Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but emerging consensus to continue userfication under the german solution. Userfy is not required per this closing, though it is apparently the least disputed of the options available. If userfication continue, most of the Wikipedia:Userboxes/* pages will likely be coming back here in time. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

This page was prodded, but I don't think prod is the best idea so I have moved it here. Their reasoning is "per the emerging consensus that the German solution is best". Undecided for now Kotepho 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per The German Solution, getting this kind of stuff out of project and template space is necessary, as it explicitly does not have the endorsement of the project. Most of the templates have already been userfied, time to do the same for this. And per Jimbo. --Cyde↔Weys 04:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GUS. This page is no longer needed, especially with a copy continuing on at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. —Mira 05:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Caution do NOT delete before all applicable userboxes are userfied, also, you may want to consider making this page into a directory of several big user space directories such as User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. In other words, if we accept userboxes in user space there is no reason why we should make it harder for users to find userbox directories in userspace. Also, I think that at least the main page of WP:BOX should remain as it explains what userboxes actually are.Tal :) 08:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really see a reason to wait until the boxes are "userfied". Rfrisbie's directory includes all userboxes listed at this page, it was just updated today. —Mira 09:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per The German Solution. Philbert^2.71828 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The German solution is the best. David | Talk 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GUS (no longer needed, Mira is quite right- Rfrsbie already offers a good replacement directory) CharonX/talk 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is forum shopping - the templates on the religion subpage were kept at TFD by a large margin a month ago. Also, take a look at some of the edits around June 12 to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:German userbox solution. Specifically, see the 6th bullet of Wikipedia:German userbox solution#After the Migration. Some of the anti-UBX administrators have expressed a complete disregard for the German solution and have made it clear that deleting userboxes from template space means that they may be speedy deleted from userspace. Applying that same reasoning to this page ... if it gets deleted here, can anyone else guess what the next step is? BigDT 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  Do you mean Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templates_concerning_beliefs_and_convictions? That was in January, which isn't one month ago at least in my calender. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12#Userboxes_in_Wikipedia:Userboxes.2FReligion also did not concern the page, but the templates contained therein, and was more than a month ago. Please explain how this is forum shopping. Kotepho 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  Two months ago ... whatever. The point is that there wasn't a consensus to delete the userboxes themselves. So instead, the index of userboxes is brought for deletion and, according to the actions and statements of several administrators, if this index is deleted, they will go delete the indices in user space as well. BigDT 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  ^{[citation needed]}. Kotepho 02:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Here ya go: [1], [2], [3], [4] (note the reference to T1 in user space), [5] (SALTing a UBX in user space, although he did later self-revert), [6], [7], every single keep deleted comment at [8], and, as the grand finale, your own comments [9]. BigDT 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:GUS is not policy, the templates which this page lists have not been made German, the page is established. Additionally, the fact that there was apparently a keep TfD related to this (per above) is ... Disturbing. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Naconkantari 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This personal material has absolutely no business in project space. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In this edit [10], you seemed to be in agreement with the idea that templates that are not fit for template space are also not fit for user space. Applying the same logic to this particular issue, do you plan, after the conclusion of this discussion, to delete similar indices of userboxes that are located in userspace? BigDT 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no plans to delete anything. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Obviously, the same can't be said for Cyde. [11] Rfrisbie^talk 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jimbo and WP:GUS. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jimbo and WP:GUS. However, I'm still concerned about some "fishy" happenings on this issue. Just before I came here, I was bypassing redirects from Template:User soul to {{User:UBX/Soul}}. Before I could finish, the original page disappeared! I'd love to see an explanation for that. If you can, please do. Rfrisbie^talk 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mystery solved. [12] Big surprise. Rfrisbie^talk 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Germanize and delete this one and the rest of the userbox warrens. No white pages of userspace userboxes should remain. It's time to move this behind us. JDoorjam Talk 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. These are destructive to the project, and should have been nipped in the bud as soon as they started. --Improv 06:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think we should be extra careful with the broader interpratation of T'1. I agree a user may choose to delete reference to alleged T'1 userboxes from his/her directory but I think deleting their actual existance from another user's page, without previous discussion with that user, is generally going too far and can be seen as abuse of admin powers.Tal :) 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to userspace or merge history with Rfrisbie's corresponding page as part of the german userbox solution and because Jimbo was the individual who prod'ed the page. GRBerry 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: One problem with a simple move is that userspace links are being systematically removed from all Wikipedia:Userboxes directories. I'm not sure how a "merge history" would work, but I can support it, as long as nothing is lost from the existing Rfrisbie page in the process. Rfrisbie^talk 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. WP:GUS is not policy and does not have consensus, irrespective of whether or not its proponents claim it does not need consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but put in a holding pen until all of them have been userfied. This is part of the compromise solution itself. When that is done, delete all of the Template:User_* soft redirects. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until all useboxes have been germanized. If it is a deletion criteria that userboxes based on beliefs be deleted, place them up for deletion. If there is just one box on this list that doesn't meet the criteria for deletion, then the page should never be deleted as it is useful. Of course, you could move boxes to other pages and then delete.--Rayc 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until all boxes have been adopted out to userspace. Quite a few are already gone. Personally, I'd much rather see this page stay as a central listing of the userspace boxes. It would keep the duplication of effort down and make it so people don't have to hunt through dozens of disjointed directories looking for the appropiate box. --StuffOfInterest 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like you have about five days to migrate the rest of these into userspace. That should be more than long enough. This page can't just stay around indefinitely at the leisure of people waiting to get around to it — Jimbo has established a clear deadline here. I do believe prod (what Jimbo placed on this page) lasts for around seven days and is then acted upon. I don't see how this MFD can override Jimbo, so, you have five days. --Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Prod is 5 days when it isn't backlogged, but "I don't see how this MFD can override Jimbo" frankly just doesn't make sense. Jimbo prodded it, he didn't delete it. While I'm not sure he is up to date on our deletion processes, he knows how to use the delete button. If he meant to say "this page will be deleted in 5 days" he would have said that and even if that is what he meant--if did want it deleted no matter what--he knows how to delete it if this MFD does not close as delete. Kotepho 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Prod is the easiest deletion method to overturn. Which I suspect is part of why Jimbo used it with the nomination he did - to test whether GUS is consensus. Prod can be overturned 1) if any user removes the prod tag or 2) it is brought to an XfD discussion. Bringing it to MFD already overrode Jimbo's prod, by the rules that govern the prod process. By the rules governing prod, it can never be prod'ed again. The outcome of this MfD is the final word, until an MfD is legitimate again or Jimbo chooses a stronger method of taking action. GRBerry 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, once migrated of course. I can't imagine that would take more than a day or so. Aren't I Obscure? 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Moving pages is quick. Bypassing redirects can take a while (unless you have a bot I suppose). Considering relatively few editors actually seem to be doing complete migrations - moves and redirect bypasses - and the trend to delete redirects as soon as they're found seems to be increasing, I'm not for doing "move now, bypass later." The simplest approach all along would have been to move this page to userspace. From my perspective, that's still the best solution to getting unwanted directories out of projectspace, assuming of course no one deletes them there. Short of that, this page could be changed to a redirect to something like User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. Migrating individual boxes could continue to be tracked from there. Rfrisbie^talk 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The german solutions moves these boxes to userspace, so directories of them should go there as well. Personally I think User:Box would be ideal for this but that's not this debate. Eluchil404 11:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep removal is POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted-m (talk • contribs) .
• Strong Keep A removal intended to enforce an arbitrary standard of blandness within the Wikipedia userspace, and a subversion of the consensus-building process regarding userboxes. Basing policy on what is nothing more than a quirk of the wiki's structure is ludacris. I've tried several low-key ways of saying the same thing, but this is the trench I'm prepared to defend, and I'll defend it with all that I have. The opposition to userboxes (as they now exist) is, to me, primarily driven by the intention to whitewash the user community. It represents a painful & deliberate ignorance of certain concepts:

• Users are not like you.
• Users object to some things you strongly believe in.
• Users believe in some things to which you strongly object.
• Users come from socially, economically, racially, politically, & religiously diverse communities.
• Users are united by their commitment to editing this encyclopedia.
• Users should never feel forced to implicitly adopt the values & beliefs of those who arrived before them.
• Users should not have to pay for their edits by checking their individual & group identity at the door.

The objection to users outside the dominant culture finding community & solidarity through the tool of userboxes has been vilified as "vote stacking." The naked presentation of users as fully-formed, fully-flawed human beings has been denounced as bias. Yet, the desire to erase diversity is dressed up as concern for the project & worn as a badge of honor, despite its overwhelming harmful effects.

Userboxes do not appear in articles. Template space is not article space. To conflate objections to the preservation of user diversity with speciopus arguments about what should & should not be a Template amounts to a disingenuous attempt to create a "weakness" in the current system of userboxes -- one that doesn't exist in reality -- in order to enforce the homogenization of user diversity.

The sheer mass of the predominant set of users tends to smother and make invisible the diversity within the user community. Users fall outside of the bulk of users' adoption of white male heterosexual American Protestant values & norms. That users outside the dominant group want to feel a sense of communion with like-minded people is not a sin against the Wiki. It is merely the minority's expression of the same concept of community values that the majority expresses without objection. But, when minority viewpoints try to achieve community here, we gnash our teeth & wring our hands. "Imminent death of the Wiki predicted," we cry! And we dress our insularity up as technical objections. We say: "I don't object to his viewpoint. It's just the way he expresses it." We declaim: "We love her diversity; We just wish she wouldn't try to join with others similarly diverse." Hypocrisy can be carefully prepared & given a thorough coating of politeness, but the rot at its core can never be completely hidden.

A rainbow becomes a rainbow because each element of it exists in communion with every other element of the same hue, but also because each element of it puts its diversity on display for all to see. Take away the community & the diversity, and the rainbow becomes undifferentiated, a mottled gray stripe. Our world, by virtue of the diversity & community of its population, becomes so much more than the sum of its individuals, just as each individual is more than the sum of their userboxes. When our diversity has been stamped out, then will we mourn what we've lost? When our world is a uniform shade of beige, then will we question the cost? When the damage that we've started is complete, then will we question the pure hearts & lily-white motives of the technocrats? The time is now, and we are the ones to dig our trench and say to the mob: This far & NO FURTHER! --Ssbohio 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stirring quotes from Jean-Luc aside, have you read up on what's going on? The German solution is about moving these templates to a safe space (i.e. userspace) where they will be less subject to deletion, as they will not be in the 'official' Template: space; this deletion request is about the holding pen for the templates as it existed previously, not about deleting all of your userboxes from the wiki. -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stirring ridicule from you aside, I've been involved in discussions about what to do with userboxes for months now. The fact of the matter is that Template space isn't article space, and a template's appropriateness is best measure by where it's used, not where it's stored. Opponents of userboxes by & large opposed them before hitting upon the strategy of making the debate about where they are stored. That's why I describe it as a specious argument. The fundamental objections are about the use of userboxes to facilitate community-building among those holding miunority views. If I oppose the effect, logic dictates I must also oppose every step toward bringing about that effect.--Ssbohio 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's much more fun to pretend you're fighting for big freedom issues than to engage in honest and productive dialogue in which you make an real effort to understand and be understood, and come to some kind of mutually agreeable solution. Once you've decided that people wanting to userfy userboxes are hypocrites who are against all things good and holy, you've given up on actual dialogue, and taken the side of polarization, and division. I don't think that's Ssbohio's intention, but it's the effect of casting this issue as a struggle for freedom against oppression. It's like saying, "I don't want a solution, I want that nice righteous feeling I get when I think I'm battling the forces of evil."

Acknowledging multiple perspectives, and nuance, and grey area, and actually working with diversity, rather than paying it lip service by means of stultifyingly shallow boxes, is difficult. Who's willing to go there? Ssbohio, I dare you to see this issue in terms of more than one dimension - are you up to it? Do you have the guts to enter into the view of someone who celebrates diversity, and yet thinks userboxes are a bad idea, for other reasons? Do you have the spine to dissolve the dichotomy you're currently reinforcing, and try to find your feet in multi-perspective space?

Frankly, I don't think that someone who looks at an issue and sees two sides, one right and one wrong, is going to be nearly as good an encyclopedist as someone who looks at an issue and sees two hundred facets, all right in their ways. A statement like "we are the ones to dig our trench and say to the mob..." seems to me to imply a tendency to take a rainbow, and turn it into a black and white, "for us or against us", bivalent kind of thing. Why think that way? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While you may choose to descibe my beliefs as a pretense, and to cast unfounded aspersions on my level of understanding of this issue & on my abilities as an editor here, I choose to concentrate on the overarching issues, as I see them. I've been involved in discussions about what to do with userboxes for months now. I've seen the antiuserbox factions arguments change in an effort to get the best traction possible. It's like the old saying that some people use facts the way a drunk uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination.

I have been nice. I have laid out my perspective. I've asked questions, made observations, participated in discussions, gave my opinions on TfDs, begged, cajoled, & opined my way to this point. I acknowledge multiple perspectives, but elsewhere. Here, I decided that my deeply-held beliefs had to be given full voice & advocated for in the strongest possible way. Every solution proposed, including the German solution gives up one or more of the aspects that make userboxes useful & powerful tools for community-building. To my mind, there are such things as right and wrong. To my mind, acts which, however well-intentioned, reduce a population's means for displaying diversity & creating community, are prima facie wrong. In general, the majority view isn't the one that needs protection, and it's true in this case as well. The view that we need less diversity of opinion is hard to support, and not supporting it shouldn't be painted as denying diversity.

Instead of looking at my comment as a positive expression of belief, your choice is to dissect it and insinuate (variously) that I am pretending, that my attempt at dialogue is dishonest & unproductive, that my effort to be understood is false, that I think those opposed to keeping uservoxes as they are oppose "all things good & holy," that I don't want a solution, that I see this as a unidimensional issue, that I lack guts & spine, that I'm lacking as an encyclopedist, and that I see this as strictly a black & white issue. To all that I say, you know not whereof you speak, and your prodigious verbal force might better be directed toward talking about constructive solutions rather than extrapolating my shortcomings of morality & judgment from one set of comments.

Throughout my comment, I used the phrase "this far & no further." It has an honorable history. It was made notable by Kurt von Schuschnigg, Austrian Chancellor, in a speech in which he abandoned appeasement in favor of resistance. That's exactly what my comment above signifies for me. I no longer want to hope that userboxes get left alone if we take the appeasement step of the German solution. I want a real solution. I've discussed these topics elsewhere. Here, my intent & effect was to make a call to arms, to stop the piecemeal way in which the usefulness of userboxes has been whittled away. This is my position, this is where I stand. I'm happy to discuss this further, though I feel my talk page might be a better place for extended discussions. --Ssbohio 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Ssbohio: Ssbohio, even though I find your insights and passion admirable, I'm still in favor of deleting this page at this point. I too believe the building of a true community is fundamentally instrumental to the development of this online encyclopedia, and that userboxes can play a useful roll in that community-building process. However, it's also clear this a piece of property owned by an entity other than ourselves. The powers that be have a vision and boundaries of acceptable conduct that userboxes serve as vehicles to push. I'm all for playing this little wikigame within the rules (one of which is figure out the rules) as they apply to the little boxes. I've sketched some lists of how I organize many of the issues I've seen discussed about userboxes. (I'm sure everyone here could do the same from their own points of view.) I'll use them to help illustrate my position.

Userboxes on potentially controversial topics with messages that advocate or oppose particular points of view are at the crux of the userbox issue. When they are used to classify and rally Wikipedians through categories and/or What links here for partisan activities, then they are being used in their worst light. Of course, userboxes also can be used for totally valid collaborative networking and community-building activities...not to mention just fluff. I assume the "userboxes are not totally evil" sentiment is strong enough among the heavy hitters that we're at least allowed to have this conversation.

Nominally, this proposal is to delete a directory of userboxes on controversial topics from Wikipedia space. It does not preclude a directory on the same or even more controversial topics and messages from being in user space. In fact, that's exactly what User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs is. At this point, I see nothing of material substance being lost by deleting Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. In fact, the user space directory displays more diversity as individual userboxes are systematically being purged from template and Wikipedia space.

As long as users are allowed to display userboxes of comparable content that meet existing policies and guidelines, and user space directories are allowed to organize them, I'll continue to support deleting controversial directories from Wikipedia space. If it's just a ruse for herding sheep to the slaughter, then so be it. The crisis such an act would create will be leadership's own doing - Wikipedia will rise or fall by how it handles diversity issues such as this.

To foreshadow related future conversations, I would not support any efforts to prohibit transclusions of userboxes to negate What links here, or delete all Wikipedian categories related to controversial topics. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19/Wikipedians by politics shows "no consensus" as yet. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians working and Category talk:Wikipedians by politics may be important forerunners to solving the other major piece of the "grouping Wikipedians for good vs. evil" puzzle. Rfrisbie^talk 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the German Solution.--M@rēino 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  Don't you mean Delete per the German Solution? Everything on this page is being transfered to userspace. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Deleting this page would be Ironic, nonsense CENSORSHIP, which in most forms is against the Policies and Guidelines. --Corporal Punishment 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.