user is an expert on Ancient Rome." "This user has expertise in dendrochronology.") are the only ones allowed in template space. We could even make a special template to put at the top of article talk pages that says "For Wikipedians with experience/expertise/interest in this field, please see this Category."

OPTIONAL: We set up some sort of code library where users can put message boxes. Someone can appoint themselves userbox code librarian (you know someone will quickly step forward) and organize the code. They won't be templates, mind you. If people want to go in and get the code, or, yes, tweak the archived copies, so be it. It wouldbevery easy to elete truly offensive userboxes: just go in and remove the code. If someone was too hasty in that deletion, it's just as easy to put them back. No cries of admin abuse.

And there. All POV userboxes are out of template space, with no campaign to delete them. The templates still in template space are useful, as are their categories. Everybody wins, we all go grab a beer, Jimbo buys the first round.

P.S. If this is adopted, I will craft a "I helped negotiate the Userbox Armistice of 2006" userbox (outside of template space....) as a parting gift to all of you. -JD

Using what seems to be other means to get your way proves that either you are a moral coward or a liar. If you want to delete user boxes, say you want them gone. Don't create some bizarre excuse to get rid of them. User pages are for user information. The discussion we should be having is to whether or not user pages should exist. There's pros and cons. Just like there are pros and cons with userboxes. Yes, people can POV push with them, but just because something has a con that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. If that were true, no self-respecting woman would enter into marriage with a man who tend to come with more than one con. -- Jbamb 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I find your arguments nonsensical. A lot of us really and truly do want the unencyclopedic nonsense restricted to userspace only and moved out of the category and template namespaces entirely. We're certainly not "moral cowards" or "liars". --Cyde Weys 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea and it's along the lines of something Pathoschild and I have been pushing for a few days now. I guess we have to wait for Jimbo's response on this one. --Cyde Weys 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathoschild's suggestion

I felt it would be good to link to this proposal (pardon if it has been discussed already): User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy. Please discuss it on that page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That proposed policy seems very sensible and is gathering support. Would anyone mind if I archive the current policy page (which is basically just a list of obstacles to be overcome in producing a policy) and, with Pathoschild's permission, move his proposal in its place? I think it deserves to be taken seriously as the beginning of a solution, and it seems to be compatible with Jimbo's wishes as well as guaranteeing free expression. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The current page was actually a restart (there's an earlier archive). I'm not sure I agree that it's just a list of obstacles, the lists provide useful background. I'm also not sure that a wholesale drop in is the way to go here, some more delicate surgery may be called for. But I do agree that what Pathoschild is doing does seem a way out. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On an historical note, it should be pointed out that the earlier archive of specific proposals contains a proposal by User:Doc glasgow. This proposal, Proposal #12, is the core of the Pathoschild proposal. So, after about a month, it looks like we're coming back full circle, but hopefully a bit more conciliatory this time around. — Jeff | (talk) | 23:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this? We make a copy of the Pathoschild proposal and place it at the top of the policy page, and we edit it and discuss. The concerns below (ie the sections already on the page now) will acts as a reference--we can see how well the proposal answers the significant expressed concerns, and modify it to see if we can get a broad consensus. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, IMHO. I think the concerns never got a vetting as to which were reasonable and broadly enough stated not to be nits so that exercise might also crisp up the concerns a bit... thanks for the compromise suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've copied it into the top of the page and left a pointer on Pathoschild's page. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the proposed policy as shown here. However, I have one problem with it: For example, 'user Christian theology' but not 'user Christian believer', 'user abortion' but not 'pro-life', or 'scientology article editor' but not pro- or anti-. How does one express the opposite of 'user abortion'? (just using this one because that's what's currently in the proposal)

It seems to me that if one side of a particular stance is able to express that view, the other side should be able to as well. I'm sure someone will pop out of the woodwork and say, "That's divisive!" but that's not the point. If someone can have a userbox (in template space or otherwise) that expresses a certain opinion, then the opposite should be allowed as well. Perhaps someone can come up with a non-confrontational way of saying "user no abortion"? --日本穣 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's properly not named "user Abortion"... the full name would be "user interested in the abortion controversy" or "user interested in the pro life/pro choice" controversy, with the opposite "user not interested in X" but there's really no need for any of the opposites now, leave off the "interested in" if you are not interested. That's my take anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the "No images in userboxes" bit that was just added [1]. --日本穣 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes are the new Thomas a Becket?

This reminds me of the tale of Thomas Becket. After the King of England muttered his famous complaint about the Archbishop, perhaps accompanied by some gesture that was a little more abrupt than the King intended, a couple or so of his overzealous knights proceeded, without any further ado, to act upon his utterance, as if they had royal instruction to do so. You know the rest of the story. Of course the king was full of regret after it was too late. 70.105.23.197 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen. —Nightstallion (?) 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Google goes evil, now this...

Please, end the censorship. If you axe the userboxes, i'll just type up a long essay of beliefs in place of it. Coolgamer 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that's permitted. Hell, I did it (although I should probably remove it because it doesn't achieve anything) when one of the userboxes I used was deleted. And I don't even like userboxes that much. Lord Bob 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes please get rid of those userboxes and replace them with an essay. An essay expressing your opinions and POVs served Wikipedia quite well for a long time. This isn't about censorship. BrokenSegue 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of principle. Having all my opinions summed up instead of having to type them out, and also being able to find others using the same userbox, thereby making more friends and connections, and you want to take all of that away. It's a social aspect. Coolgamer 03:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So, connecting socially is more important to you than keeping Wikipedia NPOV? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury may have phrased it poorly, but... he's got a point. The ability to "find others using the same userbox" is at least part of the problem. It makes "vote stuffing" and other forms of POV-pushing far, far easier. Michael Ralston 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My rule

I'm sorry I didn't read most of the discussion here. I don't have time. Here's my proposed solution to the userbox problem.

1. To remain in the template namespace a template must directly aid the project.
   • This includes but is not limited to:
   • Babel language boxes (makes it easy to find people by language)
   • admin box or arbcom box (makes it easier to identify users for help)
   • boxes expressing level of knowledge in wikisyntax and other relevant formats (tables, style sheets, js, python etc)
2. All humorous templates must be subst'd in and the template version wiill be deleted. Local copies are allowed, but not the template. Come on people, why steal someone else's jokes. It really isn't funny if 1000 people have it on their page. If you really want it copy and paste it from their userpage.
3. All political/divisive templates should be deleted and in their place people should write up their opinions in essay form (or as a bulleted list). This will prove more useful and less divisive.
4. All other templates (sexuality, hair color, instrument skill, dance skill, favorite games, etc.) are too be deleted and users may (if they want) type it up as text.

The main issues here for me are:

• The waste of the Foundation's money, no matter how little, is not good
• The boxes create a divisive atmosphere (even their divisiveness is divisive, so you can't argue with me there)
• The boxes waste users time and cause users to leave the project (I could be RC patrolling right now, but I'm not)
• The boxes makes it take longer to load user pages (especially if I'm using a modem and especially if there are lots of pictures).
• The boxes could potentially confuse users who might somehow end up at userpages and think that the templates represent policy or official wikipedia policy (potentially) or at least make Wikipedia look childish and non-professional.

For me this userbox movement is the same as the cruft movement (let's have an article for every character in this show that lasted 5 episodes, yes I saw that) and it annoys me. People try to waste wiki resources on thing because "the effect of any one box or article is so trivial, we have infinite space". Just because we can store everything doesn't mean we should. BrokenSegue 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

.

I think the argument of conserving Wikipedia resources that you brought up at the end of your post is a very important one to keep in mind. What actually is a Wikipedia resource, though?

• The most basic argument would be that bandwidth and storage are resources. But user pages are generally considered to be permissive territory, inasmuch as NPOV material that doesn't really contribute to the Wikipedia project can be included there, within reason. It's already been decided (perhaps by custom rather than by policy) that bandwidth and storage can be used in semi-frivolous ways on user pages, because the impact when compared to the Wikipedia as a whole is negligible.
• Another argument might be that the time and labor of Wikipedians is a resource. When talking about objects like articles, templates, etc., a large amount of time is spent managing POV issues, sometimes in a purely wasteful fashion (e.g., revert wars). One might argue that Wikipedians that get mired in pointless arguments about POV in most cases would have used their time passively had the pointless argument not cropped up, but there has to be some impact on the ability of the community to improve the project when objects are being created for the sole purpose of creating controversy.
• A third argument is that the namespaces are resources. While the theoretical size of a namespace (say, the namespace of all Wikipedia articles) is infinite, the practical size is not. Otherwise, we wouldn't have VfD on pointless articles - we'd just let them sit there idly, because storage is cheap, and articles that don't get viewed don't cost bandwidth. But articles, templates, categories, etc., occupy namespace as well, and while disambiguation pages help extend the article namespace, that resource is not as applicable to functional objects like templates (including userboxes). I personally think that this is the most compelling argument, especially since in a lot of cases, template names are chosen to be short and memorable. When the template namespace is cluttered up with POV userboxes (especially ones solely designed for creating controversy), it wastes a valuable Wikipedia resource unnecessarily, especially since users can replicate userboxes with regular Wiki code, and other users who want to share in the fun can lift that code by looking at the edit version of the page and copying/pasting.

In much shorter form, I wholeheartedly support BrokenSegue's solution above.  :) --Dachannien 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The policy is now in action

Just a heads up, the new policy is currently in action. I don't particularly know if it's the policy on this page, as that's a pretty incoherent list of lists, but regardless, the new policy is going into effect. --Cyde Weys 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What new policy? What are you talking about? JDoorjam Talk 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out the DRV userbox subpage. It has the most information. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a smart-ass, but the only policy I found there was "debates will be archived after 5 days." I'm feeling a little dense... what, exactly, are you talking about? JDoorjam Talk 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The big boxes highlighted in red. You really can't miss 'em. --Cyde Weys 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

These are posts from Jimbo's talk page and the mailing list. I don't read this as policy. — brighterorange (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who Jimbo is? This is still his site, it's not a democracy. He can set policy simply by speaking it. He's kind of a god amoung mere mortals, or something like that. --Cyde Weys 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F. This is not Jimbo's site. He is a great guy and he's done great things, but the site belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. Jimbo is a Trustee and the Chair of the Board of Trustees. This does not make the site "his". --Nelson Ricardo 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't considered those policies (they don't really provide any specific guidance), as much as quotations from El Jimbo about the subject at hand. I'm still not clear what the "policy" is, having read the text you're referring to, as it seems like Jimbo's sentiments on the matter, and not an actual policy. And I think this part is blatantly false: "That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that as a whole the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate." But it's pretty obvious from the talk page that the community as a whole in fact doesn't feel that way. And as I amended the front page to say, Jimbo hasn't actually made any policy statement. In fact, that's the only thing he's on the record for: he hasn't said anything. JDoorjam Talk 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not using the same definition of divisive then. The fact that there is a big argument going on at the talk page means there are opposing sides, both of which would have to be foolish not to realize that userboxes are causing divisiveness over their very existence. It's not so much an issue of the divisiveness of the individual userboxen. --Cyde Weys 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

C'moooooon, that's silly reasoning. It's non-falsifiable. It's loaded dice. "These userboxes are divisive!" "No, they're not...." "Ha-HA! You see!?!?" By that logic, there's no way whatsoever to disprove the divisiveness of anything. JDoorjam Talk 01:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I picked a bad way to explain it, but userboxen have been much more divisive to the community than practically ... anything. Even "big" disputes, like Brian Peppers, Lolicon, or cartoon war, involved far less people. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What has been divisive to the community isn't the userboxes, but the ram-rodding of the anti-userbox crowd. Sure, a couple have been controversial, sure in one case there was POV pushing, but User:Tony Sidaway decided to make it a personal crusade to delete all userboxes, and tried to delete them in bulk before even bothering with a policy. That is what divided the community, not some 100x20 pixel box on user pages. -- Jbamb 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How about I turn your own argument around? Sure, it's a bad idea to delete stuff under a bad policy, but it happened only because some people are using userboxes to push their POV in article space, and because some userboxes are creating useless controversy. You're blindly biased against views other than your own, that's what. Bi 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The userbox issue has been very divisive, yes. But neither of these two statements make sense: (1) "The userbox issue is divisive to the community. Therefore we should settle on what (some unmeasured fraction) believe and delete all userboxes in order to remove this divisiveness." (2) "The userbox issue is divisive to the community. Therefore we should stop discussion about userboxes in order to remove this divisiveness." I have seen both invoked here recently. They don't make sense because the division is not one that is contingent on userboxes—the disagreement runs deeper than that, and while I don't think either side really cares this much about actual userboxes, we do care strongly about the underlying debate. For my own part, I see the push for regulation (and the successful addition to CSD) as a legitimization of unilateral administrator action, which not only rubs me the wrong way, I think it is specifically against the spirit of the Wiki. Simply declaring victory for one side or another will never remove this underlying strife, though it might mean we have nothing specific to fight about for a while. — brighterorange (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously missed the "userboxes are divisive and disturb NPOV in article space, so let's just subst: those darn things and move on" part. :) To me, the real "underlying" issue is precisely that some people are seeing underlying stuff that simply isn't there. Hey, instead of dealing with specific issues like people using userboxes to bias an article or to diss others, and specific solutions like the one above, let's trot out some fluffy generic abstract rant about the evils of fascism and how we absolutely must win Earth's Final War of Good Against Evil, Because Good Must Triumph Over Evil, w00t w00t w00t! As far as I can see, those of us who actually bother to look at the specific issues are slowly reaching some sort of consensus, even if we may disagree at first. Bi 17:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But to repeat my earlier point: templates and categories are in widespread and accepted use in several namespaces, "only" one of which (the one all the others are there simply to support, mind you...) is subject to NPOV as a policy. So namespace-based arguments get fuzzy. But yes, clarifying permitted use of the namespaces, substing, possibly creating some new namespaces if this facilitates matters, and moving on, would be an outcome devoutly to be wished. Alai 05:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm out

Ladies and gentlemen, I am done arguing about userboxes. I've realized that I used to help write an encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it. I've met a lot of very spirited, passionate people while arguing here, and I truly hope I haven't pissed too many people off. Especially you, Cyde, as we have prettymuch disagreed this entire time, but I still think you seem like a good guy. Gal? Wikipedian.

The fact is, I've thought long and hard about it, and I've come to realize two things:

1. My userboxes are pretty vanilla, and I don't think anyone's gonna come for them. (They're substed anyway.)
2. I don't really care that much about my userboxes. Am I going to delete them? No. They amuse me. But that's not what I'm here for.

The current policy on userboxes is crap. And I don't mean that it's unfair, although certainly its application has been less than uniform. I mean it's simply badly written. It's vague, and it opens the door to crusaders. And if there's one thing I hate more than Hawaiian pizza, it's people on crusades. But there are two things I hate more, and that's people on crusades and bad policy. And this is both.

So, I'm going to go back to protecting Archimedes, which for some reason is vandalized ALL the freaking time. And I'm gonna help the Vermont Wiki Project. And if anyone wants help subst'ing their userboxes, ask me, and I'll give you a hand. But ask like this:

"JDoorjam, can you help me subst my userboxes? I'm worried about them being deleted, and that concern is the thing that's keeping me from getting back to writing an encyclopedia."

And I will help you out.

I really, really do respect the passionate and well-meaning people on both sides of this argument. But the plurality of my respect for y'all is because you're Wikipedians, and you've chosen to spend your time helping to write the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of the world. Let's do it, people.

I'll see you around the Wiki. JDoorjam Talk 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I completely agree with everything JDoorjam said, and I'll be going back to working on the actual encyclopedia instead of going back and forth over a really poorly designed and implemented policy. --nihon 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. See above. ~MDD4696 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathoschild's policy proposal

After discussion, I've copied Pathoschild's suggested policy to our project page for discussion and possible amendment. This picked up quite a lot of support during workshopping as part of Pathoschild's personal userbox project, and I think it's time to see how it stands up to the light of day. Comments in the section below, please. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I added in a statement to the effect of "no userspace categories in category mainspace" because the problems of factionalism and vote stuffing are even worse with categories than with template userboxes. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• And four week's grace period before userboxes can be speedied is entirely too long. Once every instance in user pages is subst'ed they should be immediately deleted. Otherwise, you're going to get other people adding them to their userpage in the four week's grace period, making more work for everyone. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• This looks like the basis of a useful compromise. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and templates on user pages (including in boxes)

We currently have a technical restriction that all templates and categories share the same namespace. However, categories are intended to guide readers around the encyclopedic content. If they include user entries they confuse readers about what is encyclopedic content and what is not. For this reason, as a prelude to any possible technical change to split them, I suggest:

1. Categories on user pages and other non-article pages (including policy pages, for example) should not have the same name as those in article space. Where there is a conflict, article space shoudl ahve the most convenient form, so that readers and article authors have preference. I suggest using "user_" as a prefix for user space categories.
2. Templates have the same issues and should also be distinguished when the template is content-related rather than purely technical. For example:
   1. a calendar is simply technical and can be shared in both article and user space unless it provides links to further content which a reader might follow.
   2. a template to identify Wikipedia authors as interested in birds shuld be different from one used on bird content pages as a directory of bird topics. Otherwise those looking for encyclopedic bird content could end up at user pages instead of articles. Such templates should have user_ as a prefix.
3. For load reasons, it's desirable to keep the total number of references to a given article or template low. This suggested user_ split has the useful side-effect of helping to reduce server load.

Please discuss and arrive at suitable policy based on these technical issues and suggested approaches to reoslving the issues involved. Jamesday 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The place to start with this would IMO be (articlespace:) and Wikipedia: templates and categories, since clearly, we do actually need both of these (whereas some people think User_template: and User_category would just be moving the (alleged) problem around, not solving it). OTOH, "Wikipedia_template:" and "Wikipedia_category:" are distinctly long, though at least they need only appear in category page titles, not in actual markup or category links. Alai 05:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem that could be solved simultaneously is if users put article stuff in user space it messs up categories. If, as we have user talk, we had user categories, the problem would go away. Rich Farmbrough 12:43 27 February 2006 (UTC).

Since we don't have that split today, it's easy enough to resolve the problem with a naming convention. Jamesday 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial change - no images or transclusion

I added no images to the proposed policy. Allowing images to be used is the same functionally as having categories be part of the userbox. One can quickly find the users that have a specific opinion by using the what links here. Maybe this is moot if the userboxes that aren't allowed under A is expansive enough. Trödel•talk 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd and paranoid way of thinking. It's the same kind of logic as saying cars should be banned because they may allow people of like mind to drive to a location to meet. It's just absurd. Besides, any good administrator will be able to tell if this is happening. --日本穣 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be paranoid, but it's not going to be easy to track. You'd have to be the Messiah administrator. Let's see how it could theoretically be abused ... a person with a strong interest in an article sees that it is up for deletion and goes on a vote-stacking campaign. Luckily for them there's a common userbox used by the kind of people who would tend to want this image kept. The interested person creates a dummy account and uses Wikipedia e-mail to campaign for the article to be kept. Now how is a "good" admin supposed to catch something like this? As far as I know Wikipedia e-mail is untrackable. --Cyde Weys 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if that particular scenario would be hard to track, are you wanting, then, to make all your votes semi-secret? The votes should be advertised so that interested parties have the opportunity to voice an opinion on the matter. What's to stop someone who really wants the article deleted from doing the same thing? All we are dealing with here are hypotheticals, and it's absurd to make policies founded on speculation. Just because someone might use userboxes that way doesn't mean they will. It's very likely that it will happen on occasion, but there are plenty of other ways to find people interested in a particular subject (going through the talk pages or edit histories on related articles, for instance--this is just as quick and effective as using a userbox for the same thing). --日本穣 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an instance of Assume Good Faith on the part of those with the userboxes. When Jason Gastrich tried this, he got outed by several people. --AySz88^-^ 20:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this addition. If we're going to attempt to "ban" everything that can conceivably be used for vote-stacking, we'd have to remove user pages entirely -- and then it still wouldn't suffice. And this goes beyond the current issue at hand, so it's really just stirring up further trouble for itself. A "proposed policy against facilitation of vote-stacking" should be a) more nuanced than that, and b) be on a separate page from this one. Alai 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is going too far. I'd prefer that we permit free (not fair use) images to be included in userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I am only proposing that images not be used only on polemic/political/etc/ userboxes (those that must also be subst) not on all userboxes. Although vote stacking is one reason - there are other factionalizations and divisions that this is likely to create Trödel•talk 20:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For technical reasons (uses of images on pages are a server capacity bottleneck) I'd prefer to see minimal or no use of images in userboxes, since they don't actually require an image to do their job. Jamesday 18:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The images are a capacity bottleneck only if they're very large or used on many often-accessed pages. If something's 50 pixels tall and used on an individual userpage? I doubt server capacity is the real issue here.

The "what links here" issue (if it even is an issue) is also quite addressable without banning images outright: just use a generic template format like {{userbox|blue|Image:Donkey.jpg|This user supports the US Democrat party}} / {{userbox|red|Image:Elephant.jpg|This user supports the US Republican party}} on an individual user page and a "what links here" won't find every Dem or every Repub, just whichever ones happened to pick those specific images to drop into the box on their page. A "what links here" on template:userbox would be even more meaningless if it referred to a generic userbox into which users could write whatever they like.

I do disagree with the use of policies to prohibit a POV from being expressed on a user page, in whatever form. If a user is likely to be less than neutral on a topic, that's something that should be known so that article edits can be watched for bias. We're trying to create NPOV encyclopædia articles, not NPOV users. Users can and will form opinions, no way around that, just keep them from distorting content in article space. --carlb 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're using thumbnails that are stored separately, browsers download the full image and resize it locally. Also, it probably does add up to a lot of traffic: with thousands of user pages with images, no one of them needs to have especially high traffic to add up to a lot. Jobarts^-Talk 09:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki stores thumbnails separately, IIRC. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on new policy

To avoid confusion, a formal poll has been opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

[edit] Support

1. Sure, whatever, let's just agree on something. Haukur 16:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - people seem to have calmed down since all the political ones were speedied anyway. This is a good clarification. DJR (Talk) 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, a formal poll has been opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

[edit] Oppose

1. I would support it if the part about images hadn't been added. Outside of that one point, I support it. --日本穣 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. oppose. Jamesday 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstain

1. I have no clue what policy we are voting on. The project page is just a list of pros and cons, but there is no actual policy --T-rex 18:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Free expression on your page, sure whatever. Why do we need userboxes in particular? Can't these things be written down as text by the user in their own words instead? I'm not here to debate, because I really find the entire venture eyesore, but I will say that I agree that the paramount concern here is what is necessary in a functional sense for the editing of an encyclopedia. While there may or may not be merit for the rest of it, let's not cloak this issue in the concept of rights. I came here to help write an encyclopedia, and I don't in particular care what rights outside of that mandate are delimited. (And for full disclosure, I have always kept my user page empty because I've never found a compelling reason to put anything there. I do occasionally work on editing drafts in subpages, though. That's it. Austerity can be a virtue.) Girolamo Savonarola 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   I can think of at least two reasons to use userboxes: they are an at-a-glance summary of wikipedians and (in my opinion) have the potential to be a powerful anti-POV tool. --AySz88^-^ 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   Such reductive usage is exactly why I don't think they are truly useful. It becomes easy to then start an edit war on such grounds, especially if you're ready to accuse or make summary judgements based on a simple box. People's opinions, I would think, are generally more nuanced than what can be expressed within a userbox. If you want to declare your POVs, that's fine - I'm not arguing against it. But perhaps by allowing the users themselves to articulate their beliefs, it will be more conducive towards understanding what they truly believe and where they are coming from. I'm not against self-declaration; just the idea that a box can tell you what someone really means by "I believe _____". Girolamo Savonarola 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   Having a userbox on something doesn't (or at least shouldn't) discourage anyone from explaining their views in detail as well. --AySz88^-^ 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Girolamo Savonarola. The bias or lack of bias of an article edit is all in the edit itself. If you decide whether an edit is biased or unbiased based on some bumper sticker on a user page, then you're engaging in ad hominem, which is wrong anyway. Bi 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I doubt anyone will first look at a userbox and assume all edits by the person will be biased, but rather first notice a biased addition and then take the userbox as a sign that the user is acknowledging and working on his own bias and as permission to help bring each others' edits into POV. --AySz88^-^ 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The threat is that people who might WANT to find people who will make biased edits can, with "what links here" and similar features. I would wager that if I were to pick a specific POV I wanted pushed somewhere, I could find and request asisstance from quite a few people with a relevant userbox - at least some of whom would then go and do so. (Obviously I have no intention of doing so, and even mentioning the possibility may violate WP:BEANS, but I think it makes the issue clear.) Michael Ralston 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I mixed up sections/pages - I thought this was Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#POV_Userbox_Suggestion. My mistake. Maybe time to go to sleep. :p --AySz88^-^ 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AySz88: well, it sure doesn't look that way to me. The people who used userboxes to conduct vote-stuffing certainly weren't acknowledging that they are biased. It looks more like they think that they alone hold the unbiased truth, and people who disagree with them are simply plain wrong or trying to be "politically correct" or whatever. And besides, I don't think I need to ask someone's permission to neutralize a biased edit. Bi 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, a formal poll has been opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

[edit] Redundancy between templated userboxes and disclosure of POV

From the point of view of reducing redundancy, would it be unreasonable, or too open to abuse to allow userbox templates that indicate knowledge or interest to accept a free-form argument for succinctly disclosing POV? eg. {{userbox-namespace is interested in politics|Monarchy is king!}} as opposed to both a userbox and text, or two userboxen. --Martin Rudat(T|@|C) 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this "userbox burning campaign" is running out of control

As this seem to be the correct spot I will present the case here.

Hi, I am Flamarande (obviously) and I am herewith complaining officially about the current unofficial and sneaky "userboxes burning campaign".

As far as I know, some users started to complain about userboxes (who by the way appear only in the personal userpages and therefore clearly show that they are a personal view and not Wikipedia stance). Jimbo played the politician (my own POV) and made a statement that: "controversial political userboxes schouldn´t be used in Wikipedia as they would give a wrong impression of Wikipedia" (quoting freely). As far as I know, the policy itself is STILL being debated, but nevertheless many admistrators/users allready started to delete userboxes in a "userboxes burning campaign" everywhere, whithout following the proper procedure or even listening to users who disagree! In a truly "take no prisoners" policy many of them didn´t even announce their deletions in the usual channels. I grant than only a few administrators are "rouge/vigilante administrators" but fact is that the policy is not a official one (still debated) but being implemented as such.

It began with the very convient deletion of the redirects userbox and userboxes (read the talkpages). Suddenly userboxes were being deleted everywhere. Very convienient, and it makes you wonder... They even deleted the userbox about the United Nations ! Now they are beginning to delete userboxes about books ! like the ASoIaF userboxes.

IF Jimbo or the consensus simply had said: "NO USERBOXES OF ANY KIND" or "NO POLITICAL USERBOXES OF ANY KIND" I wouldn´t oppose to this (and personaly I would agree with the second). But there appears to be a unwritten policy of censorship. The controversial userboxes are being deleted while the political corect Userboxes are acceptable. This is BLANTANT CENSORSHIP in my personal opinion. Freedom of Speech and political freedom also means that everybody is free to buy all the books, the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Tora, AND the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx, Porn, and the Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler in a bookshoop without any problems.

If Jimbo or the consensus says: "this a encyclopedia and NOT a place where we discuss politics" I won´t oppose to it, but then we also have to delete ALL the political userboxes like "in memorian of 9/11" and "I support the troops" (hey, these are obvious political statements). Then we have to delete ALL of them (at least the political ones). It is the same with the bookshops and books: Nobody can force all the booksops to sell all the books (the idea of going into a childrens library and ordering the Communist Manifesto is funny) but it also means that any library can sell all political books, even those we don´t like and disagree and even hate.

Long time ago, I saw a movie about the attempt of the National Socialist Party of America (read the article, please) to march into Stokie. They had to be defended by a jewish laywer of the ACLU]. The matter went as far to a court (I don´t remember which one, it was "one step" before the Supreme Court). The judges decided in favour of the nationalist socialist party and wrote: "Freedom of Speech not only means that we have the freedom to say what we like to hear. It ALSO means that other people have the liberty to say things we hate." (quoting freely from memory, and I saw the movie a long time ago).

If anyone begins to say : "How dares he to talk in this tone?" or "Show the proper respect/education" I can only reply: Look at my "political incorrect userbox" - its all there. Flamarande 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The userbox deletion is NOT censorship. You will still be free to use your userboxes (by copy-pasting the code on your userpage, all that is happening is that they will no longer be allowed on userspace, for the following reasons:

To be honest: this also is using the fact that some (at least) users don´t know to make userboxes and/or don´t like to fill their userpage with codes they don´t really understand. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What's to understand? At the moment you copy-paste a piece of code (a template call) from Wikiproject:Userboxes, and it displays the box. Post-policy, you will copy-paste a piece of code from Wikiproject:Userboxes. The fact that that code will be different seems immaterial Cynical 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1. It can be used for 'vote stuffing' (e.g. 'this user is a Catholic' userbox, somebody goes to the 'What Links Here' for that userbox template and emails everyone who uses it to ask them to shout down a deletion discussion on a Catholic-related article)

My answer to this is: If that happens (and I concede that it will) then complain to a adminstrator (what are they here for?). Still read above: if we delete ALL political userboxes I won´t object, but we got to be honest and completely impartial. In certain backward countries where many citizens don´t seem to understand the need for the separation of politics and religion (like the USA and IRAN, sad but true). In these countries lying politicians are simply manipulating believers using faith. Therefore all userboxes about religion, beliefs or faiths or political statements schould also be deleted. Then we have also to delete all political userboxes like in "memoriam of 9/11" and "I support the troops" for these also ARE political statements (see above). Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what this policy-to-be will do: ALL POV userbox templates will be deleted after 4 weeks (to give time for all the occurences of them to be subst'ed Cynical 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1. It puts more strain on the servers to have the code 'called' as a template than having the code on the userpage itself.

Ok, I have no argument against this. Strangely this argument is NOT presented in the arguments fot the deletion, at least that I noticed. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I remember it being mentioned in one of the discussions on what to do about userboxes (might have been on the mailing list though), and it would seem logical - if the code is included in the page, then the server just runs it, whereas if it comes across a template call it has to take another look at the database to find the code. Cynical 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, the developers have told us that the sever load from userboxes is negligible; userpages themselves are a tiny fraction of the page hits on WP, and the caching system means that not every page load needs an extra database access anyway. If there is a problem and we can quantify it, then we can take action—but we shouldn't ever base policy on speculation about performance. — brighterorange (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Having them in the official Template space may give some people the [mistaken] impression that the views expressed on them are endorsed by Wikipedia.

To prevent that, simply put in really fat letters in the userboxpages:" These boxes do not represent any official position of Wikipedia". Also, if we accept userboxes of ALL political quadrants we can in a reasonable fashion answer to opponents (read: journalist who are interrested in asking hard questions, and manipulating politicians for are trying to use wikipedia to show their self-rightouness): We accept userboxes of ALL kinds and also of your own view. IF we start with censorship, then we also have to delete the userboxes of YOUR political view. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but only people GOING to the template page would see that, but an ordinary visitor editing a page would only see the template calls Cynical 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

explain this in more detail, please. editing a "page"? the userpage which is a obvious personal page? or another one? Flamarande 10:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Solution.

The main problem these userbox deletionist seem to have is the whatlinkshere function and user categories. Would it be possible to disable whatlinkshere for POV userboxes on a technical level? This one single step this would allow userboxes to still be easily transcluded (keep pro-userbox ppl happy) and stop any mass voting (keeping anti-userbox ppl happy).--God Ω War 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How would POV boxen be specified as such? You'd also have to remove categories and images from userboxes. Johnleemk | Talk 20:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would imagine that new pictures could be created just for userboxes with like User Image.png. Whatlinkshere could be disabled for these as well. You have to admit though, it is an elegant solution that will make everyone happy--God Ω War 20:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A new tag could be created in the same vein as __NOTOC__. Placing this tag on a POV userbox would disable the WHatlinkshere function. I propose a __NOWLH__ tag.--God Ω War 21:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• You'd also have to remove all wikilinks from userboxes, even if they are subst'd. And then add /robots.txt so that user pages are not indexed by google. And remove the internal WP search of the User namespace. Basically, I think trying to prevent people from collating users by belief and interest is impossible if you allow them to express themselves on their user pages at all. (Which is one of the reasons I don't buy the "whatlinkshere" argument against userboxes.) — brighterorange (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we should would have to remove wikilinks from userboxes. There are only 3 ways to figure out who has what userbox:

1. Whatlinkshere from the template page
2. Whatlinkshere from the userbox image
3. UserCategories.

This would eliminate all of that.--God Ω War 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You still have whatlinkshere from the articles which are linked to, and Google as brighterorange said. With all of that, it's not very elegant anymore, though it's not that inelegant either. --AySz88^-^ 21:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Google can be used on subst userboxes anyway so it's a moot point. Also, whatlinkshere script could be changed so that userboxes with the __NOWLH_ tag would not appear in the list of whatlinkshere for articles. It's not good to be paranoid trying to think of every way imaginable around this.--God Ω War 21:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• But this is exactly my point: there are so many ways to find out who has a particular userbox, whether subst'd or not, that there is no point in trying to restrict a straightforward and otherwise useful one. Wikis live by their links, and the internet lives on search. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If the technical details can be worked out, this looks like it would meet the point I decided was most important to me, and I could support it. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course. Now, I'll go back to my editing. -- 65.8.3.69 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - And this was me. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why come up with such a solution when a far simpler solution exists? Let people place the code required on their pages directly and remove the categories all together, this avoids the need for templates requisite code changes, avoids arguments about which boxes should and shouldn't be marked as to not be shown as linked etc. and is achievable today, not sometime in the future when such a change is implemented. As a techy I know it's attractive to come up with technical solutions, but sometimtes the low-tech solution is actually the most workable and flexible. --pgk^(talk) 09:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• As a side note a significant part is the "achievable today" part, I think everyone is aware of Jimbo's comments on the issue, the longer this drags on the more likely the actual solution will be an enforced one, so those who believe that opposing reasonable suggestions, may lead to the whole issue being dropped or a "better" solution may actually be the architects of a far worse solution --pgk^(talk) 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd add to that. A tag that hides whatlinkshere could be problematic if misused by a vandal or troll - I can't think of any particular scenarios ATM, but it still seems a risky move. If such a tag were created, I would recommend that the whatlinkshere functionality NOT be hidden from admins. I'd also recommend that this tag were only functional on transcluded pages (like <includeonly> and <noinclude>), so regular links to the page would show, but not transcluded links. Just a few pennies and some pocket lint, for what it's worth. --Red Penguin 10:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes removing all template space userboxes could accomplish the same thing. But every attempt to do so has failed so far and is met with strong resistance. Why should we further polarize the wikipedia community when a better solution exists that could make everyone happy?--God Ω War 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• As soon as the current vote fails I will draw this up as a policy proposal.--God Ω War 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UBX cats are a must

Oppose any attempt to purge UBX from template space or rm cats from them. Why?

One important purpose of UBX is to allow Wikipedians to form subgroups. This is natural and proper, the way people work together: Large groups subdivide. To demand that members not form subgroups is at best a fantasy, at worst totalitarian excess. People are people; there is nothing we can do to alter human nature -- not so abruptly or violently. No matter how much we think it wise or good, we cannot simply stamp out factionalism; it is an essential method by which people get business done and nothing can replace it.

Some fear UBX, especially UBX with cats, facilitate vote-packing. Good, I say. Truly, I would prefer a world, or even a wiki, in which there was no vote-packing -- but that's a fantasy world. There is vote-packing; there was vote-packing before anyone thought to create the first UBX; there will be vote-packing long after the last UBX has been ground into dust. Nothing is more natural than that partisans (of any point of view) should recruit fellow-thinkers to support their efforts. We cannot possibly eliminate such activity; so the next best thing is to level the playing field and make it equally easy for those on all sides of an issue to gather support.

Elminating UBX will not eliminate factionalism, it will merely drive it underground. Nor would it be good to eliminate factionalism even if it were possible to do so. None of us are such able social engineers that we can conceive of a mechanism that can replace the time-tested, natural process by which large groups of people express themselves: by forming subgroups, factions, and parties from which articulate leaders emerge.

Let's admit we are humans and do what people do. John Reid 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns, point-by-point

Please allow me to address specific points raised on the face of this page:

• Are fair use/copyrighted images legally allowed in userboxes? → No. Fair use is an unsettled area of law but it's pretty clear that it cannot apply to UBX. Fair use might apply (for instance) if a copyrighted photo of Jimmy Page is used in an article about that worthy; it cannot be stretched to cover a hypothetical Template: User Jimmy Page Fan UBX. IANAL, but even a quick glance at case law makes it obvious.

• Many userboxes cover topics/views/interests unrelated to the creating of an encyclopedia. → No. This is a comprehensive, general-interest encyclopedia; it is difficult to imagine any topic lying entirely without our purview. I welcome the example.

• What types of templates ... should be allowed? → All UBX should appear in template space -- invariably as Template:User Foo. This is the correct use of template space, which is not privileged for article use alone. Note that any page at all may be transcluded and used as a template; template space is simply the dedicated namespace for such use. Attempting to userfy UBX is just an attempt to deprecate them superficially, an especially weak and poor move: If UBX were harmful, userfying would only drive the problem deeper. Terrible to try to address a social question by screwing up the technical machinery; template space is for templates -- all templates -- and that's that. Templates that appear on article pages must comply with all policies regarding article pages; those that do not, need not.

• What ... types of categories should be allowed? → Any UBX may contain a cat; all such cats should be subcats of Category:Wikipedians. I'm tempted to say all UBX must contain a cat. Stand up and be counted!

• What is different from grouping Wikipedians by category ... and grouping Wikipedians by WikiProjects ...? → The answer ranges from much to nothing depending on the WikiProject singled out for comparison. Logically, every UBX should have a corresponding page within which members of that faction can marshal their forces and their arguments. And, also logically, every member of a WikiProject -- however neutral it may appear -- should display a corresponding UBX. But I would never compel anyone to do so.

• ...userboxes may contain content not acceptable for userpages... → No, they may not. If content is so offensive that it cannot appear on a user page then it certainly cannot appear on a user page inside a UBX.

• There is dispute among Wikipedians as to how far to take the ideals of NPOV → Yes. NPOV is a goal, a direction in which we strive -- it is not an achievable destination. Every article is biased -- every single word. Bias can never be eliminated entirely and in the case of controversial topics there is no middle ground. The best we can hope for is to represent significant points of view fairly. UBX aid us in this quest by allowing us to be honest about our biases instead of pretending foolishly that we have none.

• If someone wishes to label themselves as holding some vehement or obnoxious opinion, this may be useful... → Yes. If you're a Fooist and you're willing to call yourself a Fooist and say so openly, I can only thank you for making it plain to me and everyone else. The more outrageous your opinion the happier I am to see you wearing a badge declaring it.

• Labeling someone else ... is defamatory vandalism. → Yes. Nobody should be posting UBX (or anything else) on other people's user pages (unless the user has declared his page "open"). This should be obvious. Don't blame the tool; blame the fool who wields it as a weapon.

• Many are redundant/pointless... → Doubtful. Three examples are given; each expresses a personal opinion. When I see one of these on a user page I form an impression of the user -- which is the intent. These impressions may or may not be exactly as the user in question would have it; but that's a weakness in all symbols. I can explain my interpretation of each example on demand. Besides, the most blatantly irreverent and foolish UBX makes a statement about the user who displays it -- a statement perhaps unflattering but one I am quite willing to notice.

• There should be a system for inclusion ... where new userboxes are debated → No. Display of a UBX may be the easiest and most straightforward way for an unpopular minority to declare itself. We don't need more groupthink. Indeed, the more unpopular the sentiment, the more valuable the UBX.

• Wikipedia shouldn't be used to organize campaigns to push a particular viewpoint. → "Wikipedia" isn't so used -- not in this sense. Wikipedia is the product of a community of people; the community is built in and by a large, diverse group of people and a large group of computer servers operating the MediaWiki engine. Together we blunder our way toward our final product -- and along the way we do all the dirty human things that humans do everywhere else when they work together in large groups. (Also all the loony things computers do in large groups.) Part of that includes organizing into political pressure groups. This activity cannot be eliminated and attempts to suppress it can only drive it underground and make it stealthy, secretive, and vicious.

• Excessive userboxes may be seen as a wasteful use of Wikipedia's computing power... → Silly. It could be seen that way; and so could nearly anything else that you or I did not like. Better beings than us -- highly evolved beings indeed -- might simply write the encyclopedia, one page after another, and never indulge in discussion of any kind; is it not all superfluous? If every self-serving or personal word were deleted from the servers I suggest the database would be halved. But talk pages are essential -- and UBX serve an essential need, too.

• Userbox numbers are rising very rapidly. Numbers ... suggest an exponential growth curve. ...it may be too late to deal with them later.... There are a virtually unlimited number of potential userboxes → Not really. Exponential growth curves are unsustainable; they invariably flatten into a logistics curve or collapse entirely. Some resource will eventually run out -- probably, in this case, human interest. I dare to forecast that the total number of UBX will never exceed the total number of registered users; and I suggest that the knee is not far off even now.

• What is needed is a clear set of guidelines for deleting userboxes... → Yes; already in place. If it's acceptable on a user page it's acceptable in a UBX; if not, not. Done.

• Customarily, it is mandatory to declare ones interests before entering a debate. → Yes. It annoys me when someone who disagrees with me attempts to claim the moral high ground by saying, "You are biased; I am neutral." This is transparent foolishness and an insult. It annoys me even more when he says, "Neither of us are biased; I can't see how you can possibly disagree with me." I have no difficulty whatever with someone who opens a debate by saying, "I believe this and you seem to disagree; I think you're wrong." Maybe he's right.

• Will Wikipedia be used as a campaigning tool by political groups uninterested in building an encyclopedia? → Yes and oh well. News flash: Only a minority of Wikipedians have the building of an encyclopedia as their primary goal; most are otherwise motivated. Some edit for fun, some to push a point of view, some in hopes of making money, some to practice their writing skills, some to act out their obsessive-compulsive disorders, some to make friends, some to gain power, some simply to tear away at what they find offensive. I venture that many edit simply for the pleasure of seeing their words up on the big screen. Fine. Wikipedia does not and will not pay editors so much as a penny for all their hard hours of work. If we want people to work at all we must take them as they are and allow them to gratify the urges that drive them to contribute -- so long as these are not in direct conflict with the ultimate goal, and sometimes even when they are. It is part of the magic of collaborative editing that we gather all these disparate drives and harness them together to produce a work of value. It is not in our interest to suppress them.

I'd like to remind fellow editors, once again, that UBX are an inevitable expression of a basic human process. They may at times, like other expressions, be offensive or counterproductive; even occasionally to the point at which they demand elimination. Often they will seem to serve a trivial purpose or none -- like shaking hands or closing the bathroom door. But these human needs which are hardest to articulate and defend are the most compelling and enduring. If UBX are eliminated, the human needs which bred them will surface in another way; these basic drives cannot be eliminated.

Let's just leave UBX alone; their side effects are trivial and innocuous. And let's get back to work. John Reid 08:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, John Reid, but you don't represent the whole human race. I don't feel such a great urge to espouse my opinions on every darn thing that I have to scribble "JAVA S4X0RZ W00T W00T W00T!!!!111111" or "JAVA R0X0RZ W00T W00T W00T!!11111111" on Wikipedia. If you do have such an urge, just say that you have such an urge, don't claim that it's a "basic human need" or whatever. Because you're not the whole human race. Bi 10:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

John Reid: I agree with a lot of the things you have suggested. With the exception of things like the Fair Use in images you mentioned above, I'd say I stand with you on most issues.

And also, Bi, I don't recall him ever saying any of those things you accused him of. It seems to me that you don't want to express the way you feel about userboxes in at least a semi-constructive manner. If you don't think userboxes are a good idea, just say so. Don't insult other people about it, though.

Mister Mister 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry... for a moment I thought you were a supporter of free speech. My bad. Bi 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UBX as images?

Maybe this has been proposed elsewhere - I'm having trouble slogging through the raft of posts, pages, etc. on this subject and would like to get back to work on the encyclopedia - What about changing the format of the userbox to an image? For example, what is now a series of wiki codes that produce either a template or a subst: entity, let them be .jpgs or .svgs for whatever, literally an image-format bumper sticker. The categorization, linking and image use issues remain, but the issue of format would be addressed. Her Pegship 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Do we really need to have NPOV in userboxes? They won't be used in articles and users should have a right to express themsevles. I'm sure the guys a Wikipedians against Censorship would agree. The Republican 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I do agree. I thought Wikipedia wasnt censored, and yet here I am watching my choice to use POV on my user page being swept away! - • The Giant Puffin • 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy

I propose the following. Userboxes are deleted and all the sysops that pushed for this policy have their sysop powers revoked. This compromise I believe is in the best interest of wikipedia to remove those in power who have so divided the community over so small an issue. Despite the fact that their complains can be addressed any number of ways, they suggest because in one case userboxes were misused (or more appropriately categories), that all userboxes be banned. I think a fair way to appease and unit both sides of the community is to give something to both sides. Userboxes go away, and the admins that started this no longer are admins. Everyone is happy. Vote below. Jbamb 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support per above. -- Jbamb 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. VERY STRONG Oppose This is ridiculous. What were you thinking?! Banning userboxes or removing adminship will send both sides into a rage! This is the 'worst' idea I have heard so far next ro removing userboxes. --Shell <e> 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - We should be working toward a compromise not trying to take revenge on those that don't like userboxes.--God Ω War 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose This policy means getting rid of userboxes, and no compramise is worth that. Many userboxes are useful for both Wikipedia-related use and because I just want to show my opinions. Anyway, even if you do manage to get rid of the admins (which will be hard because a lot have been involved in this subject over the months) then several more will just come in and fill their place - • The Giant Puffin • 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1. We should not start polling for every new proposal that crops up. Come to something that most people agree with, and then put it for a vote. If nothing's been agreed on, keep proposing new stuff. Don't start a vote. Johnleemk | Talk 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

   Spoken like a true autocrat. -- Jbamb 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

   I really want to AGF, but...spoken like a true troll. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

   Spoken like an editor with a true command of parallel structure. JDoorjam Talk

2. While I won't go so far as to say voting is evil, I will say it's rather premature. They were acting rather boldly, perhaps, and I've disagreed with quite a few deletions, but I still haven't seen an admin act in a way that made me think I could no longer assume good faith. Demanding that heads roll around on the floor of the 'pedia is not going to solve anything. This page has managed to calm down a bit over the past few days; let's not get it all crazy stressed out again. JDoorjam Talk 16:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Voting might be evil, but where ordinary judgment cannot determine consensus it is a necessary evil - so far admins using their judgment to determine userbox consensus (I'm going to assume good faith and say they weren't deliberately ignoring consensus) has resulted in (by my count) three RFCs (aka flamewars, which the whole RFC process is rapidly becoming), two RfArs and two decline RFAr requests. Cynical 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent removals

I asked this question in other places, but I was told this one is the most relevant. I've read about the userboxes policy. There was voting (unfortunately it has finished). I understand no consensus was reached, so strict NPoV has not been imposed on userpages. Thus it is surprising to me that some userboxes disappeared. They include: independent Chechnya, independent Kosovo, independent Montenegro and some others. I might agree that these issues can cause conflicts on Wiki and this should be avoided. Why then "oppose independent Kosovo" or "independent Srpska Kraina" or "reunification of Yugoslavia" was left? Doesn't it cause conflicts? I have a request to admins either to restore all the regional policy boxes or to remove all of them. Regards, Jasra 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't pick and choose what side of the argument gets deleted. Both must, or (hopefully) none - • The Giant Puffin • 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should the text of a userbox be changed months after it's created?

There doesn't seem to be anything in the proposed policy covering this. It seems to me that once a user box is established and lots of people have it on their pages, significant textual changes should be banned, since these lead to potentially incorrect information about people being displayed on their user pages. I seem to have become embroiled in a rather silly debate over this issue at {{User United Kingdom}} where people wanted to change the meaning of the box 2 months after its inception (and to something different from all other { { User country } } boxes too I might add). — SteveRwanda 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good argument for not using transcluded userboxes. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. I would certainly support a policy that says all users must copy the code needed for their userboxes directly from a central repository rather than using templates. This issue would go right out of the window then. Not sure that will gain much support though. SteveRwanda 13:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's almost certainly what's going to happen -- a repository of code snippets to copy to your userpage instead of a catalog of transcludable templates. (Which is incredibly unWiki, but no one cares.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a wiki. Existing policies covering the editing of templates apply. subst is your friend. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony has the best way to solve this problem --T-rex 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The most pointless debate ever

Honestly, folks. Userboxes are kinda like gay marriage, and my feeling about them is the same: "Don't like it? Don't have one." The biggest debate seems to be the templates, and which "space" to put them in, which, again, for Pete's sake, we're talking about cyber-vapor. What difference in the world does it make which virtual directory on which server the templates live in? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China (which is the real issue)? Couldn't we just establish some separate space (and call it something like "personalia") that is independent, and just let all this crap live there? Iamvered 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly Agree as per "Userboxes are kinda like gay marriage, and my feeling about them is the same: 'Don't like it? Don't have one.'"--Shawn 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad analogies are like feathers on a snake.--God Ω War 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• -1 Offtopic Cyde Weys 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What are we, Slashdot? Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 10:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Proposal

Given that userboxes have proliferated, and wikipedians frequently disagree about policy, there is another solution: policy handling by userboxes. Wikipedians should only be bound by policies they approve on their userpage. As such, we can use userboxes to prevent long, detailed and acrimonious policy discussions (like this one) - only follow the policy you approve! This is a neat and elegant formalisation of Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Grobertson 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I have have policy userbox that allows me to place policy userboxes on other users' pages that they would then have to abide by? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But of course! This fosters collaboration between users. You can also put a userbox disclaiming the userboxen that others have placed on your page. Grobertson 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To save us both further time and effort, assume Recursion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• -1 Troll Cyde Weys 16:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_Slashdot Grobertson 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• -1 Troll John Reid 03:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be nonconformist, and say +1FP. :-B I further propose that, when two policy userboxes result in a contradiction, the contradiction will be resolved by a physical duel to the death between the two parties involved. Anyone who refuses to accept a duel challenge for any reason will be required to place an "I am a chicken" userbox on his user page. If anything, this will be a good test of the ultra-liberal/libertarian notion of guns protecting human rights.

More realistically... now what? Bi 18:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with principle B

Principle B makes it sound like vast amounts of resources are being wasted on userboxes: "As such, the main template and category space and the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim."

I mean, what the heck? Userboxes are tiny- they are a sentence or two, a few snippets of HTML and wikiformatting. They hardly ever change (costing little in terms of page history and template updates), and they aren't that widely used, and there aren't that many of'em. I would be surprised to find that any userbox was used by more than a few hundred pages, and even more surprised to learn that there were more than a modest number of userboxes (perhaps a thousand max?).

I'd bet that I've wasted more server resources editting Palpatine or Musashi Miyamoto and idly checking my edit count or refreshing my watchlist than I've cost the servers for all the templates on my user page. If principle b wants to talk about costs, do it about a real problem, like scarce editor-attention or -time, not bogus "server resources" --maru (talk) contribs 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note

If the userboxes have to go, then all types of userboxes covering any sort of belief/conviction have to go in order to keep it content neutral, and in the spirit of Wikipedia. It would not be fair to let a user have a userbox demonstrating his belief in democracy whilst communist ones don't get a look in. All or nothing, I reckon. --Knucmo2 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preventing personal POV in userboxes is neither feasible nor conducive to community

For individuals speaking for themselves to be prevented from expressing points of view, would make Wikipedia worse off. Expression of personal points of view on userpages helps others better appreciate your perspective on your edits; more importantly, it helps Wikipedians get to know one another and fosters a sense of community, rather than faceless anonymity. Besides, no one is fooled by the supposedly NPOV-ized replacement userboxes indicating that "this user is 'interested in' atheism", "this user is 'interested in' Christianity", etc.; we all understand the expressions of personal points of view inherent in those milquetoasted userboxes, though we must do so with the annoying mental step of de-Orwellianizing them. Wikipedia is privately owned and so can offer whatever services or prohibit whatever expression it feels like on its servers. However, expression of personal points of view is inherent anyway in any userpages, messages to other users, or discussion pages. I don't think efforts to prevent Wikipedia servers from being used to convey individuals' personal points of view in userboxes are meaningful unless they also do away with userpages, user talk pages, and article talk pages.

Also posted at User:Reaverdrop/Userboxes - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why we should keep userboxes

I believe that we should keep them as it helps people find users that could help with sections of their articles. I am currently working on the Sports Section of Minnesota, and it helped the main editor of this article find someon like me with extensive knowledge in this area due to my userboxes. They help people find out who they are dealing with and if they know something about a subject important to an article you are editing. False Prophet 01:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is no such thing as a NPOV

I'm sorry, but you guys arguing that there is a such thing as a NPOV are just plain wrong. Every person is influenced by his own experience - every scientist, historian, doctor, or any other professional has biases, even if inately so. Philosophically, we can never really see things or feel things from another person's perspective, anyway. This is why userboxes are so important - they help us understand the conclusions the wikipedian has reached through their own experiences. By simply browsing through userboxes we can get a good idea about the person without readig a mile long biography - this will help us understand the persons editing and aid in compensating when the person seems to be favoring certain POVs. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)