Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes

Archives: One Two

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"? --日本にっぽん穣みのる 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]. --日本にっぽん穣みのる 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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&#149;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. --日本にっぽん穣みのる 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). --日本にっぽん穣みのる 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)

Straw poll on new policy

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

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

Oppose

1. I would support it if the part about images hadn't been added. Outside of that one point, I support it. --日本にっぽん穣みのる 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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