Wikipedia talk:May Userbox policy poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for talk about the proposal and possible ammendments. Please begin a new conversation by adding a new topic. Thanks. // ^The True _Sora

Contents 1 Proposed addition 2 Policy statement #4 is inaccurate 3 Nonuserbox user templates 4 Will this break user pages? 5 Restore deleted userboxes? 6 User template: 7 Are we just performing mental onanism? 8 Wikipedia:wikiproject articles 9 Vote stacking? 10 Pointless 11 Oppose types 12 Jimbo weighs in 13 Confusing! 14 Technical aspect 15 Portal namespace on Wiktionary ? 16 A brief review of "oppose" votes, now that the poll is closed 17 Status after the Straw Poll 18 Removed "disputed policy" tag 19 Pushing Forward 20 Why isn't this policy yet? 21 Leaving poll open 22 Jimbo Made a Comment while the Poll Was Underway 23 How it is done in the German Wikipedia 24 Boldly going forward (cuz I can't find the reverse) 25 Jimbo's comment about this proposed policy

[edit] Proposed addition

Just a proposed addition.

6. No userbox tags in the article and article talk space.

I'm concerned that if POV is acceptable in the userbox space, then talk pages will get cluttered with POV tags. Megapixie 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already in there. Look at policy #4:

"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles."

I thought the same thing, Megapixie. // ^The True _Sora 23:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that'll teach me to try and read before 10 am. Megapixie 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy statement #4 is inaccurate

The italicized part of #4 is inaccurate.

"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles."

Templates also are used in Category:, Help:, Portal: and Wikipedia: namespaces. The statement could simply read,

"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX." Rfrisbie^talk 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How about: The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles and related pages.

Some people need to see the line "Template namespace" is for articles only to accept this poll.--God Ω War 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. If there are no objections within 12 hours (and I don't see why there would be), I'll change it. // ^The True _Sora 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the rewording is an improvement, and fine by me – Gurch 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to confuse things but there are templates such as {{userpage}} which are designed for use on user pages. The wording will probably be unfortunately messy, but this needs to be taken into account. --StuffOfInterest 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Perhaps all userpage templates should be moved into this namespace, and not just userboxes. Though we might need a different name for the namespace if we do this – perhaps User template: – Gurch 17:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The qualifier, "related pages" is too ambiguous for a policy statement. All allowable namespaces should be enumerated. My proposal would be something like below, plus any other namespaces I might have missed.

"The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX. The Template: namespace shall be exclusively used for main articles, Portal: pages, Category: pages, Help: pages, and Wikipedia: pages." Rfrisbie^talk 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That one actually makes more sense that the above one. Related pages sounds like the link in the toolbox. // ^The True _Sora 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the Image: namespace, and the corresponding talk page – Gurch 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about: "The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace, WP:UBX, and WikiProject pages. The Template: namespace shall not be transcluded into any User: namespace page." ? – Xolatron 19:38, 25 Telona 2006 (26 May)

I think it is more important to limit where the userbox namespace is used than to limit what is used in user space. And if someone is working on a draft article in a sub-page of their user space, they may well need to use info-boxes or other similar templates. Also, we need to allow "*FD" and equivalent administriva also. GRBerry 20:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonuserbox user templates

What about templates that only belong on user pages that are not userboxes? like {{Template:Userpage}}--Rayc 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's another reason why I prefer a "virtual" namespace like "User:Template." More than one type of template could be placed there. Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I once created User:Boxes....and had the account quickly banned because Tony Sidaway thought boxes wasn't contributing to the encyclopedia.--God Ω War 06:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony doesn't dictate policy. If one exists allowing a virtual namespace somewhere, I expect he will honor it. Rfrisbie^talk 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? This whole issue is rife with admins at least creatively interpreting policy, if not downright ignoring it. Look no farther than Cyde's userbox deletions to see that. That's one reason I'm seeing this as admins vs. peons. Jay Maynard 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm using "expect" in the sense of "assume good faith." My broken-record response to a specific problem, such as "administrators behaving badly," is that if someone is behaving badly, including an administrator, then they should be held accountable. Rfrisbie^talk 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that would happen; this issue shows that it does not. Jay Maynard 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True, this hasn't been the first time and it won't be the last. But after all, this is Wikipedia! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If they arent userboxes, then they count as templates I suppose, even if they are intended just for user space - • The Giant Puffin • 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole debacle is about userboxes with a POV. Non userbox templates like that can remain in the template space, as nobody is trying to speedy them. Dtm142 14:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet. Jay Maynard 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, that template is part of Wikipedia; this debate is about the non-WP related templates (in this case, UBX) // ^The True _Sora 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered, personally, whether all user templates are kept together or only userboxes are moved. However I do think moving all userpage templates would be a more organized way of doing things – Gurch 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I favour creating "User template:" with parallel "User template talk:". —Ashley Y 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was my original idea, and I think using "User template:" as the namespace has three key benefits:

1. It doesn't condone or promote userboxes, one of the main objections to the current proposal.
2. The name fits better with the current namespaces.
3. "User template" is a wider definition that "Userbox" and hence allows other user templates to be placed in the namespace without causing confusion.

The only drawback is if we do decide to change the proposal now, the name-change affects many people's reason for opposing (and perhaps supporting) the proposal, so we would have to re-start the poll. Again. Or possibly start a new proposal, perhaps incorporating the planned userspace deletion policy – Gurch 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, how would this affect Template:Smile, I'm just using this as an example. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be covered. —Ashley Y 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We should probably start a new proposal. —Ashley Y 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. I'll leave it up to TheTrueSora to decide, though – Gurch 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If we have to create a new namespace, I prefer the User template: idea rather than Userbox:, as it would logically group together all related templates. This current proposal is just creating a POV-permitting safe haven for userboxes (I really don't know what problems people think it will solve), but I can see an general argument for cleaning up the Template: space. -- Mithent 13:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about breaking the proposal, but if you can get Grue onboard, that will go along way of establishing consensus. Plus, it might even change Jimbo's posistion as well.--Rayc 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just moving up something from the rename proposal. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for lists of a more complete range of userspace templates. Rfrisbie^talk 13:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will this break user pages?

If boxes are moved from template to a new namespace, will user pages have to change any wikicode to refer to the new location? Thanks, Andjam 12:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however, we will replace the userboxes with a notification that they have changed to the new namespace before we delete them. // ^The True _Sora 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Addionally, other proposals have said they'd use a bot to automatically make the necessary changes; that should be possible with this one, too. Jay Maynard 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that any time you do a move it creates a redirect. So if a bot 1) moves all boxes 2)goes through every userpage to eliminate the double redirect and 3)deletes all userboxes in template space in that order then most users will never notice a thing.--God Ω War 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

also, you should specify a time period of a week or more to allow all this happen without any admins going speedy delete happy.--God Ω War 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Already done, God of War: "2. A team of volunteer users will move the userboxes from their current location into the Userbox: namespace, except for those that do not meet policy 5 above. If a userbox is not moved within two weeks of this policy's implementation, it may be deleted using T2; however, we will attempt to move all userboxes we can find." // ^The True _Sora 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restore deleted userboxes?

I assume deleted userboxes will be restored before being moved? —Ashley Y 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If an NPOV UBX has been deleted, we will (if we have the original code or get an admin to give it to us) place it in the new namespace. // ^The True _Sora 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What about POV userboxes that are acceptable under this proposal? Will they get replaced? - • The Giant Puffin • 20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be difficult to recover all deleted userboxes; however the original creators would be free to re-create any userboxes that were deleted for POV reasons (but not those that constituted a personal attack or anything else against wiki-wide policies) – Gurch 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - • The Giant Puffin • 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User template:

I propose using "User template:" and "User template talk:" instead of "Userbox:" (and "Userbox talk:").

• It fits in with the existing namespace names. We already have "User:", "Template:" and "Talk:", as well as "User talk:" and "Template talk:".
• It clearly allows other user templates besides userboxes.
• It matches the definition used in T2.

—Ashley Y 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will support this as strongly as I support TheTrueSora's proposal. Since it's now identical to the suggestion I made in February (which was quickly dismissed as unworkable), that's not exactly surprising – Gurch 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question: Why not decide on the concept of a separate namespace now, and then decide what to call it if the idea gains a consensus? Jay Maynard 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. per proposal. Rfrisbie^talk 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I support "Usertemplate:" too. I'd just like something that is a plausible name for all user templates, if it comes to that. Rfrisbie^talk 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

*Negate; I still think the one-word (and two for talk) convention makes much more sense that a two-word (and 3 for talk) one, since that's how the rest of WP works. I concede, seeing Rfrisbie's reply below. I will support Usertemplate: (because I still like one word!) because, for organization, it makes more sense. // ^The True _Sora 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Spaces have no special meaning in MediaWiki. Just pretend that "User template" is one "word". Also note that there is no such convention: the "Talk:" space is one word. —Ashley Y 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but many users do not. Keeping some of the status quo here is important- we're trying to compromise to get this debate finished. I don't want people negating because they feel the name breaks the status quo. // ^The True _Sora 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support if we must have a poll. —Ashley Y 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Negate' - Userbox means user template. Userbox is much more succinct and nice.--God Ω War 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know of a non-box template? My second choice would be Usertemplate: (one word) --Rayc 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for lists. Rfrisbie^talk 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think these lists demonstrate user templates are much broader than simply userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to "Usertemplate:" as it breaks the convention throughout the wiki not to run words together (though people still break it here and there). That's why we don't have "Usertalk:". —Ashley Y 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Userbox:. This is for userboxes, after all. Plus i also think it looks better and sounds better than Usertemplate - • The Giant Puffin • 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: as no consensus has been reached here (2 for User template:, 2 for Usertemplate:, 2 for the status quo), I think we'll have to leave it as the status quo for now. However, it this changes, you can start the poll over again. For now, this has been closed. // ^The True _Sora 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh, shame. Still, we can always bring it up again at a later date (yes, and cause more arguments, I know). Any new namespace is better than none at all – Gurch 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have come up with a more general proposal at Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. —Ashley Y 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ashley Y. Why don't you post a notice at the Community Portal? Rfrisbie^talk 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —Ashley Y 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we just performing mental onanism?

Tony Sidaway just deleted a couple of userboxes, {{user cannabis}} and {{user cannabis opponent}}. Is there a point to this exercise? Will admins simply ignore the concensus forming here and run amok, deleting templates without listing them anywhere or seeking any sort of review? I can't look at the templates to see if they meet T1, but I'm having a hard time assuming good faith when there's an active effort to reach consensus on whether userboxes should be deleted and admins actively flouting the effort. Jay Maynard 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony has been known to be agressive in his support of T2 (not T1), but is this proposal becomes policy (remember- it can't become policy until voting ends Sunday), T2 won't apply anymore. // ^The True _Sora 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Will it become policy if the current consensus (nearly a 3-1 margin) holds, or will it be ignored by admins determined to wipe out userboxes? Jay Maynard 15:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's impossible to tell, but they would have to support all Wikipedia policy, as they are admins. And, seeing that this will pass with a supermajority at the current vote tally, hopefully it will become policy. // ^The True _Sora 15:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll see, but I'm getting really skeptical. (BTW, pet peeve: "supermajority" is an imprecise term. AIUI, to become policy, something must receive at least a 2/3 vote in favor, which can also be put as a 2-1 margin. (Something that passes with a 2/3 vote will receive at least twice as many votes in favor as opposed; the ratio here is nearly 3 to 1, or a 3/4 vote.) Am I correct?) Jay Maynard 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A supermajority is defined as 66%, or 2/3, of all votes (unless it's different inside Wikipedia, but in Congress, etc. it's 2/3). // ^The True _Sora 15:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied on TheTrueSora's talk page; the details aren't relevant here. Jay Maynard 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy is decided by consensus, not a supermajority vote. In my opinion, the userbox issue is too divisive, and the establishment of a new namespace is too significant, to be imposed on the rest of Wikipedia without a consensus. I'm certainly not going to make the final decision here, but it's clear to me that consensus has not been reached. -- bcasterline • talk 15:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Will there ever be a consensus on userboxes? What happens if there isn't? It's clear to me that there is one faction that is determined to wipe them from the face of the planet, or at least Wikipedia; there is another faction that is just as determined to keep them. Eventually, someone's going to have to make a decision and make it stick. Jay Maynard 16:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has expressed his opinion on the matter before -- that's the decision, but making it stick is something of a problem. I think the hope is that userboxes are a fad which will eventually fade. (Although saying just that much is offensive to some people.) In any case, at the risk of sounding defeatist, it doesn't seem as if there's going to be community consensus any time soon. -- bcasterline • talk 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to my original question, then: If the poll in progress will do nothing toward having userboxes become an accepted part of Wikipedia, then are we doing anything here that will have any real effect...or, as Reverend Johnson put it, "are we just jerking off?" Jay Maynard 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a policy poll is to determine whether consensus exists. I'd say this poll has determined that consensus does not exist. -- bcasterline • talk 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes consensus for you? Rfrisbie^talk 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is agreement, and I would not classify this poll and related discussion as agreement. WP:CON is not specific as to numbers (voting is evil, and Wikipedia is not a democracy). -- bcasterline • talk 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe a consensus on any policy regarding userboxes and similar things is possible? Jay Maynard 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, although it seems unlikely. Please excuse my forwardness, but: Wikipedia relies on certain principles and was founded with a certain purpose, so there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. Userboxes are antithetical to those principles and disruptive of that purpose. In other words, userboxes are the wrong way. Jimbo has said as much, and it's gradually become enforced policy. Consensus won't be possible until the community agrees with that decision. Doesn't seem likely anytime soon. -- bcasterline • talk 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only does the community not agree with that decision; it appears that the community emphatically disagrees with that decision. The community also disagrees that userboxes are antithetical to the principles that make Wikipedia what it is. Given that, it looks like we're headed for a schism, and those users who think userboxes are not harmful will leave in droves. As it stands, userbox deletion is policy enforced in violation of what appears to be consensus the other way. That kind of thing is what destroys communities. Jay Maynard 23:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also apparent to me that the userbox wars will not end until either Jimbo Hands Down The Stone Tablets, or else the deletionists give up. If the former is to happen, it should happen soon, so the community can find out sooner rather than later that Jimbo doesn't give a fuzzy rat's posterior what they think. Jay Maynard 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please allow me to be blunt: Anyone who leaves Wikipedia due to the deletion of userboxes is not a great loss to the project. It would be better if they don't leave. And for that reason, I believe (I can't speak for him, of course), Jimbo et al. are reluctant to hand down stone tablets which are likely to cause an uproar and are relying instead on a more passive campaign of appeals and discussion. It's better to change culture bottom up than top down, but it needs to change either way.

Since Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia, has the most personally invested in it, and therefore probably has the clearest idea of what is and is not healthy for the project, I am surprised many users are not more willing to trust him on this issue. Community is important, but only in furthering the goal of constructing an encyclopedia. -- bcasterline • talk 02:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose T1 and T2 had consensus then. Being that they are policy.--God Ω War 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On a consensus, some people still disagree. In this case, it's going to be Tony, Doc, MarkSweep, and the rest of those userbox deletionists. We so far have a supermajority vote, so as long as it stays that way, this will become a policy and the namespace will be created. Dtm142 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo also makes policy, as I'm sure you know. -- bcasterline • talk 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think T1 as now written had consensus. An earlier version from before T2 was split out was under fast and furious debate at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion yet was used by some userbox deletionists as if it was consensus. The current version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion explicitly warns that T2 is disputed. So at this point it can not be called consensus, yet is being left on a page that is policy. If this will not become policy even with a supermajority in discussion, then T2 should be deleted, and no alternative allowed on the policy page until either Jimbo clearly pronounces it as policy (on Wikipedia, not in an email that most users will never see) or there is a greater supermajority for it than for wherever this ends up. GRBerry 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a discussion of Consensus vs. supermajority. I was wondering if anyone can direct me to the comparable discussion of Supermajority vs. superminority. There seems to be a lot of that going on at Wikipedia too. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and we get to have both. First we had consensus about making this into an official poll. Then we got/will get/are on the verge of getting supermajority. I suppose that the bad guys can still delete userboxes now, but after this poll goes through and the namespace is created, they won't be able to. Dtm142 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that this poll will, in fact, cause the necessary namespace to be created, even if it passes with greater than the 73% approval it's got now. Jay Maynard 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A developer said that this would not be a hard task, and they would do it if this policy passed through. Dtm142 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, see no consensus here. There are too many competent objections to this proposal for it to be considered accepted by consensus. Consensus is not determined by counting votes, and you will find that very few of the people who actually matter (that is, those of us with admin rights) will accept this proposal as having been accepted by consensus, no matter how many votes y'all stack onto it. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, I can't imagine a more inflamatory comment to have made in this context than "people who actually matter (that is, those of us with admin rights)". That is exactly the attitude that is inflammatory and creating heated feelings. It is also the attitude that has generated the "cabal" type criticism of Wikipedia.

My personal belief is that administrators are a necessary evil. A communal project of this size can not function without a limited group of superusers and associated extra priviledges, so they are necessary. But as the old saying goes, "power tends to corrupt", and in a communal project a definite sign of corruption is the belief that only those with power deserve power. Some who deserved it when they got it will no longer deserve it. Some who don't have it yet deserve it and will get it eventually. Some who don't have it yet deserve it but will never get it. And some who don't have it don't deserve it - some will deserve it eventually, some are vandals, and some are doing their best won't ever deserve additional power. The only people who don't matter are the intentional vandals. All other users matter. GRBerry 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

people who actually matter (that is, those of us with admin rights) - may I quote you on that? Anyway, certain admins never were too keen on consensus regarding (may I refer to many heavily contested speedy-deletes of userboxes, and the T2 "policy" which was quite happily used, even if there wasn't consensus to make it an policy in the first place.) Do you want to say that even if a large majority of the users wants to implement this policy to end the userbox-wars the admins will not implent it? Or do you want to say that if this policy is implemented admins will ignore it delete userboxes in the new namespace, just like right now? CharonX 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It says somewhere on some administrator guide that administrators are treated equally. They are just trusted by the community to have extra powers. Just because you are the administrators deleting userboxes doesn't mean that your votes are the only ones that matter. Dtm142 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They may be entrusted with certain powers, but based on some Admins' actions involving userboxes, they arent always trusted by the community - • The Giant Puffin • 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:wikiproject articles

I think that all Wikipedia: namespace articles that are wikiproject articles should be allowed to have userboxes, because these often have userboxes associated with them that it is useful to show these for users to take. I vote support either way, though. – Xolatron 20:13, 24 Telona 2006 (25 May)

Good point, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating#Templates. Rfrisbie^talk 20:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. These userboxes are least likely to be out-of-bounds on POV, but I would expect them to be most at risk for vote stacking. Of course, the projects can always have sections on relevant deletion debates, so I don't think the project userboxes significantly increase the vote stacking risk beyond what having a project in the first place does. (I'm assuming most project participants have the project page on their watchlist.) GRBerry 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They're allowed to have userboxes now, and they will be allowed to have them after this passes through. Don't worry. Dtm142 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording in this proposal is restrictive. It should be adjusted accordingly. Rfrisbie^talk 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal will allow all userboxes, POV or not, so it's not a problem. // ^The True _Sora 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX." does not include WikiProjects. Rfrisbie^talk 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that the question is changed to include that a substed version of the userbox may be placed on those project pages, as well as Wikipedia:userboxes. Dtm142 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote stacking?

Ironically, the comments on this page might not reflect the opinions of the entire community (or even a representative subset)—vote stacking was used to get some here. See [1], for example. Perhaps more exposure would make that irrelevant, though. I still think this proposal is (probably) a (mostly) good idea, but would it let vote stacking continue? Ardric47 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the message was worded differently, and sent to all parities involved in this debate, it would be a different story- but alas, it is not. Dtm142, I urge you not to vote stack in the future. // ^The True _Sora 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For a poll as contentious as this, vote stacking is inevitable.--God Ω War 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For a city the size of New York, murder is inevitable. That being said, murder is still a bad thing, and we should do everything in our power to prevent it. Simply resigning ourselves to it and doing nothing in response it just going to lead to a lot more murdering. --Cyde↔Weys 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If people want a poll to pass one of the first things they will do is try to vote stack, whether its illegal or not - • The Giant Puffin • 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• When someone is prepared to explain how informing people that a vote on policy is in existence (which I wasn't aware of in this case until I came online today) is "stacking", get back to me. Otherwise, spare us all your Faux News-style revisionism. --Cjmarsicano 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Best practice is Better practice would have been to alert both those who support and those who oppose, with a message simply stating that a discussion/vote (Wikipedia is not a democracy) is in progress. Asking only those on one side, or asking for a particular response, is vote stacking. For a good form example, on my talk page you can see the message that TheTrueSora sent out for a discussion on a draft of this proposal. It isn't aimed at one side of an ongoing discussion, it is aimed at participants in that discussion. GRBerry 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Edited as per corrections below. 16:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the best practice is to announce the poll at places like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and leave off talk page spamming altogether. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point.

"The central place to discuss policies is Village pump (policy). Policy issues also may be formulated and debated on talk pages, at Meta-Wikipedia, on IRC, and on our mailing lists. The Community Portal offers a Community bulletin board to post Wikipedia related news and announcements, including the locations of policy proposals and discussions." (How to create policy - Policy discussions)

Two impartial notices about userbox policy discussions are at the CBB right now. Rfrisbie^talk 16:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is a better practice, although a lot of people don't read the Village Pump. And if I hadn't have been blocked, I would've made my way to contacting the members of WikiProject Userboxes (and post a different message), which is supposed to be a neutral body. Dtm142 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And as I've said before, vote stacking isn't a problem. Take Jimbo's bridgecruft example from the email list: A non-notable bridge comes up for deletion, and a message goes out to all the wiki-bridgers. The final vote tally is one vote for delete with a rational, and 10 for keep without rational. The consensus of this vote is delete, no matter how many no rational keeps are brought in. If one of the keeps gives a rational, then it's no consensus. If that rational also refutes the delete rational, then it's a keep. If more admins would close based off of consensus (ironically, acting more like Tony Sideways) then userbox vote stacking wouldn't be a problem.

As for this proposal, many of the oppose votes tend to be against it because is somehow legitimizes userboxes. If the proposal was changed to Usertemplate: then it would still be possible to have future proposals to deleate all userboxes--Rayc 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And we don't want that. The idea is to find a solution that those admins can't work around and speedy more userboxes. Dtm142 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not the idea. Policy should be adopted by consensus and should never be imposed upon a significant portion of the community. The idea is to find a solution for which admins (and everyone else) won't want to find a workaround. -- bcasterline • talk 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on recent events, many admins always want to find a workaround - • The Giant Puffin • 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, that doesn't sound at all like WP:AGF. Let's just get a proposal that meets consensus. You do not want to have this issue settled from on high, that will just cause more tension.--Rayc 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So speedying all of the userboxes just to anger us is good faith then? Dtm142 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Speedying started this tension. I dont agree with just sitting back and accepting mass deletion. I do assume good faith, just not with people who dont assume good faith with others - • The Giant Puffin • 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember, nothing forces the Cydes and the Tonysideways..es to follow guidelines, and desysoping is rairer then wiley-on-wheels passing RfA. Your not trying to get something passed to push it in their faces and say "ha, what you going to do now", your trying to come to a mutual agreement with them over userboxes. If you can come to an agreement with them, that represents consensus. If they refuse to talk or consider other people's viewpoints, then you can take it to RfC.--Rayc 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that... Dtm142 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless

Moving user boxes from Template: to Userbox: in no way resolves any of the serious problems they present. Divisive userboxes will still be divisive. Categories will still be attached to userboxes and userboxes will still be used to purposes that are contrary to our community's purpose. The objection to userboxes is not based on them being in template space (and contrary to common belief, there is no policy that "everything in template space has to be NPOV", that's just silliness someone invented at some point for no reason that makes any sense at all), it's based on what they are. Changing the name of a thing doesn't change its character, and it is the character of userboxes -- by whatever name they masquerade as -- that is problematic. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people's idea of divisive is way over the top. If it were up to them, everything would be offensive. You cant please everyone. Wikipedia is not censored, so why censor people's opinions? This may be an encyclopedia, but it needs a community to run it - a community that currently has little trust for people with Admin power. A template saying "This user is a Christian." is, apparently, divisive and offensive? I beg to differ, and wonder how these people get to the computer without being offended by everything. People claim that half the problem is the fact that Template space is being taken up by userboxes that do not belong there. This proposal eliminates that problem. Wikipedians are not robots, and many want to voice their opinion whether the Admins want it or not. If admins didnt keep nominating userboxes that dont need nominating, people would still have faith in Admins and the Userbox Wars would end a lot sooner - • The Giant Puffin • 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

KM, these are good points, IMHO. Where are the policy discussions that directly address the issues you bring up? I would be happy to discuss them there. Rfrisbie^talk 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it addresses the concern that Template space is only for encyclopedic purposes. If anyone on any side views this as a be-all, end-all solution, he is deluding himself. But it will go a small way towards ending the War. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And maybe we would stop making divisive userboxes if admins would stop deleting harmless POV userboxes.

And there was a policy a while ago called T2. It said that templates that exist only to be in userspace that have a POV should be deleted. Dtm142 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats why POV things should be moved to their own space. Why should admins always get their way? The community needs normal wikipedians more than it needs admins - • The Giant Puffin • 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though some admins attempted to act as if it were otherwise, T2 was a proposed criterion for speedy deletion that did not gain consensus support. Rfrisbie^talk 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nor will it ever, we just simply won't allow that. Dtm142 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose types

Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but finding ways of fixing or refuting each type of oppose will allow for future consensus, if not consensus in this poll. I don't know how I got 42 votes out of 47 opposes, but here they are:

• Delete all userboxes, they are not WP:ENC , 12

• Sidesteps issue 10

• Creating a new userspace unpresedented/ userspace enough, 6

• Don't legitimize/condone userboxes, 5

• Bad/premature proposal 3

• POV in userspace bad 2

• Will make people angry 1

• Supports usertemplate 1

• Polls are evil 1

• Per all 2

Feel free to propose fixes to the proposal under the tally. Only post refutes if they haven't been disscused ad nossium above--Rayc 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo weighs in

It seems to me like this proposal is dead in the water because no one at the top is ever going to implement its suggestions. See this post by Jimbo. The essence of his problem with userboxes is: "The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not." Obviously, creating an entirely new namespace for them is painting them as a "normal and accepted community behavior", which they are not. Shall we just mark this proposal rejected now? --Cyde↔Weys 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

/me taps his fingers waiting for Jimbo to bite the bullet and mandate the German solution... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Then I have some second thoughts about hoping for anything involving Germans and "final solutions". Oh dear. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So who died and made him king? —MiraLuka 07:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde on every TFD you say that userboxes are innapropiate for template space. This proposal fixes that! you should be happy.--God Ω War 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you even read what I just wrote?  :-( "Obviously, creating an entirely new namespace for them is painting them as a "normal and accepted community behavior", which they are not." --Cyde↔Weys 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So they are abnormal and rejected? Cause it sure looks like most of the people here think they're fine. And even if that doesn't mean its normal in the whole community - so what? Since when is there a rule that we all have to be normal? -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Have we no free will? Even though Jimbo is in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation, there are some times when we can still do things despite what he says. Maybe this is one of those times - • The Giant Puffin • 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo can impose policy by fiat, but arguments based on what he said can be overridden if his statement was not an imposition of policy by fiat. GRBerry 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, response to Cyde] Before this was proposed here, the proposer confirmed that there was a developer willing to implement it should it become policy. So the argument that "no one at the top is ever going to implement its suggestion" is either false or just an argument that it is never going to become policy - neither way is it about merits of the proposal.

Then we get to what Jimbo said. What I see as the most critical portions of that diff are

1. users "ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against" anything,
2. userboxes "turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns"
3. "The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns"

Stating that a user has a POV and advocacy are very different. GRBerry 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What developer are you talking about? If you're talking about Rob Church, all he ever said was it's possible, not that he would do it. If you're talking about TheTrueSora, well he isn't actually a developer (and as far as I'm aware has no experience modifying MediaWiki). And even assuming there was a developer who was going to do this ... changes aren't just committed in isolation. A change as big as adding a new namespace would have to be approved by other devs and higher-ups, and that simply isn't going to happen in this case. --Cyde↔Weys 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes are fine and acceptable as long as they aren't overused/misused (most are fine... one can state opinions on his/her userpage, why not in a box?) - is it wrong to use a userbox to declare oneself part of WikiProject Userboxes? – Xolatron 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Robchurch said that he and the rest of the dev team would not be voting on any userbox polls, but that they would create the namespace if we presented them with the support consensus. Dtm142 00:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing!

Hello. I don't know how far people have the time to address these questions, personally, I really don't get this debate, and I strongly suspect a lot of other people either don't know it's happening or, like me, don't understand it. I have found that a random set of my userboxes have dissapeared - e.g. my 'marxist' one has gone, while my 'council communist' one is still present. Having eventually found this page, here are a few questions:

• What on earth were the criteria used to make the distinction - e.g. why is Anarchism is still present on the directory, but Socialist isn't?
• What is 'template namespace' and why is it special?
• Is there controversy over whether I should be able to write 'I am a Marxist' on my userpage, or does is it just whether I can have the same phrase written in a little coloured box? Or is it whether I can have the same little coloured box as other people? If there is only a controversy over one of these, what is the important difference?
• Or is it just whether the little coloured boxed are facilitated by a non-userpage based bit of Wikipedia? I suppose that this is what allows the boxes to be incorporated by a shor tag in double brackets - or could this happen if someone decided to host all the userbox templates on their userpage?
• Some userboxes incorporated categories, so it was possible to find other wikipedians with similar views. Is there a controversy about user-belief categories, and how far is that matter covered by the current debate?

Not having a huge amount of history in this debate, fwiw, I reckon that userboxes are useful cause they allow wikipedians to identify (i) possible POV and (ii) subject specialists. Yours, a confused wikipedian who is here to write well referenced articles, but who doesn't get what the fuss is all about, Breadandroses 15:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Further questions/points:

• Someone has said that userboxes have been 'profoundly counterproductive'. Evidence?
• In general, this debate is totally inaccessible to most wikipedians. The language is overly technical, and there is little outreach over the issue. There is little attempt to explain the substance of the debate, and the different positions involved; there's an implicit assumption that people have been keyed into this discussion for months. This isn't good.

Breadandroses 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is wide agreement that it's ok for you to write "I am a Marxist" on your user page if you must, but hopefully as you come to work with Wikipedia, you'll find that you shouldn't be "editing as a Marxist" but rather as someone striving to be a neutral party. Having a big menu of userboxes -- no matter where they live -- gives people the opposite message: that what we do here is first to put on our "team uniforms" then, presumably, we go out and edit for the team. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally get that though, and I'm not convinced that anyone doesn't get that. Where is the evidence that a message of a sort you describe would be generated? I'm totally prepared to change my perspective on this if there's substantial evidence of userboxes negatively effecting wikipedia qua encyclopaedia. Is there such? Breadandroses 16:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

>Some people think there is, others think there isn't. As for your three possible "problems" with userboxes:

>>Is there controversy over whether I should be able to write 'I am a Marxist' on my userpage, or does is it just whether I can have the same phrase written in a little coloured box? Or is it whether I can have the same little coloured box as other people? If there is only a controversy over one of these, what is the important difference?

>Well, The first is generally acceptable. The second is also fine by most, though some anti-userbox users feel that that is too far, as it really is no different in appearance than the third - but they can't stop a user from having certain content on his/her own userpage. The third, however, comes under the most fire, because many feel that it catgorizes users or express non-encyclopedia-related views and encourages new users to join in. What this debate is trying to solve is the most recent issue with userboxes - that they "can't be in template space" (for various reasons such s NPOV). It doesn't fix everything, but it's a start, and everyone won't have to subst all their userboxes to protect them. I hope that helps. – Xolatron 18:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Xolatron. But could you point to where this evidence (if this is what it is) can be found? It would seem to be the first thing that would need to be incorporated into this debate, Breadandroses 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't really answer that. It's just what I've gathered since I've followed this debate since about February. – Xolatron 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize the issues involved is at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. Rfrisbie^talk 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical aspect

I have been asked before to weigh in on the technical aspects of this proposal. I have since been advised that some users could be misinterpreting the information I gave out, so let me make it clear here.

This would not require significant changes to any of the core MediaWiki code, which already supports us creating as many custom namespaces as we want. What does need to be altered is the site configuration. As I have explained countless times on IRC, this would be done if a request were filed in the right place, provided that said request directed the system admin team to a discussion demonstrating support for the addition.

I maintain that I have no opinion as to whether or not the proposal is suitable or sane. I dislike being misrepresented, however. robchurch | talk 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal namespace on Wiktionary ?

Please correct:

Userbox Policy:

1. The Userbox: namespace will be created on Wikipedia, much like how the Portal namespace exists on Wiktionary.

We don't have a Portal namespace. It's you who have one. Vildricianus 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, you don't. I removed that part. Dtm142 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A brief review of "oppose" votes, now that the poll is closed

Most of the work has already been done by Rayc above, but I decided to review and update it, to see if we had consensus for the compromise. Votes opposing the proposal:

• Delete all userboxes, they are not WP:ENC; don't legitimize/condone userboxes 31

• Sidesteps issue 10

• Userbox definition too narrow 2

• Userboxes are templates 2

• POV in userspace bad 2

• New namespace hard to maintain 1

• Will make people angry 1

• Polls are evil 1

• No specific reason given 3

• Per all (aka all the above) 3

To summarize, the vast majority of the oppose votes seems to come from the "delete all userboxes" angle, while many other users are concerned that this simply sidesteps the issue without resolving the core problem (users wishing to keep userboxes vs. users wishing to delete userboxes).

On the support side the majority of argunments seem to come from mainly two different angles - users wishing to keep the userboxes and accepting the compromise and users which see this compromise as not adressing the core problem (see above) but think it is better than continuing the userbox-wars.

The poll ended with a large majority of votes for the proposal (111 support, 8 conditional support, 56 oppose). As Wikipedia is not a democracy this in itself does not mean anything, but I think it shows that a major part of the community is willing to compromise, while some hardliners do not wish to do so. Of course I am not an admin, so I cannot declare consensus or absence therof, but I might wish to ask those of power to consider carefully both sides, as well as the implications of declaring consensus or lack of it. CharonX 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider WP:Usercruft, this might address some of the issues. Or not. —Ashley Y 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel like declaring all the proposals rejected via WP:SNOW and WP:IAR right now. The deletionist hardliners will torpedo that proposal too or at least call it no consensus. And the includist faction will put down any "delete" or "NPOV only" proposal. There will be NO consensus here, though many are sick of this war, alot want to keep userboxes, and some will only be content when the last one is gone. Somehow like keeping fire and water in the same glass bottle. CharonX 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because this is not rejected (yet?). I think that the types of oppose votes show that this can be passed. Anyway, we'll need some further debate on this before we can consider this passed or rejected. Dtm142 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, here are my comments on the various oppose votes:

• Delete all userboxes, they are not WP:ENC; don't legitimize/condone userboxes

This new namespace shows that they aren't allowed in the encyclopdia. They are part of the community, not the encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs a community to run itself, and if we keep dividing it up with this war, we have no more community.

• Sidesteps issue

How so? I thought the idea was that they were misuse of the template namespace and shouldn't be next to encyclopedia templates. You say that they're divisive, but the only thing that's really dividing us is the war. Look at how all of us userbox supporters have been able to stay together, despite the fact that many of us claim to be atheist, others Christian, others Jewish, etc. You don't have to use userboxes if you don't want to.

• Userbox definition too narrow

We need it narrow so that there can't be further policy proposals to delete all userboxes.

• Userboxes are templates

They're templates, but they belong in userspace, thus they shouldn't be confused as part of the encyclopedia. Just like Wikipedia project pages aren't mixed in with the articles.

• POV in userspace bad

It shows how diverse the community is and that we don't all follow the same paths. We can show it without userboxes, and it probably won't get deleted. So what's wrong with using userboxes? Remember that you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

• New namespace hard to maintain

Not that hard. Once we have all the templates moved and we have policies about things like how to make a userbox, it won't be that difficult. It will be much easier to maintain than the old one.

• Will make people angry

I think that there is a greater amount of anger now over the userbox war and mass deletion than there ever will be over creating a little namespace.

• Polls are evil

Wars are evil too.

• No specific reason given

Pretty much sums itself up.

• Per all (aka all the above)

See above. Dtm142 23:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By pigeonholing different arguments into a limited number of categories, you have managed to miss the nuances of different stands on the issue (such as mine). I also find it incredibly disingenuous to state that creating a new namespace for userboxes would not constitute condoning them, because that's exactly what having a separate namespace for them would do. The community is an adjunct of the encyclopaedia, not the other way round. As I stated, the user namespace(s) are merely there for us to keep scratchwork and perhaps explain some of our wikiphilosophies and a bit about who we are. (Think of the minibios you see of book authors on book jackets, albeit much longer.) They aren't there for us to create self-serving (self of course referring to the community) templates which serve no purpose in the encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 03:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? The only reasonable argument I've heard is the potential for "votestacking". However, plain text searches are just aws good as "What Links Here", so I don't think it'll affect votestacking one way or another. Since you can limit searches to User: space, one need only type in Catholic to find out who might be Catholic. Just because there are no userboxes doesn't mean they won't mention thier views in text, you know. Besides, if you suspect that such an activity is taking place, you know how to find out (check a couple of talk pages). In fact, I would not be opposed to put a heavier penalty on votestacking. As you have pointed out, the userpage is scratch space and for other miscellany, so why do you really care? Just let people have their fun and if you don't want to participate, then don't. While the official policy says onething, the overwhelming majority of userpages say another. Nobody is trying to make this into myspace, but having a little fun with userboxes is harmless. Most good CEOs know that happy employees make for productive employees. As long as it doesn't interfere with article space, let people have fun. Trolls who don't contribute are already delt with, so you can't say that somehow this will make Wikipedia into a webhost, nobody is doing that. There are easy ways to see if a user is just making edits to User: space and not contributing. So what if Userbox: condones userboxes? It's all really quite trivial if you think about it. Just let it be and move on, that way everyone will be happier. --Dragon695 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It contravenes WP:USER. Userpages belong to the encyclopaedia, not the community, because they serve as bios of our authors/editors and as scratchwork. No activity on Wikipedia should be utterly divorced from the encyclopaedia, which is exactly what userboxes are about. (The argument that having a "This user supports green energy" userbox might somehow aid compliance with NPOV is so laughable that I won't even deal with it for the umpteenth time.) Creating a special userspace for something which has nothing to do with the encyclopaedia defeats the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to, well, write an encyclopaedia.

For a comparable real world analogy (since you brought the topic up), employers allow people to decorate their cubicles with pictures of family and personalise their personal space. However, they do not pay for the production of cute stickers and banners displaying polemical/political/religious/frivolous/non-work-related viewpoints and leave them in a designated area of the office for employees to pick up and pin in their cubicles. It's as simple as that. You can wear a Dilbert T-shirt to work, but you can't expect your superiors to make room for a stall selling Dilbert T-shirts just because a substantial minority of the office is crazy about Dilbert.

I won't bother discussing the vote-stacking argument because I've never been fond of it. The only userboxes I've ever come close to militating against are the blatantly factionalist ones, and that's because those pose more social problems for Wikipedia and its editors than for the construction of consensus. I've never been fanatical about deleting userboxes, but the last thing I want is for any steps to be taken that might even constitute an endorsement of their usage, even though I have a number of userboxes myself. You want to stick tacky boxes that make you look like a moron on your page, just like I do? Go ahead. But don't create a namespace so that Wikipedians now officially endorse making fools of ourselves. Johnleemk | Talk 06:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

make you look like a moron WP:NPA, please. Yes, implying that sticking userboxes on your userpages makes you look like a moron is a personal attack. CharonX 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job not addressing the substance of my argument and ignoring the fact that: 1. It was obviously made in jest since I intentionally included myself in the definition and mentioned it; 2. Even if I wasn't half-joking, it can't be a personal attack if its target(s) include myself. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status after the Straw Poll

It appears to me that this is still a proposed policy and has not yet been rejected or retified as some people have claimed. However for the time being I suggest that we keep disputed policy header up to make sure all parties that claim either side know that nothing has been determined yet. —David618 ^t 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That way, we can reach a post poll consensus, and eventually replace it with a different template (hopefully the green checkmark). Dtm142 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After Tony Sidaway's removal of the disputed tag, I support the former {{proposed}} tag. Unless there are objections I will change it back. —David618 ^t 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "disputed policy" tag

I've removed a tag from this page suggesting that it's policy, disputed or otherwise. As far as I have been able to ascertain, it was never even listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys or anywhere else. It may contain interesting ideas and may well lead to an eventual policy, but to describe it as disputed policy at this stage would require its having put forward, through the usual channels, as policy. Which it hasn't yet. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After Tony Sidaway's removal of the disputed tag, I support the former {{proposed}} tag. Unless there are objections I will change it back. (see above in Status after the Straw Poll)—David618 ^t

Please sign your posts. Of course I'm removing it again. It has never been proposed as policy so of course it isn't policy, disputed or otherwise. We can put "rejected policy" up if you prefer, in view of the massive opposition. --01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs).

Correction. I apologise. I'm fine with "proposed policy". I misread. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My appologies for not signing above. I think "proposed" is the best but there is some dispute as to whether it has been rejected. There does not appear to be enough support to reject it, just as there is not enough support to approve it. —David618 ^t 01:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit you have a minor point there, while it was properly included at the Village pump policy discussion (though it has already been archived by Crypticbot), it was forgotten to be included at WP:RFC/POLICIES and WP:POLLS. I have added it to WP:RFC/POLICIES while I currently see no reason to add it to the other, seeing the poll being closed. Still, I believe that a large portion of the people intrested have already added their points of view to this stew, let's see how it looks like after we let if simmer for a while. Mind if I re-added the disputed tag? CharonX 10:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

At this stage, I'd say that the people opposing this, who seem for the most part to be Wikipedia heavyweights, would need to be substantially mollified if this were every to stand a chance of becoming policy. A proposal that unites so many committed Wikipedians in opposition could not be accepted as policy. For the supporters, although I do recognise one or two of them (Fred Bauder in particular) I'm surprised to say that I don't recognise many of them, and those that I do recognise only seem to hang around for the userboxes and debates on them. This is worrying for any proposal, and suggests to me that the proposal hasn't been thought through by those proposing it. Those who have a long history of carefully considering proposals and thinking about Wikipedia seem to be quite remarkably unified in their opposition. --Tony Sidaway

You comments here and elsewhere, (e.g., "With current exponential growth, new users are becoming the majority, so fundamental Wikipedia principles may come into severe conflict with the majority view in future. This has implications for the decision-making process.") lead me to believe your position is that Wikipedia policy decisions should be made by an oligarchy. Rfrisbie^talk 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy works best if the population is well conditioned educated. Stephen B Streater 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That reminds me of a nice quote. Rfrisbie^talk 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"I know, (there is) no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." —Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter to William C. Jarvis

It's not so much that Wikipedia is an oligarchy, but that not everyone on Wikipedia is equal. Your ability to influence policy on Wikipedia is directly tied to your reputation. Most of the people voting for this proposal don't have much reputation, and as a result their opinions are not taken as seriously as those who do have a positive reputation. And most of those people are opposing this policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And that constitutes decision-making by consensus? As a "wikinewbie" it's becomming more and more clear to me my time would be much better spent elsewhere if my objective is to make a positive impact on any conflict resolution efforts. However, I'll probably still pop in from time to time, simply for the entertainment value. I hereby declare myself an insgnificant wikinewbie. Hmm...sounds like a catchy userb... oh, nevermind. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We would prefer that you focus your attentions on improving the encyclopedia. There are, what, 11,000 articles currently marked for cleanup? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That advice goes both ways. Rfrisbie^talk 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my 7000+ article space edits are somehow NOT improving the encyclopedia? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my nearly 3000 article space edits are somehow NOT improving the encyclopedia? (Yes, I'm just a newbie.) What I am suggesting is that even newbies can make valid contributions to content and policy. Rfrisbie^talk 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And those who use userboxes and care about them believe that having them improves the encyclopedia, so would like to see the admins who are deleting them stop wasting time on deletions and focus their attentiosn on real improvements to the encyclopedia. Unless some compromise becomes policy, this discussion is going to go on for a long time. If you the deletionists want to really get more effort spent on improving the encyclopedia, people they should either 1) help find a true compromise instead of making categorical statements that no compromise is possible or will be accepted or 2) get Jimbo to make policy by fiat and let the encyclopedia suffer the consequences of his doing so. GRBerry 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that I only started deletion userboxes because of rampant abuse of unlicensed media by userbox users. Had y'all not abused them, there would never have been an issue. I never cared a great deal about about userboxes themselves, and am content to leave them alone, as long as they don't become a more serious problem; however, I will strongly resist any attempts to make it appear as though userboxes have any accepted place in Wikipedia policy or culture. I spend most of my Wikipedia-related time on issues that are far more important than trivial nonsense like userboxes. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I actually don't know your history in the matter - or didn't before that post. I'd prefer the discussion to occur without reference to specific people (except for Jimbo and specific citation of examples in arguments). My comment was addressed at the fraction of those who opposed this attempt compromise without any reason other than "userboxes are bad" because it feels like they do not want to find a compromise. If you took it as directly intended for you, my apologies. I realize in retrospect that I used the word "you" when I should not have, and have visibly edited to correct this. GRBerry 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pushing Forward

I dismiss all notions that somehow this policy poll was rigged or unfair. While it would have been nice to slap it on that poll page, the fact of the matter is that pretty much anyone who wanted to weigh in has done so. From looking at those who did, it seems obvious that just about all the major players got their say including many Administrators and some members of ArbCom (sorry Tony, it appears that you forgot to vote before the poll closed). Also, the number of people participating in this poll was definitely above average compared to most other consensus measuring polls, so it is safe to say that the sample was high enough to best reflect the feeling of the community. Nearly 2/3's voted in favor which I think is about as good as it is going to get in terms of consensus one way or another. The fact of the matter is that you just can't please everyone and holding out for a higher consensus just isn't practical. As for Jimbo, well he thinks that userboxes are a bad idea, however the combined consensus is that either the community doesn't care about them or feels that they are good. Barring a WP:OFFICE action, I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed, since he could have shut this poll down a long time ago. While I really want to WP:AGF, I think it is quite clear from their statements that there will still be a concerted effort by those who passionately oppose this plan to thwart consensus. Nevertheless, this has gone on long enough and their attempts to exhaust the supporters into switching to opposition has failed. People want action, not more polls. Therefore, I suggest that you open a dialogue with Fred Bauder, who is a member of ArbCom, to see if he'll be willing to run interference in the upper eschelons in terms of finding out what needs to be filed with Rob Church in order to proceed. --Dragon695 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this policy yet?

The poll showed more than 60% consensus, which is almost a miracle considering the nature of this particular debate. It seems we have reached the best consensus we ever can on this issue and both sides have agreed to compromise in large numbers. The total turnover was also very high, so the poll is likely to be statistically representative. In addition, most of the oppose votes were like "I don't like this, period", which is not a very good attitude. So why is this Proposed Policy instead of Policy. Let's just accept conensus and move on instead of trying to fight against it. Loom91 07:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How nice of you to dismiss legitimate concerns as "I don't like this, period". Johnleemk | Talk 08:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you take a look at the oppose-vote summaries above, you will notice that more than half of the oppose votes spring from the "delete all userboxes, don't endorse userboxes, remember WP:ENC" category. CharonX 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a good number of the support votes gave no reason or 'good idea', while others just voted support in the hope that this policy would solve all the disputes, which 1/3 opposition suggests is not the case. That most of the oppose voters do not agree with userboxes (or, in my case, POV userboxes) in no way makes their thoughts less valid. -- Mithent 16:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason it's not policy is because it's bloody stupid. I do not see consensus for this proposed action. This policy should be listed as {{rejected}}, if you ask my opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall remember that "bloody stupid" is a good argument for you, Kelly Martin. In any case, a large majority wants this wars to end and a minority (less than 1/3) don't want to compromise. Please come to terms with that, with the current majority situation even if there is not consensus yet, it is more likely that a compromise of this kind will become consensus than substing or delting all userboxes. CharonX 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy changes don't get pushed through with a "consensus" like this. Other proposals such as Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion have failed with >70% support. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, an almost 2/3 majority also don't meant the community "rejected" the proposal, right? CharonX 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We've rejected policy before with 75% support, so, yes. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the concept of '60% consensus'. The point of consensus is that's it's not about polls and percentages. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the nature of this controversy, I would appreciate anyone giving me a concrete example of a comparable policy controversy in which a policy ultimately was adopted by consensus. I also would like to see someone who does not consider this to be a censensus tell me what it would take for him or her to conclude consensus exits on this topic without simply telling me to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which is simply a guideline, not policy. Rfrisbie^talk 11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have consensus. You're asking people to explain why. The answer is that the idea isn't accepted by enough editors. An example of policy adoption by consensus established through a straw poll is the new speedy deletion criteria in April, 2005. Another example is the adoption of the three revert rule as enforceable policy in November, 2004. --Tony Sidaway 12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We certainly don't have consensus here -- one third of the people polled didn't agree with the proposal! The poll may give us a basis for working towards consensus on this issue, but no more than that. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. However, both Tony Sidaway and Nick Boalch have simply stated1 what is not consensus without specifying what to them is consensus in this case. Rfrisbie^talk 13:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is one obvious reason why we don't state what is consensus. "We don't have consensus" and "We certainly don't have consensus here mean just that: there is as yet no consensus on userboxes. All that can be stated is that there is to date a strong endorsement for the current program of T1 speedy deletions of unsuitable templates. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving poll open

I'm removing the cluelessly insulting language and the strikethroughs of legitimate opinions that some process-bound person who does not understand that Wikipedia is not a burueacracy put on the project page. On Wikipedia, we do not ignore opinions just because they didn't come within a specified interval. Consensus requires everyone to be heard, not merely those people who happened to come running fast enough. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was stated that the poll has a closing time. And it needs to have one, otherwise we would have to wait for weeks or months, "just in case somebody else votes". It works this way elsewhere on wikipedia, so it should work here. If people are truely intrested in discussing, instead of just voting, they are welcome to talk on this page. CharonX 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are polls on Wikipedia that have remained open for multiple years. Especially on a contentious issue like this one, where consensus has not yet formed, holding the poll open is the appropriate -- and the Wikipedian -- thing to do. I have no idea what you mean by "voting, instead of discussing"; as I read it, the poll is a discussion (as are all polls on Wikipedia). Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're right, it probably shouldn't be closed yet. But should we put forward another closing date (es: one week after the orgiginal one). And if no one is voting often by then, it will close. I think that whatever the result of this is, by two weeks the ratio of support to oppose will be fairly constant. By then, whatever the result may be, even if it is no consensus, I think it will be time to make it policy, end it completely, or draft a new proposal. – Xolatron 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUPP can not become policy unless there is consensus. Unforutunately this proposal only has ~60% approval about 15-20% below what might be considered consensus. I believe this poll should remain open for the time being. I doubt consensus will be reached in a weeks time. The only chance of consensus by leaving it open and allow the larger number of pro-userbox editors to realise what is happening. —David618 ^t 19:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By creating a user box! (No, I didn't say that!) Stephen B Streater 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Made a Comment while the Poll Was Underway

I think we all missed it, but Jimbo made a relevant comment while this poll was underway. See [2]. I think the relevant portion is the second paragraph:

"There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.--Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"

It is not immediately clear what this quote would say about this proposal. My first reaction is that he endorses the search for a compromise, but that he thinks there is a better solution than this proposal as written. Can anyone provide more detail on the German solution? A translation of their policy/guideline would be helpful to those of us who do not speak German. And lets have some thought about this before the next attempt at a compromise. GRBerry 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This text is not a part of a historic epic's poetry. Can't we just approach him and ask what he meant? Although he is "Jimbo", he is also a part of the community. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Approaching Jimbo is easier said than done. Sometimes he responds to comments on his talk page but more often than not he doesn't. As for what he said, by that it looks like that there is nothing explicitly wrong with userboxes as long as they don't reside in template space. Based on past discussions from all sides personal attacks would be precluded but statements of belief or affiliation would not. What is not addressed in his comment is transclusion. It says nothing about transcluding a box from one user page to another. Template space is not involved with user space to user space transclusion. His comment seems to say nothing against a user (or users) creating a library of boxes which others can transclude. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can, but I also think Jimbo knows that the community sometimes gives "undue weight" to his comments when he has no intention to set policy. So I think it is better to try to figure out what he meant first, and then ask him if we are way off base. And I think that a good solid explanation of the German solution might avert any need to discuss further. GRBerry 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See my post below. CharonX 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose instituting a Guild of Jimbologists for discussion of possible interpretations of Jimbo's rare pronouncements, with the goal of eventually creating a widely-accepted exegesis. —Ashley Y 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And God one or more possibly supreme beings or natural forces spoke (or cause vibrations in the time/space continuum, possibly emulating speech): Let there be Knowledge. And there was. And after a while, the aformentioned being(s) or natural forces said (or oszillated): Oh bugger this. So much knowledge and so little understanding. The majority of these things has a hard time to tell their appendages from their backsides. And now they started to choose those worst at that as their leaders. Time for a break. And the creator/s/ing forces took a break, but remembered that someone should aid those creatures in the meantime, lest they end up like the last few times. So Jimbo was created. And Jimbo spoke: What a mess... let's organize knowledge and wisdom first of all... and find a way to distract most of the creatures in the meantime... and so Wikipedia was created. CharonX 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How it is done in the German Wikipedia

Ok, here's the way it was organized on the German Wikipedia: There are almost non "userboxes" in the template (in German Vorlage) space, except for the standard "This user speaks XYZ" boxes and similar. All POV, interest, etc. boxes are part of the userspace - distributed amongst various userpages. I have grabbed a userpage at random of an admin called Davidshilling, note the userboxes? Click at the Babel-Vorlagen link and you will see a few userboxes. Any user may use these boxes on his or her page (he even provided a nifty copy&past link for that). If you check his userpage and view the source you will also see that some of the displayed boxes originate from other users' pages. Basically the German Wiki kept allmost all userboxes outside the template (Vorlage) space, inside the userspace. And since they are inside the userspace they are allowed to be POV, controversial, or whatever (yes, I firmly believe that there will be an editor found that feels offended by other users stating that he enjoys eating junk-food). A major collection of German userboxes offers the user Libro.CharonX 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But, but....doesn't that allow vote stacking through what links here?? In seriousness, this seems like a really good solution. I've been playing around with a policy proposal of the day that incorporated this idea along with one page (Wikipedia:Userboxes) to act as a central index. Being that one policy vote is just finishing now it seems to early to throw yet another one to the wolves. --StuffOfInterest 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, what the heck. I threw together some ideas I've had which turned out to be along the same lines as the German solution and stuck it here. Probably won't float but we've got to keep coming up with ideas until we find one that works. --StuffOfInterest 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean like User:Boxes. It is technically user space.--God Ω War 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think having a central archive in user space is a good idea. It encourages people to just mass factory create new boxes they never have any intention of using themselves. My preference would be towards the transclude pages having to be attached to a user account which is actually using the box. Have the Wikipedia:Userboxes project page point towards those transcludes to help others find it but don't allow people to just spam out a pile of junk such as "I eat cabbage stew" when the user won't include it on his/her own page. --StuffOfInterest 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like no new policy is needed, we can just go do it. —Ashley Y 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ve added a partial list of discussions that might help formulate "The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbie^talk 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boldly going forward (cuz I can't find the reverse)

The community is split on the subject of userboxes. Consensus is nowhere in sight. Still, admins keep deleting boxes claiming T1 or T2. In other words, the situation is bad.
After reading |Jimbo's comments I decided, the German solution is the solution to this mess. It moves the userboxes out of template space into userspace, removing POV from the templates, and protecting the boxes from (over)eager adminstrators and T1. Join the migration!. CharonX 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have put the ones I use in User:Ashley Y/Userboxes and one more I found in User:Userboxes. Also we might want to create Wikipedia:The German solution, with the explanation that it is not a policy proposal but a call for action by any who will under existing policy (and broadly in line with Jimbo's comments). —Ashley Y 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Two questions - are you going to delete the template: versions after doing so (cause if not, it doesn't really solve the problem), and will they still be allowed to be listed at WP:UBX, cause if not, how will people find them? I guess that was more of two opinions than really questions. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the template versions will deleted and userboxes will remain solely in the userspace. Users wishing to use them can either use them as pseudo-templates from the userspace or subst them, their choice. CharonX talk Userboxes 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you create in userspace a catalog equivalent to Wikipedia:Userboxes. The easiest way to do this is to work one page of that catalog at a time. A catalog in User space helps create the impression that these are deprecated, more so than a catalog in Wikipedia space. And having a catalog at all also provides a location to put educational text about userboxes, furthering Jimbo's preference to educate the community as to why they are not good. GRBerry 01:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean like User:Boxes and User:Userboxes? —MiraLuka 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ve added a partial list of discussions (including this) that might help formulate "The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbie^talk 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel a war a-brewing, and frankly see no purpose. I think it is BAD procedure to simply move forward with something, especially when there is no consensus. You are going to waste a lot of time moving things somewhere, only to have someone move them back, etc., with effectively no result. The real goal of your purpose eludes me, but I think you somehow are rooted in the sanctity of the "Template" designation. Instead of this, I propose that we would be better off to pursue activities that promote community and understanding. See WP:SUS for a solution that actually has a chance of accomplishing somthing useful. --NThurston 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's comment about this proposed policy

This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales Diff

It is apparent that even Jimbo can be (mildly) wrong. The highest priority shouldn't be eliminating a centralized address, but rather dealing with the problems associated with userboxes, primarily through educating editors. Basic computing logic suggests that is does not matter how you define an address to something, as long as it works. Changing the prefix on a userbox address is not going to change whether it is appropriate, offensive, or otherwise. The GUS is going to cause a lot of a) inconvenience, b) hard feelings, c) chaos, and d) work and it will do nothing to address the problems arising from userboxes. --NThurston 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)