Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 99034jfoiasjq2oirhsf3 (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 2 March 2006 (What does this solve?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Two points for clarification

Firstly, would the proposed change to CSD T1 mean that only personal attacks could be speedied?

Secondly, would templates hosted in userspace be subject to deletion under this policy? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a template like User:Example user/subpage used by User:Example user would be totally fine, and not worth noticing. Simply moving an otherwise unacceptable template from Template:User POV pusher to User:Example user/User POV pusher and having 100 people all transclude it from there would be a non-good thing, but probably not worth bothering about. The main point is to take expressions of personal opinion meant to be displayed on user pages out of community spaces where they are assumed to be endorsed and/or accepted by the whole community. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My own proposals

  1. T1 should be rewritten to be objective. Current version is so subjective that anyone can read anything they want into it. Speedy should only be for blatant trolling and/or attacks.
  2. Clarify "valid" wikigroupings. Valid to some may not be to others so this needs defined up front.

Putting in my support vote for now but may reconsider later. Hopefully this will end up as a triumph of process and concensus over vigilantism. --StuffOfInterest 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "valid" is too vague --T-rex 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of that phrase, I can only say what I meant. I meant - existing wiki-projects, Esparanza, CVU, and stuff like that, and any other that the community considered valid in the future. Actual groups of wikipedians who do things together - rather than artificial groupings by POV. I was trying to make sure the polict didn't ban categories and userbox templates for useful associations. I rather support that type of userbox. --Doc ask? 00:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - but as we have seen with T1 (what exactly is 'polemical or inflammatory'?) ambiguous statements cause no end of grief, even when they are made in good faith. I realise what you mean - we don't want to have people circumventing it with WikiGroup:Bush Haters or whatever POV you care to pick, but using a term as imprecise as 'valid' is just an open invitation to abuse. Cynical 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is so goddamned "artificial" about a grouping by POV? It comes as naturally as anything around Wikipedia, I'll have you know. On the other hand, I am agreed on the approach: it would be better to clarify T1 to be based on an objective criterion. And by objective meaning we define particular areas where userboxes may not be used, not such large swaths of topics. That is, we don't punish all political userboxes because some dumbass creates an "I like Hitler / I hate Jews" userbox - we say that explicit promotion of fascism and racism is completely unacceptable and punish the perpetrators. --Daniel 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, any criteria hich said 'you can have polictical userboxes, but you can't express the the following political ideas....' would have huge problems. OK, 'I love hitler' would be easily our, but what about the KKK? And if we disallow the KKK, what about extreme racist parties or Al Queda? Hezbollah? Can somone say he thinks David Irvine was right? Any such rules are going to be arbitrary and smack of censorship. In the end we need common sense to tell the difference between trolling (eg. the pedeophile box) and just extreme views. Actually, if this policy passes, we can abolish T1 altogether. Since, no POV boxes will be allowed as templates - we evenhandedly remove all from the template space. But pretty much all can exist in the userspace. That again is evenhanded and fairly clear. --Doc ask? 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can be pretty clear that any userbox that is clearly intended for the sole purpose of stirring up racism or organizing known explicitly and objectively pro-racism groups on Wikipedia should be wiped. Neo-Nazis are objectively pro-racism. The KKK are objectively pro-racism. A userbox message that includes the slogans or emblems of either of these groups is objectively pro-racism.
Is Hezbollah objectively pro-racism? No, only it is only subjectively called racist, in a country that is frought with sectarian warfare and outside invasion. They could just as easily say that the Israelis and Phalangists are racist, and they'd be just as right as the Israelis and Phalangists who point the finger at them.
In such a case, allow for contending sides to contend with userboxes - all the better that they do not contend in the article space. --Daniel 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2C

are not allowed to use other users subpages as templates, so you could use your own, but not somebody elses. This would allow them to stay, and remove all possible abuse of "what links here" --T-rex 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Wikipedia is to broach no notion of right of assembly, then? What is this abuse you speak of? StrangerInParadise 23:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What started this whole userbox debate in the beginning was a single user, who was using the userbox grouping to try and rally wikipedians who he believed were anti-gay to vote for deletion on the article "Gay Culture in Iraq". Granted his attempt failed miserally, and people even complained about this user draging him into the subject. It was then proposed that userbox should then no longer be allowed to group wikipedians, but it was then pointed out that someone could check "what links here to do the same thing". This proposal is an attempt to eliminate these flaws with the previous userbox problem, yet to allow userboxes themselves to stay. That said you might be interested to know that I have voted oppose on this due to its lack of clarity. Mostly on the point that I mentioned above. --T-rex 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I join you in opposition, but not in wanting to frustrate the grouping of Wikipedians. Why is this a flaw? I think it is a good thing to bring interested parties to bear quickly on issues. Knowing where people stand is a good first step. This facilitates consensus, rather than the opposite. Again, why is this a problem? Worse, why is this a problem so fundamental that it calls for changing the very topography of Wikipedia? StrangerInParadise 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on this one, but trying to reach a compromise with those who feel that this is too easilly abused --T-rex 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a time for compromise. This proposal is far more dangerous than the problems it seeks to correct. We should create a Userbox: space, and this proposal should be dropped. The problem isn't that some article might receive a fatwa from some yahoo claiming to speak for a set of users bearing a userbox, the problem is the institutional weakness which might make such a force irresistible, for example an anti-Wikilawyering culture, poor debate process and a shaky understanding of the essence of NPOV. Telling people they cannot declare themselves Christian believer or Unreconstructed Trotskyite or Extra-crunchy Hippie Freak does not reinforce the culture of NPOV. Showing how these people have an immediate common basis for dialog based on NPOV does. That is the true power of NPOV. StrangerInParadise 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no opposition to "the grouping of Wikipedians" - see the large number of WikiProjects. There is opposition to the grouping of Wikipedians for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia. This is a very important distinction. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, JesseW, that all actions should be judged in terms of improving the encyclopedia. I simply do not trust you— or anyone— to make that judgement for me on so broad a scale. StrangerInParadise 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

If we also disallow images in user boxes (a I believe that the developers have suggested) than it makes it more difficult to use in this manner. A substituted image-free bit of code on a user page can't use media-wiki features like "what links here" for vote stacking. (Please don't suggest ways that this could be done ok?)
brenneman{T}{L} 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we need an agreement. Any demands like 'no images in userboxes' will be deal-breakers for many people. Let's get the agreement, if significant problems continue we can work outt how to refine it later. No doubt many people will think 'this policy could be improved, it doesn't give me all I want' - but if other suggestions start to run we will have a split vote, and no consensus. And that will probably mean a Jimbo-imposed rule. It may surprise folk to know that I don't favour that. It is best if the community can find a consensus that Jimbo too can live with. Frankly, at the momment, this is the only show in town, the best deal that's likely to succeed. --Doc ask? 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second the Doc's statements above. Lets just get some consensus for now - refining can come later. DJR (Talk) 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah, all true. But I don't want to be afraid to talk about possibilities for fear of spooking the herd. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Let's go with what we have. My watchlist has gotten so heavy I haven't started a new article for two days, now. I want to get back to helping write an encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 01:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived problems with "current situation"

Following from above, if we could get down in photons what we think the current problems are to see if we think this fixes them? My knee-jerk reaction is "it's all good" but I'd like a more careful analysis. I've thrown a few in to start. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Perceived problems with boxen themselves
    1. Can be used for vote stacking.
    2. Can appear to promote POV or factionalism between editors
    3. (?) Consume server resources
    4. (?) Consume editors' time
  2. Perceived problems with actions around boxen
    1. Inconsistent and/or aggressive deletions.
    2. "Freedom fighter mentality".
    3. Vague wording / lack of definitions
    4. Unknown status of / no consensus

Commentary

  1. Boxes
    1. As in section above, just substituting all boxes won't stop "contact all users who are anti-pope" funny business. I think we'll notice when it happens and take appropiate steps, so I'm unfussed. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. It is more important to block people for vote stacking then it is to make policy on userboxes --T-rex 00:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see the point in attempting to prevent transclusion, as it seems to be a lot of work for very little return. (I also added some more points) --AySz88^-^ 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      A tremendous amount of work? Nah, it's just an AWB run per userbox Cynical 18:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transclusion used for organization within userspace

Please see excerpt below:

  1. First a user box is just fancy html, there really is no such thing as a 'userbox' Besides that I will have to oppose until I can get some clarification on 2C. I have a userbox on a subpage, and I would want to be able to keep it there to keep the code on my userpage clean. At the same time this page isn't meant to be used by anyone else, but theoretically it could be. I suggest that 2C be changed to Users are not allowed to use other users subpages as templates, so you could use your own, but not somebody elses. This would allow them to stay, and remove all possible abuse of "what links here" --T-rex 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, T. I asked User:Quadell this same question, and his response was good. Although it isn't part of this policy. Perhaps this helps. ... aa:talk 01:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Quadell's answer; if you're only using it on your own page, then it's not being used in the spirit of templates. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In the indicated discussion above, I suggest using something like {{User:Foo/footransclusion}}. This way I can maintain individual pieces of markup on separate pages, rather than a jumble all on one page. The problem with this is somebody seeing my fancy "stfu" transclusion, deciding they like it, and using it on their page. So, with one or two users doing this, it's not that big a deal, and probably nobody would mind. But let's say pink is stylish in March, and thirty users transclude it. Then somebody is likely going to get upset about this and either delete the page (it's been happening), or go through and automatically subst them. Neither of these is ideal. However, I think that banning all transclusions in userspace is harmful as well.

I don't think this concern is enough to hold up something like this page becoming policy. But like another user said, we need to get this implemented, and then tweak as necessary. Let's not discuss just yet whether this is an appropriate use of the encyclopedia, but rather the best way to deal with this sort of thing. ... aa:talk 06:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I saw something like what you said above, my first step would be to subst the bit onto whatever other user's pages were using it, and leave it transcluded on the original user's page. And warn the other transcluding users that they should not do that. I don't see how that would be a harm to anyone... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You may copy my markup, but not borrow it. I like that. :) Sounds like a fair enough answer to me. This is precisely what I was talking about, above. Getting the policy accomplished in a compromising manner is great in that the little details, like the above, can be worked out without duress. ... aa:talk 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last two comments pretty much sum up, what I think would be the ideal solution for this problem. If the policy is changed to include this, then my vote changes to support thanks --T-rex 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy as it stands would define all pages intended for transclusion as templates. Personally, if someone has a subpage or two that they transclude onto their own userpage, I've no big problem with that. But what we don't want is someone moving masses of polemical boxes to userspace with the intention of encouraging general tranclusion - that would clearly be gaming the system to defeat the intent of the policy. And is likely to lead to 'Userbox War III'. If someone wants to use a userbox (or any graphic) that is on annother's page - then copy the hard code - it isn't difficult. --Doc ask? 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the policy page is still not clear on this, but again I agree with you --T-rex 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Change Proposal

Per TreyHarris's comments, I am suggesting that the sentence:

"Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded."

be changed to:

"Advocacy or declarations of bias, rather than declarations of skill or interest, are specifically excluded."

I intend this to be nothing more than a clarification and rewording, and hope it is viewed in that light. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Lukewarm support - I honestly can't see any difference, and it's not the sort of thing that will get to change my overall vote. It seems to me that "advocacy" is very broad anyway. But if this is going change of wording is going to make some people happier without changing the interpretation that Doc offers below, then by all means make it. Metamagician3000 10:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can sommone clarify what difference this would make, and what 'grey areas' it would clarify? Perhaps cite an example or two? --Doc ask? 11:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See vote #3 by TreyHarris at Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Abstain_.2F_Neutral_.2F_Comment. --AySz88^-^ 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The wording change is a waste of time, when we should gutting this proposal altogether. The very notion of frustrating one's sense of community and association by blinding one to the diversity with which he is surrounded is misguided at best, fascist at worst. It is as if we are to all don some NPOV burka so as to conform to someone else's expectations of neutrality (and homogeneity). If I am a fervent believer in something, it would be equally desireable to know I am on the fringe, or surrounded by tens of thousands of my fellow zealots. Consider: we edit what we are interested in. To take your concerns to a logical extreme, we should edit only articles assigned to us at random, as if pulled from a jury pool and by voire dire excluded from any we might have opinions on. This is not the way to avoid flamewars. Even if it were, the result is worse than flamewars. Make a Userbox: namespace, and be done with it! StrangerInParadise 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss this rather than vote on it. I could support this if we make the ambiguities inherent in the new wording less so. Advocacy or declarations of bias, rather than declarations of skill or interest, are specifically excluded. What do we mean by interest? If we clarify this to be 'editing interest'. But we don't want templates on irrelevant personal interests, or interests too specific to be useful. (Those are of course fine if hard coded.) Again 'skill' should be skills relevant to wikipedia editing 'e.g. this user can speak language x, programm a bot etc. We don't want irrelevant personal skills 'I can play football' or 'I'm rather good at martial arts'. You can have an editing interest template for those - but what's revevant is not your skill but your knowledge of the subject. If we change the wording here, let us make it clear that this is to be interpreted within the general ethos of 'utility to the encyclopedia' (everything else should be hard-coded). I'll support the change if it reads something like:
Advocacy or declarations of bias (rather than declarations of relevant skill or editing interest) are specifically excluded.
--Doc ask? 15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like Doc's formulation. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the proposed wordings are fine with me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

There seems to be a degree of doubt as to what this would mean in practice for userboxes. As one of the main authors of this policy proposal, let me expand on how I'd interpret its wording.

  • Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression. Means that almost all userboxes can be displayed on userpages. To be specific, you can display: political and belief userboxes. You can say you dislike George Bush, love the Spaghetti monster, and shop in Asda. You can declare your sexuality, nationality, sports allegiance, or furriness. You can even be 'polemical' (as long as it's not trollish). You can record your school, county and shoe size, and boast of your undying love of Michael Jackson, Jimbo, or strawberry jam. You can be an atheist, an anarchist, or an accountant - and proclaim it to the world. You can tell us which Bible verse, wiccan spell, or Spice Girl you prefer. All you can't do is breach no personal attacks, civility, copyright, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost. Which, in short, means; do what you want in your userspace, just don't be a dick. This is a very permissive userpage policy.
  • Templates, however, are only to be used for general things that provide direct benefit to creating an encyclopaedia. That means userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded.. This is intended to allow boxes that say something useful about what you can do to help Wikipedia. Let me give some examples:
  • Language skills (Babel templates) are allowed - because they may be helpful in translating articles
  • Geographical interest - that's not 'hey I live here' or 'my ancestors came from there' or 'I'm proud to be a...' - but 'I've got an interest/knowledge in editing [Scottish] articles' (regardless of whether I'm an ex-pat, or a Frenchman living in there). (Of course, more personal descriptions can be in hard-coded boxes, just not in templates).
  • There can be a template to indicate those interested in editing 'sexuality issues', but not one to declare an editor's sexuality (although you can do that in a hard-coded box)
  • I can have a template saying that I'm interested in editing theology, but not one saying I believe this or that (but belief-boxes can again be hard-coded)
  • You can have a template saying you are knowledgeable about articles on a certain sport, but there will be no template {{user: Celtic F.C.}} (but you can create a box on your userpage).
  • A template should tell us what kind of articles the user likes to edit, but not indicate any hidden biases she might exhibit as she does so.
  • 'I am a physician' should probably not be a template (it speaks of the user rather than of the editing interest), but 'this user is interested in medical articles' could certainly be a template.
  • 'Valid wikigroupsing' could have templates (that's projects, CVU, Esparanza etc), but there would not be templates that divide wikipedians by political, religious, or wiki-beliefs (but these can still be hard-coded userboxes).
  • Wiki-tasking would allow 'user admin' 'user new page patrol' 'user welcome' templates etc.

OK that's my take on the wording - I hope it helps. --Doc ask? 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I have with that is that Category: Wikipedians by location (and its accompanying userboxes) is generally considered useful to the project Cynical 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not bringing wikipedia into disrepute makes sense to me... but it could be subjective, depending on whose repute it really counts with in the final analysis, man... I would submit that many of the very things you gave as examples DO and WILL bring wikipedia into "disrepute" where it really matters on that Day... 172.139.30.143
Good clarifications, thanks. So is a userbox (an actual template) showing that one is a m:metawikipedian in or out? In, I think? How about m:inclusionist? Out, I think... thanks for further clarification there.++Lar: t/c 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification on this. It makes sense to me. Metamagician3000 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this suggests that association is a bad thing, why not have a Userbox: namespace, so all and sundry can gather up common userboxes together. This builds consensus by making factions coherent. StrangerInParadise 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for clarification of proposal, for the benefit of the technically clueless

I'm a non-newbie (been here for about a year, recently given mop & bucket), and before today I didn't really understand the meaning of "transclusion". I'd been using templates for months, but wasn't entirely familiar with the term describing what I'd been doing, and so was slightly confused by the discussion of transcluding userboxes.

I admit that I'm not very technically minded, but I suspect that there are other Wikipedians who are similarly clueless about the MediaWiki side of things, and who (like me) might be a bit confused by some of the terminology in this proposal. After a bit of searching, I found Wikipedia:Template namespace and the particularly helpful Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits, which enabled me to fully understand what was being proposed. I suggest that these two pages be linked to the proposal, for the benefit of Wikipedians like me who are happy to engage in both the encyclopedia project and the community supporting it without knowing too much about the mechanical underpinnings. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the uses of the word transclusion to Wikipedia:Glossary#Transclusion; hopefully that will help... JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from main page

Copied from voting page:

  1. I think that moving advocate userboxes to userpages solves nothing about the real problem, advocacy in userboxes (and user pages) in the first place. I also think that use of the generic {{userbox}} should be allowed as not-a-template (since using that template doesn't reveal its contents through WhatLinksHere or anything). (This may also be somewhat of a selfish vote because I want some time for my own idea, which I think is how (non-advocate) POV userboxes can be utilized in an encyclopedia-helping way.) --AySz88^-^ 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Advocacy in userboxes can't be done away with without silly (you can write what you want but not in user boxes) or onerous (you can't write what you want) restrictions on speech on user pages. BrokenSegue 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Restricting userboxes is not a silly restriction. Userboxes can make the POV advocacy seem accepted in the community and can cause some to think that POV-vs-counter-POV fighting is okay (instead of pushing people towards NPOV). If the language of userboxes is restricted a bit to avoid advocacy, the userbox turns into a NPOV-promotion device, instead of an advocating pro-POV device, by making oneself and others aware of biases. --AySz88^-^ 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is someones's opinion in a box any worse that someone's opinion as raw text? My problem with the boxes was that they were in the template space. Using you standard, the defintion of a userbox would be critical. Is a userbox any text in a box? Any text in a small box? Hardcoded userboxes are rather poorly defined (especially if they don't use the user box creation template). If I was god-king I would banish all userboxes because I think they are ugly and unprofessional, but this is a fair compromise. BrokenSegue 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comments

I thought your first post was referring to my idea, but maybe I was mistaken - if you haven't seen it, it's here again, so you know what I meant by a "restricted" userbox. The advantage of providing a tame version of a POV box in template space is a decrease in POV declarations which are worded in an advocating way (or inflammatory, personal attacks, etc.). In the context of this proposal, for what I would be asking is the allowance of tame Wikified POV boxes in Template space, instead of the "POV userboxes are specifically excluded" currently in place.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "the definition of a userbox would be critical"; maybe I clarified what I meant above. --AySz88^-^ 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that does clear it up somewhat. I didn't quite understand your point. Your solution is workable and would calm much of the disputes, but its not worth having all of these templates and the overhead managing them (monitoring them, organizing them). How many people are really using userboxes to express their POV? Very few. Most people display them because they think they are funny or they want to make a point. Anyways I think text is better than userboxes for expressing POV. BrokenSegue 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that my suggestion would be a shift in how POV userboxes are used, but that's part of the purpose (to shift how POV boxes are used). You're right that it probably wouldn't change the fate of the existing userboxes in the context of this proposal. But my problem is that my idea is not compatible with this policy, since "POV" or "bias declarations" (depending on the wording finally adopted) are "specifically excluded" from Template space. So I feel like this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater taking away a great possibility for userboxes. As to the logistics, there is already a semi-formal body monitoring and managing userboxes (WikiProject Userboxes), as well as people watching from the "other side" (for lack of a better term), so I don't think manpower will be an issue for a while. And as far as I can tell, userboxes don't discourage textual elaborations of one's views. :) Do I have anyone's support? :p --AySz88^-^ 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment rule

A note on changes to the policy requested on this page: We cannot simply change the proposed policy after fifty plus votes have been cast. Instead, a list of proposed changes needs to be made. If the UBP is ratified, such changes can be individually discussed/voted upon. ... aa:talk 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a rule before. Votes are a means of establishing consensus, not a substitute for it. The idea that the policy as proposed is frozen while voting goes on is a divisive one. If we could edit the policy to get everyone to support it (not likely to happen in this case, granted) what on earth is the purpose of forcing a minority to oppose it after that consensus was reached? If this is how we're going to run this proposal, I have to change my vote to oppose, when I am on the cusp of supporting it. --TreyHarris 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TreyHarris; this is not "ratified", we discuss until it reaches consensus. Changing it is part of this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. I'd rather take the time and get a policy that addresses people's concerns. I'd be delighted if my current oppose vote could be turned into a support vote without pissing off the people who voted to support in the first place. From what I've seen, any tweaking that would now bring me on side is unlikely to piss off those people. Metamagician3000 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a lot of qualms about this policy (not the policy itself, so much as I think the straw poll was introduced far too early). This policy must certainly evolve, but as this is true of all our other policies, I have decided to set aside my qualms in the interests of establishing that we have a policy that is pretty close to being accepted by all reasonable people. I'm not saying that those who oppose it are being unreasonable--far from it, I've seen many reasonable objections I would certainly expect a wide latitude for discussion on this policy to be extended long after it was accepted.

Having said that, I'm very impressed that, after nearly 70 votes in the poll, 50 of the votes cast are in support. The time is right, and we have something that most of us feel could work with just a tweak here and there. Let's keep discussing and working on this policy after (as seems likely) it gains wide enough acceptance to be adopted. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bothered with something: it feels like there seem to be quite a few votes that support via attrition or because they're "tired" or something, with comments like "Sure, whatever" or "just make this stupid argument go away" or "I don't care". There are also things like "support, but x needs to be changed". Couldn't this end up creating a policy that nobody's happy with during the "tweaking" stage? Admittedly, I really don't know what they're thinking, especially as I only started participating more in the past week or so. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Record of discussion on project page

I'm taking the liberty of shifting all this discussion I've been involved in over to here: Metamagician3000 00:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm going to change my vote on this, given the circumstances we're faced with and what I've said on the talk page ... where I'll now move this material. From now on, I'll make comments in the comments section [well, actually on the talk page], but my opposition stands until I'm persuaded that this policy can be implemented without unnecessarily upsetting more people [okay I'm now reasonably persuaded on that]. My previous statement/dialogue follows...
    What a waste of time this whole initiative to restrict userboxes has been. Userboxes that express your beliefs do no harm and a certain amount of good. They are convenient, moderately fun, and encourage personal connection with the project. I for one currently feel alienated by the disappearance of those little bright boxes that I had selected for my userpage. Yes, it's really going to help the encyclopedia that I've been prevented from having a little box on my userpage supporting spaghetti-monsterism. Not. All it's done is made me feel pissed off and less inclined to participate here. I'm sure there'll be lots of others who currently feel like this. Why go to so much trouble to lose our good will? Metamagician3000 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Userboxes that express your beliefs" would still be allowed under this proposal. I don't know how this can be made clearer: the proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." I certainly agree with you that the content you mentioned as being on your user page is not harming the encyclopedia, or anybody; that's why this proposal doesn't stop you from keeping it. Please clarify what exactly about this proposal you object to. Thanks, JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    Not so. I've already had a few userboxes silently removed from my userpage over the past few days (presumably they were disenabled and disappeared for everyone who was using them). From memory, these were the bright (movement) userbox, a userbox supporting evolutionary theory, and a version of the satirical spaghetti monster userbox. As far as I can see, this proposed policy would not enable me to put them back because they express philosophical viewpoints and don't specifically contribute to the encyclopedia except by amusing me. Admittedly, I could custom design something of my own, or get someone with better computer skills to do so, but that doesn't change the (admittedly minor; I don't want to sound hysterical) violation I felt when they just disappeared without my knowledge. Nor does it give me the convenience of finding ready-made templates that I can use. This action and the proposed policy which would justify it just provide a level of pettiness and inconvenience that surprised me and that I could do without. Metamagician3000 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's still unclear I object to the following part of the policy, particularly the bit I've put in bold, and the fact that something like it is already being implemented: "Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. Userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." Metamagician3000 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That applies only to templates; you're free to do so on your own user page. Regarding the userboxes you've lost, that is an unfortunate result of the many conflicting solutions users have attempted. If you'd like to recover the code for the templates you've lost, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I'll restore them on your page (as part of User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes). // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's nice of you and I'll take you up on it, but this policy won't prevent such things from happening. It'll actually lead to more of the same, since it will give official support to wiping out a whole lot of other userbox templates. Also, I won't have a convenient way of adding new userboxes if I have a whim. I don't understand what is the real problem to which this policy or the deletion of userboxes that is going on is a solution. I, for one, had no problem at all - I was just a happy, fairly new wikipedian editing real articles - until my userboxes disappeared and I had to track through and discover this whole mess. I've been dragged into something that I didn't know existed. I have certainly not been organising mass votes of spaghetti-monster-worshipping wikipedians. If some people have been acting like that, I can see it is annoying for administrators, but it seems to me that it's an annoyance that you just have to put up with (perhaps finding some way to discipline the individuals concerned if you think it's illegitimate, as opposed to just annoying) rather than creating difficulties for users like me who were perfectly content. Metamagician3000 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very sympathetic to what you are saying; one of the single biggest shames of this whole mess has been that good faith new users like yourself have been misled and forced into being involved in this sort of foolishness. As for this policy not preventing such things from happening, I would point you to these quotes from the proposal: "Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease" and "Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should not be immediately deleted."(my bold) As for why, IMO, people have been reacting as they have been, if you are interested, see here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the moment, my opposition stands. I'm a bit mollified that it's been conceded that I have a point, and that I've been given an offer of help. I see that some other people are also getting help.
But the proposed policy will still result in people getting upset when, like me, they see userboxes disappear from their userpages with no prior warnings, consultation with them personally, or offers of assistance. I don't how the policy stops that from happening, even if there is some process going on behind the scenes to decide which userboxes get deleted. Upsetting good faith users for the sake of a principle about the use of template space seems like a very bad idea. I didn't have to look far to see that I'm not the only person who was upset by what has been happening, which this policy would make official. To implement a policy like this sympathetically would take a helluva lot of work for someone. It would mean that every time a template is abolished, someone would have to identify each user who was using that template, contact them all one by one and tell them how to preserve it on their own pages, wait for some time, then delete it. If that had happened with the deleted userboxes on my userpage, I doubtless would have responded cooperatively (assuming that I was convinced it was being done systematically as part of an official policy and not just someone arbitrarily wiping out userboxes they don't like ... if that's what actually happened). If someone here is prepared to do all that work, then fine, but it hasn't been happening so far when userboxes are deleted, and it seems like a waste of energy to me. It also seems to me that the people voting to support the policy are doing so from a viewpoint of having been well aware of the so-called problem, involved in previous debates about it, and even fed up with those debates (see their reasons for giving support). When the first you hear of the "problem", or any of those debates (which seem more like storms in a teacup from where I sit), is when your userpage suddenly changes, things look very different. Metamagician3000 02:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this proposal is precisly to stop the semi organized, unfriendly, hasty, and otherwise troublesome way that things have been handled so far. According to this proposal - no userboxes would vanish from people's pages. In the case of existing userboxes, they would be subst'ed; users with them on the page would see no visible difference. In the case of newly created userbox templates, there is not a requirement to subst them, but I at least will be happy to subst any templates that are deleted before their users can copy them, and I imagine many other users will feel similarly. These are certainly storms in a teapot; that's why wer're trying to calm them down, and get back to real work. It's really important to distinguish what has been going on (a massive, nasty, vitrolic ForestFire biting and upsetting both new users and old hands), and what we are trying to achieve with this proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I want to think about this. It's starting to seem that the most important part of the policy is actually the detail of the Implementation part. I'm trying to understand, in the light of your comments and the other explanations provided, how it would work in practice. I can see that it might be okay if enough resources were put in. I still think this is all a waste of time - something should simply have been done to stop people stuffing up others by deleting templates without warning. But I could be neutral on this policy or even give it reluctant support if there was a way of making absolutely clear in the policy itself just how it means what you just said it means. At the moment, some of it is worded in such a passive/vague way that I find it hard to give it an operational meaning at all, but I can see now how it could mean what you've just said. I'm not opposed in principle to the idea that template space be reserved for stuff that genuinely contributes to the encycopoedia. If it had always been like that, I don't see how anyone could complain. It's the sudden effect on people who have taken the whole project as they've found it, acted in good faith, then been confronted with changes, seemingly out of nowehere that worries me. If the policy stamps that out, and everyone is looked after - and the policy clearly says they will be - without them having to work out what is going on and shout for help, then my grounds for objection will obviously vanish. :) As you can see, it is what has happened so far that has annoyed me. Metamagician3000 05:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant to excuse what has happened so far (we both agree that it was wrong and counter-productive), but IMO, it was done due to the belief that no guideline as to what should be a template and what should not could be formed. This proposal is precisly such a guideline. In truth, the issue of the offensive deletions is a seperate one from this proposal; this sets out what should be a template, and what should not; preventing people from making changes out of nowhere is really a seperate issue. (although I strongly hope that this proposal will help calm everyone down so that such hasty actions will not occur.) I'd appreciate it if you could specify (on this talk page), exactly what parts of the proposal you find unclear, and suggest some better wording. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can write the policy myself because I don't know enough about the allocation of responsibilities, etc, but the key to convincing me that this is okay and won't continue to piss people off when it's implemented is some kind of expansion and rewording of paras 2 (especially the second sentence) and 4 of the Implementation part. Those sentences potentially provide important protections if they are fleshed out in the right way. I think if they made it clearer who will have the responsibility to do exactly what, it would put my mind at rest. I'm not worried about myself now, but about being nice to all the people not yet embroiled in all this. At the moment, those sentences are written in passive voice, and I can't quite envisage what will happen under them. Metamagician3000 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a deep breath and change my vote anyway. It's taken me a couple of days to absorb this, but I don't think we have any choice but to go with a policy along the lines of what is proposed. I still want to see the Implementation part tweaked a bit, but the work that Pathoschild and others are doing will probably meet my concerns even if the policy itself doesn't say enough. For that reason, I'm not going to hold out for some change, but I do hope the sentences I refer to above will be strengthened anyway. At least some of the people involved in putting this policy forward are not the bad guys who've been vandalising our userpages, but are trying to come up with a workable compromise in a situation not of their making. Metamagician3000 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to put this into practice?

As this has 81% support (as of now), I'm going to start putting this into practice, in the following ways:

  • Subst'ing already deleted templates with User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes project.
  • Adding non-deleted templates that should not be templates according to this guideline to Pathoschild's list.
  • Deleting the templates after they all have been subst'ed, and replacing them with the following message: This template has been deleted, after all the uses have been fixed, per [[Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll]]..

Let me know if this is acceptable to you all, JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (Fixed major thinko in this post -- 02:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

Putting this into practice is a huge project. I would try to get everything into the userpages, before going back to delete the old stuff, but if your willing to take care of the tons of edits that this will take to get going, I'm glad you've got some time on your hands --T-rex 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, is 81% enough for policy? (Also, to nitpick: I count 76.8% support as of JesseW's post, even not including the two abstains.) --AySz88^-^ 02:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I counted only supports and opposes, not neutrals or abstains; 76.8% is also a reasonable number. I felt that 81% (or 76.8%) is enough to begin to put this into practice; AFAIK, specific percentages are generally de-empathized, in favor of general tendencies. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"General tendency" sounds like majority, not supermajority, though. What have been the accepted levels needed to show consensus support of a policy? I think care should be taken, especially as something like this likely can't be reversed. --AySz88^-^ 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; go look at the history of various guidelines and policies and find out. I view this more as a guideline than a policy, in any case... Which of the steps I laid out above can't be reversed? JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It involves undeleting the template, and un-substing the template from seperate pages.... It's a bit more difficult, at least. I guess it's more like it's less reversible, especially if there are already concerns about difficulties of doing it in one direction in the first place. --AySz88^-^ 02:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not play the numbers game. It seems to me that the proposal has a lot of support and such opposition as has been expressed is for the most part very reasonable and capable of being resolved by discussion. In short, we're witnessing the birth of that rarely sighted bird: a true consensus.

I don't see any problems with tentative moves to start to enforce this policy, provided great care is taken by those doing so. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post two sections up might be better posted here, where I'm worried about an illusion of consensus. :/ --AySz88^-^ 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vandalism right now. Three days is not sufficient to determine any consenesus. Attempting to claim consensus after such a short period of time is nothing less then vote stacking. Allow the poll to go for at least a week if not two. You know God Damn well that a lot of people have real life work commitments and cannot be on wikipedia 24x7. I insist that you revert any subst'd userboxes and restore them back into template space. --Dragon695 03:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. If you want 2 weeks, two weeks is fine. Userboxes have been being fought about for more than three months now, so the topic is hardly new. Feel free to revert whatever you wish, all the necessary lists of edits and code is available. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User page directory

If this does go into effect will it be okay to have a directory of userboxes at User:Boxes? Everthing here would be subst so editors can not transclude and whatlinks here will not work? Acceptable?--God of War 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, User:Boxes has not made any edits to the encyclopedia, have they? Why don't you put such a list under your name if you find it useful. That's the first step, in any case. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Such a directory is indeed suggested by the policy; whether it would be on a Wikipedia page (such as the current Wikipedia:Userboxes) or elsewhere is a matter for community discussion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
My own take is that a directory would be OK. The userbox templates that are permitted under the policy (those useful to building an encyclopedia - babel, skills, etc) could and should have an 'official' directory in project space. The rest (POV, beliefs and jokes) can have a directory, providing it is a list of hard codes to copy and not templates. But that directory must clearly unofficial. I'd prefer it in someone's usespace - that way its unofficial status is obvious. If there was a consensus for it to be in project space (and I think I'm opposed to that - but I'm open to persuasion), it would have to clearly say that the use of these was 'contraversial' and indeed 'discouraged by the the foundation's leader'. --Doc ask? 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stongly Disagree that non-project templates cannot exist in userspace. Also, since the project is now being funded by outside donations, his comments are no more important than anyone elses and should not be included on any such page. --Dragon695 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with role usernames and role accounts, especially ones that may give the impression of having a special connection with Wikipedia. In my opinion User:Userboxes and User:Boxes match this pattern, suggesting to the casual user some degree of officialness. I suggest that the best way to handle the directories of userboxes is to have each page adopted by a given established user who will be held personally responsible for keeping it compliant with Wikipedia policy on user of userspace. It would be moved into that user's userspace where it could be used in much the same way that it is now. Then perhaps we would have a master directory of such userspace directories either in the current Wikipedia:Userboxes or in a subpage of the associated WikiProject. The only real difference would be that the page with these links would refer to them as userpages--and that small change would make me happy.

In addition to the broad divisions according to subject, users could also list their own personal collections of userboxes on this page, and I would welcome this as again emphasizing that this is an activity by users within the community and not part of the infrastructure of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to put the directory in User:Boxes because any directory on my page could be seen as influenced by my POV. On User:Boxes, anyone can edit the code of the boxes to create them for and against any subject. I was thinking though, User:Boxes could have a sub-page for each userbox to make it more manegable. To prevent transclusion I could simply require each userbox sub-page start with a <no include>.--God of War 18:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason why we don't want directories of userboxes that don't pass Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in Project space is that they will be influenced by individual users' points of view. Putting them into a role account still doesn't help. Let there be an established, known user who is responsible for each directory of such userboxes, who stands to lose something if he doesn't comply with our quite relaxed userspace policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something doesn't comply with userbox policy on the User:Boxes page than you can raise that point with other editors and then we can determine by consensus to remove it. Having a single organized directory makes a whole lot more sense than fragmenting it all over wikipedia. I like the User:Boxes page because it has the aire of neutraliy as to what is acceptable and what isn't. For instance, User:Boxes allows both the liberal boxes and the conservative boxes. I am willing to host the entire project on my page but I think user:boxes is much more sensical than User:God of War\Userbox_Directory_Subpage. This is the way out the userbox war, Tony.--God of War 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? Sorry, missing something. Who is user:boxes? Is this a real user? If it is, then he/she can do as any other user can do and put what she likes in her userspace. But if this is an attempt to create a semi-official userbox space, where POV userboxes can be kept, then that's quite different. Can you clarify who user:Boxes is? --Doc ask? 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That user was created by someone on our side of the debate, I forget who (God of War, maybe?). So for all intents and purposes, it is a sockpuppet (for now). --Dragon695 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of directories...

Where would the categories "Life, Status and Situation" and "Interests and Tastes" fit into all this? in the wikipedia-userbox directory or a userpage-userbox directory? thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with using project space to house directories of items in template space. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tony, except I'm not sure that Mike has understood the policy. There would be no templates for user 'life status or situation' nor 'tastes' - and 'interests' only in so far as they were editing interests. All the rest could continuue to exist - but not as templates. --Doc ask? 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand this, there could still be a single subpage of WikiProject:Userboxes, listing all boxen of a particular type (as there is now), but that page would have to list CODE, not template calls (at least for the POV boxen)Cynical 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree Doc. I think allowing non-relevant to project templates to be transcluded in userspace is fine and a directory of such templates hosted by a user shouldn't be a problem. That sounds more like a compromise. --Dragon695 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify my question a bit. I feel that if someone is "intrested in X" or "enjoys X" then they would be more likley to edit articles on X, and having userboxes that state this would make it easier to solicit contrubutions to articles on the subject of X or X-related articles. This goes for life, status situation boxes as well. If someone's life, status or situation is affected by X, I would think that that person would be naturally drawn to editing articles on X. so, I think that most of these boxes are probably reflecting "editing intrests" in all but name or without saying "I'm intrested in editing articles on X". Also, I'm willing to bet that boxes deleted because they share an intrest, but not an editing intrest, will simply be recreated and reworded to say "I edit articles on X" or somthing similar. oh yea, Doc: your right to conclude that I don't understand the policy. Thats why I asked! : ) Mike McGregor (Can) 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the boxes may reflect editing interests, or they may not. I doubt that "This user is male" reflects an interest in either watching or editing the article, Male, but it might... If boxes are changed or recreated to reflect an shared interest in improving the encyclopedia (i.e. we get a profusion of new Wikipedia:WikiProjects then that's a win for everyone - we get more people joining together to improve the encyclopedia, people who wish to state their shared interest in a subject can do so - this works out well. I'll support your bet, and hope that it comes true. It's one of the major benefits of the proposal... JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Implementation 1-3

Implementation 1-3 states: "Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the project'". This is not clear enough. We have to define what doesn't meet the criteria and can be speedy deleted and what debatably meets the criteriaand must be sent to TFD. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in the same situation "A Template might be tagged for deletion, users voting to keep it and an admin deleting it because it doesn't meet the criteria" or "A template speedy deleted and users voting on deletion review that it doesn't meet the criiteria.--Wedian 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is never possible to be that precise. 'Utility to the project' is to be the sole criterion, and we have some examples and indicators inthe policy. What that means in practice will have to be decided by precedent and discussion. I'm not sure how, without a three page policy, we could be any more precise. Perhaps you have a suggestion? --Doc ask? 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be we can limit speedy deletions to personal attacks, religion and politics -related userboxes. Anything else should be sent to TFD. Also "utility to the project" is a broad and judgmental criterion (exactly as it was with inflammatory and divisive). Perhaps something like this "Templates created after this policy comes into effect which express any kind of religious or political advocacy or bias may be speedily deleted. Other templates must be sent to TFD, where the sole criterion would be their accordance with the "no-bias policy of userboxes". --Wedian 16:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting procedure

As things stand, democracy in Wikipedia is under attack. Every single "oppose" vote has been met by an onslaught of arguments and quibbles by a minority of users. This means that anyone viewing the page who just wants to vote, not enter a full blooded argument, will most likely feel unable to do so if they oppose the motion. It is my belief that the behaviour of a few users is designed to put people off voting if they are against the proposal. Surely the voting page is for voting, and the discussion page for discussion? I think the discussions should be moved from the voting page to this talk page, but will wait for concensus here before proceeding with that action. Waggers 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true. And I think you should assume good faith before you impute motives to those commenting on votes. The fact is that many of those opposing offer reasons which quite evidently show that they have not understood the proposal. Commenting on votes, while perhaps sometimes it may look like harassment, is actually usual wikipedian priactice. Indeed technically, we aren't voting, we are discussing as well as testing consensus. Onlu large threads of discussion should be moved to the talk page, no simple comments or questions. --Doc ask? 21:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you didn't want people to comment on your vote, perhaps you shouldn't have commented when you voted. Actually, you initiated the discussion. --Doc ask? 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are encoureged to comment on your vote, so I don't see how you are the one starting the conversation. At the same time this works both ways so, It shouldn't be a problem --T-rex 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it's just an informal straw poll that demonstrates that we have the makings of a consensus (Wikipedia is not a democracy). --Tony Sidaway 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is much too soon to claim any kind of consensus. Would someone who isn't supporting this proposal please verify that we aren't dealing with any sockpuppets on the support side. Also, this needs to be put in a prominate place so that everyone knows that it is up for vote and not just the userbox haters. --Dragon695 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can relax about sockpuppets; although I think there are lots of not-quite-support supporters, I think they're all genuine and seperate people. It's a reasonable proposal in theory, even though I think there are vague bits (and I have my own seperate reason for opposing).
You might have a good point on the people knowing of this poll; although there's a link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts, we might be leaving out a lot of middlish-people. My first thought would be to add a notice on the most commonly-used userboxes, but that might not be a good idea. This also might not be important enough to put on the Watchlist page. --AySz88^-^ 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that parts are vague and are subject to interpretation. I think we should allow for at least a week, if not two to fully flesh this out before any action is taken. There is no need to hurry. --Dragon695 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you suspect specific cases of sock puppetry, take the suspicions to the appropriate place. This straw poll has been widely publicised:
This is a serious proposal. --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the appropriate place. You are too invested to be objective, which is why I was asking for someone other then you. Thank you for your concern, though. --Dragon695 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general way that sockpuppets are investigated are:
  1. By looking at contribution lists (you Dragon695, can certainly do this; please post whatever you find)
  2. Requesting CheckUser on suspect ones, on the page for that. (you can also do that, although you will need to find someone else to do the actual checks)
Feel free to make such an investigation, but please don't just make allagations without evidence. (Not that you were, exactly.) Also, anyone is free to reply to support votes as well as oppose votes. If there's something you want to say, please do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Counteroffer

Doc, when one usually says compromise, one assumes that both sides will sacrifice. The way I see it, you aren't sacrificing much, since hard-coded, POV HTML is already allowed. Thus, to make this proposal more balanced, here we propose the following:

  1. We accept that non-project specific userboxes (as defined in Doc's proposal) should be moved to userspace.
  2. However, they will not be subst'd, but rather will remain as sub-userpages in template form. Any userboxes speedied will be resurrected to fix red links left by last-weeks mass deletion by you, Tony, and Mark.
  3. Until you can provide conclusive, statistical evidence that transcluding small templates (such as userboxes) rather than serving plain HTML places significantly more substantive strain on the servers (which is very dubious given the small amount of PHP operations involved), the sharing/transclusion of userspace templates shall be allowed.
  4. Furthermore, an unofficial directory of these userspace templates will also be allowed, but with ample warnings of it's unofficalness.
  5. A link to this page will be provided on the userbox page.
  6. Userspace templates shall NOT be eligible candidates for CSD T1, and must go through TfD in all cases.
  7. Non-project specific user categories will be allowed, optionally placed in a different namespace, if needed.
  8. Non-project specific user categories will likewise be listed on the unofficial page.
  9. Chronic abuse of a userspace category for vote-stacking or POV pushing in article space is valid reason for listing in CfD.

I think that this is fair given that it removes the "officiallness" of the contentious userboxes while not excessively burdening/troubling those who wish to use them. Furthermore, it does allow for formations of communities based on likes/dislikes as long as those communities do not abuse their category. --Dragon695 05:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I have to assume "Non-project specific user categories" includes things like "Wikipedians who bike" but not some bias category (i.e. something like "Wikipedians against scientology") where the only obvious reasonuse for its existance is to vote-stack or POV-push? --AySz88^-^ 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This counter offer solves nothing, copying and pasteing isn't that hard. Some minor points do need to be discussed but the whole thing doesn't need to be rewritten --T-rex 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both "sides"? I, as well as most of the voters here, are not on a "side". We are trying to help the encyclopedia, and resolve a nasty dispute that's disrupting the community. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that there is a dispute necessitates multiple parties in the dispute; otherwise there is no disagreement. You might not care one way or the other, but there are many who do, or we wouldn't be discussing this at all. Rogue 9 12:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly - there are many parties, with many different opinions, values, ideas, etc, not two "sides" which must "sacrifice" something. JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems fair to me. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody!Click to view my evil userboxes 12:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair. Support. Rogue 9 12:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually rather flattered that Dragon695 thinks that he can negotiate a deal directly with me. If only I had that power! What we need is a policy that can commend itself to a wide consensus of wikipedians. THe problem is until now, we haven't had any consensus as to how to proceed. If we don't have a consensus, then we have wars, or Jimbo imposes a policy (and I really favour neither of those options). Actually, there have almost been as many proposed policies that there are userboxes, and none have flown outside a small circle of their adherents. Finally, we have one that seems to be gathering wide support (from commited userbox users and their opponents). No, it will not please everyone, but it is the best on offer just now. Does anyone think that Dragon's proposal will get more support than the one on the front page? Sure the policy being polled isn't ideal for anyone, but it has a chance of consensus. Those opposing it should ask themselves, 'what will happen if this fails?'. It will not be that their alternative will succeed in its place. If this fails, then I predict all attempts at community consensus will fail. And if the community can't find consensus, it is pretty clear that sooner or later one will be imposed. Do we want that? I don't. --Doc ask? 14:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like this policy better than the policy on the front page. But I don't think this one will fly nearly as well with others (hardly at all with some folk, I suspect). I also agree with Doc that it's not really a matter of negotiation directly with anyone, it's a matter of working together to reach consensus. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good analysis. It only takes 30% to oppose something in oreder to scupper it. It seems (and I may be premature in saying this) that the proposal on the main page isn't encountering that level of opposition. I'm pretty sure, whatever we might negotiate here, a proposal that looked like the one above would get that level of opposition. So whatever its merits, it just isn't going to fly. And we all agree that we do need a workable policy ASAP. --Doc ask? 16:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a problem?

Show me where POV userboxes and user categories have actually caused problems. Just shouting "OMG THIS IS DISRUPTIVE" doesn't cut it, no matter how many people do it.

However, this proposal is more or less tolerable were it not for the prohibition on categories by user POV. Why do we care why someone comes here so long as his articlespace edits are of decent quality? Kurt Weber 18:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Note the references in that page to earlier attempts to stack votes using POV userboxes and/or categories. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Janizary vote recruitment from userbox template. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that, since WP:NOT a democracy, there really is no such thing as "vote stacking", I fail to see these as problems with the boxes and categories so much as problems with individual users abusing something. As Wikipedia operates on consensus rather than sheer weight of numbers, then all the opponents to the "Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia" need is a superior argument to win, say, a deletion discussion (if a closing admin fails in his responsibility to make decisions based on the arguments presented and instead makes his decision on sheer numbers, then he should not be an admin). In the case of POV-pushing on individual articles, by all means blatant and habitual POV-pushers should be dealt with severely. However, Wikipedians organizing themselves by POV does not ipso facto mean that they are engaging in or planning in engaging in large-scale organized POV-pushing rather than, say, simply forming a social club.
And if you're thinking, "Well, this is an encyclopedia; people should be editing articles, not forming social clubs", then (at the risk of violating WP:CIVIL, but this needs to be said and I don't know how else to put it) you need to get the corncob out of your ass. In many cases, it is the participation in the community that keeps many excellent editors here making there excellent edits. For them, the encyclopedia is a means to an end; their primary interest is participating in the community itself. And that's perfectly OK! As long as they're making good contributions, why should we care why they're here? Kurt Weber 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes, I'm not sure these are necessarily bad. As far as I know, those who attempted to abuse the userboxes effectively revealed themslelves as POV-pushers, and any potential harmful contributions from them are being carefully watched by others. It's a rather roundabout benefit, but is still a benefit. Dalbury noted that this assumes nobody gets away with it, but it appears to me (from the incident involving User:Jason Gastrich) that one can only try to recruit an insignificant number of people (a couple, maybe) before one of the "recruits" cries foul or someone catches on (suspicious of a sudden shift in vote patterns or, in the case of a closer vote, many people carefully watching the process).
It's also difficult to cite any specific improvements by userboxes since, to me, the main positive effect of userboxes is the make the user aware of their own biases, which is probably hard for other people to notice. (It might be that I'm the only one that thinks this, though. :p ) Abuses, on the other hand, are a lot more visible. --AySz88^-^ 20:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is not so much people "getting away with" this, as the corrosive effect of this kind of attack on the neutrality policy being seen as not such a big deal--which in my opinion it very much is. In my opinion, it must be ruthlessly stamped out. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add that I think POV userboxes are more likely to reinforce biases than they are to help editors set aside their biases when editing. POV userboes are a way of showing your pride in your POVs, and I think that is also damaging to the effort to achieve NPOV in articles. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand - then why allow those kinds of userboxes (of the "prideful" type) to exist at all? --AySz88^-^ 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is my personal opinion, and I'm not up to a fight over that issue. If the boxes are not transclusable, I'm not going to fight them, although I will have my private thoughts about the editors who exhibit them. This userbox fight has cut into my editing time, and my list of topics to work on keeps growing. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Haven't made my mind up yet (basically because I think that a lot of the deleted userboxes were over-the-top and rightly got rid of, but the deletion went a bit too far and also removed some that were innocuous). When does the poll close? - MPF 00:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When consensus is clear. --Doc ask? 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not fussed personally, if the result is volitile or bordeline then that or even longer may be neccessary. On the other hand if it is stable and clear over a period, it may not. These things just happen. --Doc ask? 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amendment to allow personal page transclusion

It has been pointed out that the wording of the proposal could be interpreted as prohibiting personal navbars, lists of articles etc. As one of the writers of this policy, I can confirm that this was never the intention, and I would strongly oppose such a move. For the avoidance of doubt, and after some discussion, I am moving the following clarifying amendment to the policy:

4. As per current practice, users shall remain free to transclude a small number of pages from their own user space to other pages in their user space. However, pages obviously intended, or actually being used, for transclusion onto the pages of other users, shall otherwise be considered templates for the purposes of this policy.


--Doc ask? 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see an issue, this is a wiki, others may transclude without the 'owner' permitting it. Ian13/talk 21:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created some custom userboxen just for my page at User:God_of_War/Warboxen. However, I actually found one user that had copied the entire box onto his userpage. There is no way for the owner of a personal userbox to stop other people from transcluding it to their pages.--God of War 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Perhaps there can be something to make it clearer that transcluding from other userspaces is not prohibited, just subject to the same guidelines as templates; it just sorta glosses over it at the end of the paragraph.
It also seems to me that, in the case that someone transcludes things from other peoples' userspaces without permission, it would be better to subst the transclusions but leave the unintentional userspace-template, and ask the transcluding user to subst in the future. As it currently is, the "template" would be deleted.
In the other case, "obviously intended...for transclusion", I'm not sure what kind of template would be "obviously intended". For example, if next year someone conjures up a Ducks-in-a-pram (joke) template for Ducks-in-a-Pram day (obviously better in Userspace than Template-space), I'm not sure transclusions should be prohibited by the letter of the policy. (They have to go through and remove the "vandalism" again, apparently.) --AySz88^-^ 21:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, if we can't get a wording forget it. But I was trying for something that would explicitly allow for people to have 'my list of created articles' or even a page full of their userboxes as a transcluded subpage. But clearly disallow folk defeating the spirit of the poilicy by creating libraries of polemical userboxes for transclusion. Perhaps, it is unneccessary to say anthing more than is in the policy. The intention is not to prohibit personal transclusion of a few of your own sub-pages. Given that we're not a bureocracy, perhaps common sense is enough to say that. --Doc ask? 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the confusion previously raised still exists; why not try again? --AySz88^-^ 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support if this were part of it. The whole idea "You can copy this, but not use it" but until that is specifically included there will be some using that as a reason to delete my stuff, so I'm still voting oppose --T-rex 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)(Please include this!)[reply]

Clarification 2

This policy says that template space is only for wikipedia related html. I take this to mean that all userboxes not related to wikipedia will be deleted. I want to clarify this policy to say that more explicity with the lines: All template space userboxes that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted. Am I correct in this interpertation? If policy is anything it should be clear.--God of War 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  1. The policy is perfectly clear. B. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy. 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.
  2. You are wrong about deletion. All such userboxes can remain on userpages. Any templates should be subst onto userpages before deletion, indeed four weeks will be left to alow this to happen.
  3. Folk have gone on about the right to free expression, and the benefits of declaring POV on userpages, both of those are guarenteed under this policy - as are userboxes on userpages. --Doc ask? 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, in my word I said template space userboxes will be deleted. This is true even if userspace userboxes remain. Saying that they will remain for a month before being subst has the same end result of userboxes being deleted. My wording is correct.--God of War 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but totaly unneccessary, and all the useful ones (liberaly interpreted) get to stay as templates as well. --Doc ask? 21:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
God of War, from reading the oppose votes, many people still seem to misunderstand and think that all POV userboxes are being deleted, so how about adding a second sentence in the line of "non-template space userboxes (regardless if they show a POV or not) will be unaffected" right after the "All template space userboxes that show a POV ..." sentence? I have a feeling people are reading the "All template space userboxes" comment and missing the important "template space" qualifier. It is possible that many people think userboxs are synonymous with templates, so clarifying the distinction in two separate sentences might help. Regards, MartinRe 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is neccessary. All Policy should be as explicit as possible. Unless something in my wording goes against what people have voted on than I will be re-adding it--God of War 21:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not quite trueinclusive of the things in the policy: things like joke templates aren't included in that statement, for example. --AySz88^-^ 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This post was talking about the clarification added to the main page, "All template space userboxes that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time.") --AySz88^-^ 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, the policy is fine as is the policy provides the flexibility to allow useful userboxes to be retained as templates, policy can never cover every "if and but" situation without becoming a nonsense in itself. Your "clarification" would alter the meaning of the policy as far as I am concerned and cannot be added at this stage. --pgk(talk) 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said that the clarification section adds nothing new. It just helps users that are confused by all the obtuse wording and are wondering what the policy means to them. I can add another line to the clarification section to address your concern.--God of War 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me your "clarification" doesn't clarify but changes the meaning, I don't perceive the policy as is to be obtusely worded so I don't think any addition I can suggest would help or be required. --pgk(talk) 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the whole idea behind this proposal was to eliminate the inclution of tanscluded userboxes (which is ok, as long as you can still put whatever you want on your user page)--T-rex 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pgk here, it seems pretty straight forward. In any case it’s not an accurate representation of the policy, for example the clarification only mentions template space userboxes and says nothing about this section:
“Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This would be subject to the caveats of principles A and B.”
So it really doesn’t belong, or it needs to be more accurate. I don’t think it’s needed, editors should be reading the full policy and not rely on a clarification that’s not accurate. Rx StrangeLove 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing a million editors into a communal space to synthesize the whole of human knowledge, and expecting them to forego all politics and association in doing so is beyond naive. You're new to our planet, aren't you? StrangerInParadise 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User sub page transclusion amendment, version 2

I don't know if this will get any support either, but I'll throw it into the ring...

As per current practice, users shall remain free to transclude a small number of pages from their own user space to other pages in their user space. Attempts to circumvent this proposal and retain a transcludable version of an otherwise unacceptable template by moving it to a user space page may be dealt with by deleting the template, after it has been subst'ed into any pages it is used in within the same user space.

Let the objections begin... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing, but it doesn't address what happens if someone transcludes something in someone else's userspace, and that someone else doesn't know that happened. (If you meant to disallow single userboxes in userpage subpages entirely, that's probably overkill.) --AySz88^-^ 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't it. The idea is you can have something that isn't acceptable. The wording has to state that other users are not allowed to use it as a template --T-rex 03:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this address the objections? It seems to make the policy more restrictive than as proposed, though I may be misunderstanding it. I eventually supported the policy on the basis that all it does it take userboxes out of template space, which means, I take it, that no one will be able to look up a list of (say) "vegemite-hating wikipedians" anymore. At the same time, I thought the policy was meant to ensure that no templates expressing personal beliefs would be deleted until all users were protected from the impact, and that we then be able to do what we like with our own userspace (within reason and the law). This latest proposal seems to go backwards on the last point. Then again, would you please explain it without jargon. What exactly does it actually allow or prevent that is not allowed or prevented by the policy as formulated? I just don't understand what it means for something to be "used as a template" but not in template space. It seems like a contradiction. Metamagician3000 09:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because people would be able to separate their userpages into multiple 'sections'. I've seen people do this, they have each section of their userpage as a separate subpage, and then include it with template calls {{User:Cynical/Wikiprojects}}, {{User:Cynical/Articles I've created}} etc. to make the source of their actual userpage more easily readable (especially when they customise it with HTML etc.) That's what this amendment would allow (the original proposal could [its unlikely, but then people thought it was unlikely that CSD T1 would be abused] have been interpreted as banning ANY non-subst'ed transclusion on userpages) Cynical 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still makes it necessary for me to police transclusions of my user subpages to ensure that they aren't substed onto my own page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I see no necessity for the suggested amendment. Stick with what we have. I have concerns but Pathoschild's project will cover them. Let's keep it as simple as we can and tweak later to deal with any problems or abuses. Metamagician3000 09:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screw userbox debates

Another long, pointless discussion that revolves around advocacy and vanity, and has nothing to do with writing better articles. What a waste of energy. Perhaps I should start a discussion about removing User pages entirely - nah that would be more wasted effort. (I feel better now) Garglebutt / (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this start a meta-discussion on the discussion. :p --AySz88^-^ 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe in userpages but you have one. Interesting. Cynical 09:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was naive when I started on Wikipedia so added some stuff to my user page but now I'm more cynical like you ;). I've tended to remove more and more as time goes by; most recently was a few innocuous userboxes. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably be horrified to find out that a long thread on the mailing list was devoted to the exact topic of removing User pages entirely. (Don't worry, the vast majority of the thread was explanations of why that was not a good idea, but still - yes, we are wasting that much time on this, sigh.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Lets Close This Vote

I stand by my oppose vote, but 77% is pretty overwhelming. Lets just approve this and move on --T-rex 05:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have requested the vote stay open for at least 2 weeks, but personally, I agree with you - It's stayed at approx. 70%-80% support for nearly the full time it's been open and I don't think 100 more wikipedians are going to show up and vote "oppose" in the next week and a half. I have no objection to closing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose we close it at 20:05 tomorrow; that'll be a full week of vote, which I think is sufficient with the huge amount of participation we've recieved (148 votes!). // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, doesn't new policy require more than that of an RfA? (75-80% for an RfA) --AySz88^-^ 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a two week period would be fairer given the impact this policy will have. And as with AySz88, we need to determine what exactly constitutes a "passing vote" (I suggest looking at past straw polls in previous proposals, particularly "close" polls). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This misconceived disaster is nowhere near the threshhold for consensus. There are a significant number who will wonder why-the-hell their userboxes have been replaced by red links, and be told, oh the community has decided against, didn't you vote in our obscure little poll? StrangerInParadise 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been linked from the Recent Changes page for at least a few days. Aren't I Obscure? 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone uses Recent Changes for RC patrol (I only use the IRC channel) or does RC patrol at all; maybe watchlists or something would work better. --AySz88^-^ 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why close? This shows enough opposition, despite the debate on the vote page, to show there is no consensus. Dominick (TALK) 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, why hurry? We may as well get this right. Ian13/talk 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A technical proposal which would make sense

Usage examples,

  • {{ub:My userbox}}, puts box on user page
  • {{ubs:My userbox}}, puts quoted source on page
  • {{ubd:My userbox}}, displays box on any talk page, without counting magic, for reference
  • [[Userbox:My userbox]], link to userbox page
  • [[Userbox talk:My userbox]], link to userbox talk page
  • [[Userbox members:My userbox]], which would show an index page of unique (no duplicate) user names which bear the user box, like the current use of category pages.

StrangerInParadise 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments User:Arthur Rubin

  • To be consistent about the objections to vote stuffing, the corresponding categories (such as Category:Jewish Wikipedians corresponding to Template:User Jew) should also be deleted. As this is not in the present proposal, that justification is hypocritical, and should be considered void.
  • I have no objection to reducing the load on the servers -- but it has been stated that the difference in load between subst'ing the userboxen or transcluding them is very small. If correct, that justification would be void. Even if not, if a user wants a userbox, and has difficulty finding one to his liking, that time is directly taken from the time he would have been editing.
  • Therefore, if this proposal, or anything like it becomes policy, the value of the project will be reduced unless all speedily deleted userboxes are undeleted and moved into userspace -- whether under [[User:Boxes]] or [[User:trusted person/Boxes]] makes little difference -- and there is a pointer to the unofficial userboxen on the official userbox page. Implementation 1-4 should be made mandatory on the part of the person deleting the userboxen, and all speedily deleted userboxen which are not clearly divisive should be moved to that area. (If this is made a formal part of the policy, I would change my vote from Oppose to Abstain.)
  • As for not aiding the editing of the encyclopedia -- part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug related to whether RJII was editing from a libertarian POV. The question of whether he considered himself a libertarian would be relevant to determining that, which would help the project as a whole.

22:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification request

Is Template:Userbox, itself supposed to be deleted? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No Template:Userbox has always been only to be used as a guide, it will be kept for the reason in the future (i think) --T-rex 23:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the {{userbox}}'d version (if there is one) of a deleted userbox be replaced in instead of the raw HTML? --AySz88^-^ 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this solve?

As I said in my Oppose vote (number 34), People will still be free to say "I'm a Christian" on their user page anyway, so what's wrong with a little template for it?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userbox_policy_poll&oldid=41835340"