Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page began as a discussion on a proposed policy for userboxes commonly seen on Wikipedians' user pages; what should be allowed, encouraged, or discouraged in userboxes. It became an increasingly divided and unproductive straw poll, and so a new page for discussion has begun here. This page should be viewed as a place where proposed policies have been presented, but please do not continue to vote on these as we are not ready to come to a consensus about anything regarding this issue yet. Thanks. Harro5

Contents

[edit] For proposals concerning only Babel templates see: m:Interproject Babel template standardization (proposal)

[edit] Proposal

Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, Wikipedia needs a policy regarding the use of templates for the user namespace as well as the categorization of Wikipedians. For example, should Wikipedia allow templates designed for the user namespace which blatantly support particular points of view? Should we allow templates that serve no purpose other than adding humor to user pages? Should we allow categories that divide Wikipedians into political and religious affiliations that can be used for spamming user talk pages? Should we allow categories that serve no purpose except to list users who claim to be furry? Basically, we need to establish guidelines for the creation of new user templates and user categories. What types of templates and what types of categories should be allowed? --TantalumTelluride 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Additional Comment: And don't forget about the double transclusion caused by many userbox templates. Granted, WikiProject Userboxes has been addressing the issue, but many users transclude the basic userbox template within specific templates. Apparently such double tranclusions are significantly more demanding of the Wikimedia servers than regular single transclusions are, and they should almost always be avoided. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits#Double transclusion and Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates.) --TantalumTelluride 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, this would be the time to make it clear that images that are claimed to be under fair use should not be used as part of the userbox template. They were probably some of the reasons why some admins have been deleting them or trying to get rid of them, but we all need to understand that we have to have specific cause and reason to cite an image as fair use, because we are using it for an article, not for just some damn decoration on a silly userbox. Zach (Smack Back) 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

May I note to all that the above two issues on meta templates and fair-use images are the two main current tasks at the WikiProject and we are working on removing all traces of them. Ian13ID:540053 11:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed policy #1

The following is my recommended policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The primary purpose of userboxes is to assist Wikipedians in locating other Wikipedians who have specific skills, knowledge, or interests in order to facilitate writing an encyclopedia. Therefore, preference is given to userboxes which serve this purpose. Userboxes which do not serve this purpose are discouraged; while they may be created and used, restraint should be exercised.

The following categories of userboxes are encouraged:

  1. Userboxes which identify an editor's ability to read or write in one or more languages (see also Wikipedia:Babel), for the purpose of obtaining translation assistance.
  2. Userboxes which identify other special skills (such as experience with proofreading, copyediting, or photoediting) of value in creating an encyclopedia.
  3. Userboxes which signify that the editor holds some specific status (such as administrator) within the Wikipedia community and can therefore assist others in need of the assistance of someone with that status.
  4. Userboxes which indicate the editor's participation in an WikiProject.
  5. Userboxes which indicate the editor's participating in a sister Wikimedia project.

The following categories of userboxes are prohibited:

  1. Userboxes which contain offensive or incivil content, or which amount to personal attacks.
  2. Userboxes which contain any content which is not suitable for placement on a user page, per the user page policy.
  3. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to express endorsement of, or objection to, a commercial product, service, or entity (such as a movie, a book series, a soft drink, or a sports team). However, userboxes which indicate a user's interest in a specific topic are not prohibited, as long as they do not amount to endorsing or opposing that topic. Your user page is not a place to endorse or advertise for any external entities.
  4. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to endorse or object to any particular political, religious, or ideological position. Again, userboxes which indicate an editor's interest in politics, religion, or ideology, or any particular subset thereof, are permissible (and even encouraged), but such userboxes should not state that the editor is a member of, supporter of, or opponent of such a position. Your user page is not a place for advocacy. (This does not apply with respect to ideological stances about Wikipedia policy, such as inclusionism or eventualism.)

Userboxes that fall into neither of the above categories are neither encouraged nor prohibited; editors may create such userboxes but are expected to exercise reasonable restraint in doing so.

In addition, userboxes must not, under any circumstance, contain unlicensed image content. Wikipedia's fair use policy prohibits the use of unlicensed media on user pages; since userboxes only appear on user pages unlicensed media may not be used in them.

Userboxes may add the page on which they are found into an appropriate category; but such categories must be categories which are appropriate and reserved for user pages. Under no circumstance should a userbox add the page into which it is included into any category which is intended to include articles.

Userboxes should not be placed in articles or article talk pages.

Userboxes should avoid the use of metatemplates.

Note that nothing in this policy prohibits a user from identifying his or her ideological beliefs on his or her user page (although doing so is generally discouraged); this policy merely prohibits creating templated userboxes for that purpose. Userbox templates should not be created that facilitate editors performing acts discouraged by the Wikipedia community. Editors are reminded that user pages are intended to be about oneself as a Wikipedian and are not intended as a general personal home page, or as a free speech zone (see the user page policy).

[edit] Comments

  • The purpose of userboxes is subjective, dependent on the user.--Urthogie 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I like that. It's fair, clear and keeps us focussed. Rob Church Talk 09:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Great start. I'd like something added to say you can still add the stuff in objections 3 and 4 into your bio on your userpage, as long as it's in text not templates/userboxes. That's acceptable, isn't it? Harro5 09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose.I think that this proposal is fine, except people should be able to say what religion, political party or ideology they support or oppose. As long as it doesn't use any inappropriate language, or act as a personal attack (which the This user hates George W Bush template could be interpretated to be) it counts as freedom of speech. The main problem we have is the sheer number of userboxes that are being created, despite a very similar or virtually identical userbox is already in use. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See the user page policy; your user page is not a "free speech zone".
  • I am in general agreement with the proposed policy. I would prohibit any userbox which automatically places the user in a category of Wikipedians by POV. I would allow any userbox stating a political affiliation (free from any sloganeering), so long as it is in very specific terms reporting facts of membership of a group. David | Talk 10:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bourbons3 in that it should be allowed to express an ideological or religious affiliation using userboxes. As he said, it counts as freedom of speech. Further I'd like to add that while articles should have a NPOV, user pages certainly don't have to. Larix 11:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm not really fond of any restrictions besides those considered with copyright or personal attacks. So this comment is not my only objection to the proposal. Larix 11:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See the user page policy; your user page is not a "free speech zone". Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Am i allowed to propose a policy, or I have to wait for some sort of approval/disproval if this one first? - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree in part. If I'm a supporter of a particular religion, ideology, or sports team, whose business is it to demand I refrain from saying so? Provided I don't say a particular religion or group is evil, such as proclaiming Jews a plague or Islam a tool of Satan (or Islam a tool of the international Jewish conspiracy, to offend both), or that the Roughriders suck (but they do...), butt out! Trekphiler 13:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's user page policy. Your user page is not a free speech zone, and a statement of your support of a religion, ideology, or sports team does not describe you as a Wikipedian. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Trek, people can say what religion or whatever organisation/group they're in if they want to - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How many times are you going to post this? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree absolutely with the proposed policy expect P3 and P4. Perhaps userboxes of those types should be discouraged (such as how images in signatures are currently discouraged, but not prohibited), but I don't think an outright ban of them is quite fair, considering that Wikipedians are free to state their political opinions without userboxes anyway. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Users should be discouraged from stating their political opinions (per request of Jimbo, if nothing else), and we should not allow the creation of userboxes to facilitate a discouraged behavior. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reasonable policy, as long as it is made clear that there is a grey area between these two that is neither encouraged nor prohibited (which would include all the "funny" ones). I'd also be in favour of stating that categories are only appropriate for "encouraged", and that "one-off" userboxes should be kept in the userspace of the user who wants it, but that might already be instruction creepy. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I felt that was obvious, but I suppose it should be stated. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the discouragement of ideological stances. So long as the stance is issued in the positive ("I am a member of ..." or "I subscribe to the philosophy of ..." as opposed to "The ideology of ... is dangerous or evil") they harm no one and can contribute to disclosure of vested interest. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly and Vehemently Disagree with the type of userboxes the proposer wishes to discourage in items 3 and 4. These items go on user pages and reflect the personalities and interests of the individual editors, and are a good way to find likeminded editors on Wikipedia, especially for WikiProjects. Going after these items is precisely what started a particular uproar against a certain admin's heavy-handed actions. --CJ Marsicano 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no prohibition on indicating "interest" in a topic; users are discouraged from, and prohibited from creating userboxes, which act as advocacy on an issue. A userbox that says "This user is interested in topics about Christianity" would be perfectly acceptable. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • By the same token you have just stated, so are the types of userboxes you are trying to prohibit in #3 and #4. --CJ Marsicano 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree - surely this should be more liberal per CJ Marsicano's comments. Ian13ID:540053 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree - userboxes are solely for user pages. User pages are POV. I could go on... this is far too authoritarian. Deano (Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your user page is not a free speech zone, and there are policies regarding the content you can put on them that you are expected to follow. User pages are not a "free for all", as some people seem to think. Please familiarize yourself with the user page guidelines. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Kelly: I read the user page guidelines and pretty much the only limitations I can see on what one can put on one's userpage are regarding "non-free" content and things that are not related to one "as a Wikipedian". If someone is involved in editing articles on politics on Wikipedia, it would seem that the guidelines would allow them to include quite a bit of information regarding their political "likes and dislikes". Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree with "prohibiting" types 3 & 4 as proposed by User:Kelly Martin in policy #1. I must add that I see the entire notion of a Userbox Project outsider in the form of User:Kelly Martin, with a questionable history in following due process and policy, introducing a policy herself to fit her actions as a despicable attempt at post-justification, however valid a policy proposal as of such may be. TCorp 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's assume good faith policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Mr. TCorp seems to be indeed very familiar with AGF (as am I)... hence his pointing out that you assumed the total opposite. --CJ Marsicano 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm very well familiar with the AGF policy. Perhaps User:Kelly Martin should familiarize herself with the Wikipedia Deletion policies. I see neither good or bad faith intended in the actions of User:Kelly Martin, but rather a combination of lack of judgement and an apparent character flaw that allows such actions to be justified in her mind. TCorp 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as there are a number of people that objected to prohibited categories 3 and 4 I have created a proposal 1a, so called (if I may be so bold) because it's a fork rather than a freshly written proposal. It is Kelly's as written, except for changes to 3 and 4, and an additional 5 to clarify speediness. I support that one, and oppose this one as written, although I think it's a great basis for discussion and thank Kelly for putting together a well written and comprehensive draft. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment3 and 4 sound totalarian, but can be tweaked to suit the user's needs. Ms. Martin even said herself that POV userboxes could be changed to be less POV - the Amnesty International userbox (which has been causing a great deal of uproar), for example, could be changed from "This user supports Amnesty International" to "This user is interested in Amnesty International". Morgan695
    • But alas, after reading Proposed Policy #4, I am forced to disagree. Morgan695 18:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strongly Disagree with Kelly's proposed policy. It amounts to censorship, and Wikipedians will still have their POVs. So I have to ask, What's the point? It seems to me to be nothing more than a little deletionist power trip. Yeltensic42.618 18:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree There is absolutely nothing wrong with a user expressing their own viewpoint on their own userpage. Niffweed17 18:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, it is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. It is not prohibited, however, and the proposal, if anything, does not challenge this. I ask you to review the final paragraph: it seems the issue is less user page content, and more what should and should not be presented in template form. – Seancdaug 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose — This smacks of censorship and is a complete change in user page policy, not just affecting userboxes. To adopt this policy means far reaching changes to what's allowed on userpages, meaning no one will be able to express any point of view on their userpage or even WikiProjects. It's in direct contravention of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, due to item #4. Userboxes should be a souce of expression as a userpage is encouraged to be such a place.Gateman1997 19:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Oppose If this ever did miraculously get passed, I would ignore it, and help others do the same. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for censorship. karmafist 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Wikipedian user pages should not be censored, particularly since conveying political views through user boxes has not yet caused any problems to the running of wiki. Instead, knowing what views other users hold helps in the achievement of NPOV. Ronline ✉ 02:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Though this may come as a surprise to those who have been following the RfC-that-must-not-be-named, I'm going to have to say that I wholeheartedly and strongly support Ms. Martin's proposal in its current form. It looks like the most of the opposition stems from the fourth prohibited point. The section, as I see it, merely disallows the creation of pre-made templates for the express purpose of espousing a political or ideological belief without direct relation to Wikipedia. As it goes on to say, there is no explicit sanction against stating one's beliefs on a user page (and, indeed, there are several boilerplate userbox templates which can used to that end), per se, merely that it is inappropriate to produce a standardized template to that end. I think this is absolutely fair, and has the added benefit of making the number of userbox templates more manageable. – Seancdaug 02:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We seem to have majority support for the #3 prohibiting rule. This is a very good start, and I'd say this policy would probably gain consensus support if it were to include #3 but not #4, or at least a softening of #4. Note. these numbers refer to the criteria under "The following categories of userboxes are prohibited:". Harro5 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that a userbox admitting that one's self is biased in some category is a good thing, not bad - it makes one's self more aware of that bias and try to ensure that bias doesn't get expressed. I don't see how the marking of one's own POV could be interpreted as implying that one can express that POV when editing articles. Deleting a POV-userbox doesn't solve anything towards preventing the seep-through of that POV into articles, does it? --AySz88^-^ 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I just finally got what the other side's arguing (about creating voting blocs); I think it's a rather depressing (possibly bad-faith) view of Wikipedians though. --AySz88^-^ 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but I see it as less of an assumption of bad faith on the part of any particular contributor, and more of a desire to avoid groupthink as a generalized phenomenon. I think it's a reasonable concession, honestly, particularly since there is nothing to prevent an editor from expressing his or her opinions via userbox, providing they simply use the blank slate {{userbox}} template. I think that has an added benefit of encouraging individual thought and even contributing to the point of userboxes to begin with (that is, providing some insight into the thoughts of the user). – Seancdaug 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not believe we should be in the business of policing people's userpages. Kaldari 13:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support. I've been saying this before I ever came over here; userboxes can express interest in a topic without advocating for one POV or another. Value-neutral categorizations are helpful to the encyclopedia: those which are or can be used for POV-pushing are not. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy #1a

Proposed Policy 1 as written except strike prohibited categories 3 and 4:

  1. -
  2. -
  3. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to express endorsement of, or objection to, a commercial product, service, or entity (such as a movie, a book series, a soft drink, or a sports team). However, userboxes which indicate a user's interest in a specific topic are not prohibited, as long as they do not amount to endorsing or opposing that topic. Your user page is not a place to endorse or advertise for any external entities.
  4. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to endorse or object to any particular political, religious, or ideological position. Again, userboxes which indicate an editor's interest in politics, religion, or ideology, or any particular subset thereof, are permissible (and even encouraged), but such userboxes should not state that the editor is a member of, supporter of, or opponent of such a position. Your user page is not a place for advocacy. (This does not apply with respect to ideological stances about Wikipedia policy, such as inclusionism or eventualism.)

and replace with:

  1. -
  2. -
  3. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to express endorsement of, or objection to, a commercial product, service, or entity (such as a movie, a book series, a soft drink, or a sports team) may not have categories associated with them, and they may not be used for advocacy of the position. Further they may not reproduce the logo or trademarked identifying mark of the product. They cannot directly link to an external site but may link to the Wikipedia article on the topic, if any.
  4. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to endorse or object to any particular political, religious, or ideological position may not have categories associated with them and may not denote nore than simple endorsement or objection, and they may not be used for advocacy of the position. They cannot directly link to an external site but may link to the Wikipedia article on the topic, if any.
  5. Userboxes that violate any of these prohibited categories may be speedily deleted and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion should be modified to reflect this policy.

(note, all the notes in Proposed Policy 1 below the allowed and prohibited sections, which are usage notes and guidelines, are kept as written. They are not reproduced here for brevity)

Proposed by ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments, questions, and voting

  • Support++Lar: t/c 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fully and strongly disagree. This is just a watered down/re-worded version of the Martin Proposal. --CJ Marsicano 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree it's reworded, that's the idea! (whatever you may think of Kelly or her actions (which emphatically are NOT the subject of this discussion, that's what the RfC is for), she produced a well written and comprehensive proposal, IMHO, even if you disagree with some of it) but I do not agree that it is just a watered down version. It changes the sense of prohibited types 3 and 4, which many (including myself) disagree with in her version, from prohibited completely to restricted from being used for POV pushing. I hope you'll change your view and that others will consider supporting this version. While I like a lot of the other versions and the sentiments behind them, I think some of them lack the structural benefits and clarity of wording of Kelly's version and would rather see diffs proposed, as I did, instead of complete rewrites. With many competing, slightly different, rewrites we may never get to one firm proposal that has consensus. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose, while reworded the basis of the message is the same and IMHO is much to restrictive to the userspace per the userspace guidelines.Gateman1997 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yeltensic42.618 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question of Clarification: What does the phrase "may not be used for advocacy of the position" mean? In other words, what is the difference between "endorsing", which is allowed under this proposal, and "advocacy", which is not? Lawyer2b 00:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If I have a userbox that says "I am a LEGO fan", that's a statement about me, about my interests/beliefs/worldviews. It can presumably be taken as an endorsement of LEGO fandom (unless you subscribe to the school of thought that says that people belong to things they don't agree with on a regular basis... I guess saying "I smoke Marlboro cigarettess" would fall into that category of things, I might just be addicted to them but not necessarily think they're a good thing, but I digress). If my userbox also says "and you should be a LEGO fan too" or "and you should go buy more LEGO product", that's advocacy. Granted, its a fine line, but that's how I see the difference anyway. Advocacy is the thing to be prevented, and what I think Kelly was most concerned about. WP:UP seems clear cut to me on this point: that we should not be organising campaigns (either off WP or on, to do POV pushing) using our user pages, we should get our own hosting space for that sort of organizing. Those stating opposition to this proposal, are you suggesting that WP should be used for advocacy? If not, why isn't this a good proposal? What specifically is wrong with it? How is it not aligned with WP:UP? ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Your interpretation makes sense, and I could live with it, but the writer of this proposal ought to make the difference explicit. Lawyer2b 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Because Kelly's proposal would force me to take down one of my userboxes, while this one wouldn't, I'm in favour of this one. :-p Except for that little itty-bitty problem, I prefer Kelly's solution. Wikipedia is not a place for free speech, but we should allow some reasonable statement of opinion (why can I state on my userpage that I am opposed to Ketuanan Melayu but not state it in a userbox which isn't even associated with a category?). Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy #2

This policy that I propose comes to light in response to not only the RfC, but also the recent influx of Userbox templates on WP:TFD. It is also highly dependant on the outcome of Proposed policy #1--JB Adder | Talk 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of the userboxes available on Wikipedia have their own User category to accompany it. This puts them in a similar vein to the stub category/template pairings. Therefore, userboxes should not be judged as templates, but as a separate entity, again in a similar vein to stubs.

Any userboxes that contradict what is encouraged, or contain material that is prohibited, may be subject to nomination on Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion. Any nominations that are sent here are given seven days while debate takes places as to whether the Userbox in question should be kept or deleted.

Users must familiarize themselves with the userbox policy, as well as disruption policy before making a nomination.

[edit] Comments

Everyone is free to expand on this proposal as they see fit. --JB Adder | Talk 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Giving these little boxes their own *FD is going overboard, IMO. However, they could be seen as part of the User namespace and therefore handled at the low-traffic WP:MFD instead of the already very busy WP:TFD. Always deleting template/category pairs together can be arranged. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, some of the userboxes exist in the template namespace, others might exist as hard code on the user pages and some exist via transclusion. I think that all userboxes and similar forks can be sent to TFD: they can be moved later on if the scope is out of reach of TFD. Zach (Smack Back) 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The scope of this policy discussion should only be userboxes in the template namespace, including the borderline case of a user putting a userbox in a subpage of his userspace with the purpose of making it available to others or avoiding deletion (but that's just common sense). Userboxes that have been hardcoded into a userpage are already adressed in full at Wikipedia:User page. If we include them here we will get ridiculous things like having to define what a userbox is, and more specifically what isn't one, and that would really be instruction creep of the worst kind. I think User:Ian13 has it right when he says (on the talk page) this should apply to "userspace templates", and I propose to move this discussion to Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpage templates as he suggests - other possible locations could be Wikipedia:User page (templates) or Wikipedia:User page/Templates. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SFD was a terrible mistake, and not one to be emulated. Categories that are populated solely for a template that's been deleted in process are speediable, so there's nothing to consolidate. —Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy #3

I thought i would put up this policy before there were too many for people to read through. I thought i would use Proposed Policy #1 as a building block, as the majority of it is, in my opinion, the ultimate solution.

Approved userboxes:

  1. Those that promote a user's details, although not too detailed or personal, as this will create too many userboxes (language, location, basic interests like sport or computers)
  2. Those that promote a user's important skills (java, html, etc)
  3. Those that promote a user's skills in terms of editing Wikipedia (copyright knowledge, high editing skills, etc)
  4. Those that promote a user's position in Wikipedia (like admin) which would help others find assistance in some way in terms of Wikipedia
  5. Those that promote a user's participation in, or support of, a Wikiproject
  6. Those that promote a user's participation in a Wikimedia sister project (Wiktionary, etc)
  7. Those that promote free speech of a moral kind (including stating a user's religion, political views or ideology without causing serious offense)
  8. Those that, to a certain extent (becasue of potentially creating an overload in userboxes) are humorous, as long as they do not casue serious offense)

Unapproved userboxes:

  1. Those that act as personal attacks
  2. Those that use inappropriate language
  3. Those that are immoral in any way, or cause serious (not minor) offense
  4. Those that break any law (i.e copyright)
  5. Those that are virtually identical or very similar to any existing userbox
  6. Those that have no use, or are orphaned

Most userboxes should not be placed in talk pages, although some can due to the fact that they were created mainly for the use of talk page placement, and dont break any of the rules of the policy.

UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • "Free speech of a moral kind" is an unusual phrase which I don't quite understand in this context, but I think I understand what you mean from the examples. I could live with this as a compromise. David | Talk 12:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Same goes for me - if there has to be a policy on userboxes, I think this should be it. Larix 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What David said. Not sure whether you'd consider the I like sex userbox immoral; hope you don't. —Nightstallion (?) 12:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Free speech of a moral kind" sorry if i was a bit confusing :-). What i meant, is people should be able to use free speech, but if it is morally wrong, or something that is just unacceptable in terms of humanity's morals, it should be prohibited (for example saying "This user believes all disabled people are in a wheelchair becasue they deserve punishment" which is, in my books, cruel and immoral). Hope this clears things up a bit - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur. Most of that is pretty obvious (except to idiots & vandals, which is mostly the same thing). A policy that stifles userboxes seems contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, not to mention free speech generally; banning "funny" userboxes on somebody's own Talk page is Orwellian, to me (N to mention anathema). (Have I gone a bit overboard with links?) Trekphiler 13:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If a policy is needed, I like this one, it seems just about liberal enough for userpages. Ian13ID:540053 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this proposal conditionally. I would like to know more about what constitutes "moral" in this context.Gateman1997 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See bullet point 4 of this comment section - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Of a moral kind" needs to be clearer, but I might support this as a compromise Yeltensic42.618 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy #4 (Liberal!)

by Deano (Talk)

As a prelude to the policy, I'll state my POV.

Personally, I think there is a fundemental flaw in all of the above. Userboxes are intended solely for User Pages, and therefore are free to be POV. What people put on their userpages (within reason) is free, so if they declare their support for a religion/country/sports team/brand/POV, then they can do that without a userbox. The purpose of userboxes is to standardise the format with which this can be achieved.

There is no obligation for anyone to use userboxes, but the userbox system a) simplifies how users display information, b) eases the ability of users to see other users' POV without having to read text. Any information found in a userbox could be put on a userpage anyway.

As for Categories. I have stated my view here several times before. At present, many userboxes are linked to ludicrous categories that are no help to anyone... the one that immediately springs to mind is Wikipedians who (don't) believe in Santa. These are an absolute farce, and trivialise the nature of Wikipedia. The Santa userbox template is fine - it's a joke and helps build a community spirit through a degree of light-heartedness. However, the Category is wholly unnecessary. Userboxes should only be linked to categories based on:-

  1. Location
  2. Schools
  3. Language
  4. WikiProjects
  5. Interests in a subject (N.B. this is NPOV)

and possibly Sports, thought those again are dubious.

Incorporated from Proposed Policy #6 below The main argument against political and biased userboxes is that they allow users with similar POVs to find each other and gang up to win edit wars. Therefore, userboxes that express POV should not have categories associated with them, BUT should be allowed on user pages. Also, there will have to be some way to address the 'what links here' issue, otherwise people can find similar POVs anyway. --end--

Userbox Policy should be for templatised userboxes, whereby the vast majority are allowed, and very few are disallowed.

Examples of each would include (excuse copying large chunks from above):

Allowed

  1. Those that illustrate language, location and basic interests (like sport or computers).
  2. Those that illustrate important skills (java, html, etc.)
  3. Those that illustrate a user's level of participation within Wikipedia (in all aspects)
  4. Those that show participation in, or support of, WikiProjects
  5. Those that show participation in a Wikimedia sister project (Wiktionary, etc.)

  6. Those that illustrate personal ideologies - religion, political views, ethics
  7. Those that are considered humourous but not overtly trivial.
  8. Those that illustrate support of sports teams, nations etc.
  9. Those that suggest preference in terms of television, computer games and software.

Userboxes under this category should be positive - that is to say "in support of something" as opposed to "dislikes something".

Disallowed

  1. Any userbox that may cause serious offense,
  2. Any userbox containing a direct personal attack
  3. Any userbox using inappropriate language
  4. Any illegal userboxes (i.e copyright)
  5. Any templatised userboxes that are virtually identical or very similar to an existing templatised userbox
  6. Any useless/orphaned userbox.


[edit] Comments, questions and voting

Hopefully some people will agree with this... hopefully some people have bothered to read this far! Deano (Talk) 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support - apparently the fad is to state support for your own proposals...
  2. Strong Support. --TantalumTelluride 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (moved as per this diff)
  3. Strong Support Seems perfect (In my view this policy should encompass all userpage templates, and not just userboxes (soon we will have to question what is a userbox.) However, I do have one slight issue, I feel catagories should be allowed for programming ect, since users with that certain skill can contact each other for support (should only be one catagory per. userbox series, not one for each of -1, -2, ect.). Update covers this. Ian13ID:540053 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Sceptre (Talk) 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Yeah I agree, but I presumed that was covered by "Languages"... after all that is how they are grouped on WP:UBX. Deano (Talk) 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, but others may not consider them languages. Anyway, its sorted. Ian13ID:540053 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In theory, this is the ultimate proposal as it incorporates the 3 of the most popular proposals based on votes. I ask that any votes for proposals for #3, #4 and #6 be counted as votes for this proposal because of the incorporation - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I diagree. Users who voted for those other props may not have approved of this one.Gateman1997 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Took the words right out of my mouth. Morgan695 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Read revision, still support. Morgan695 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - content from #6 has been incorporated in the interested of consensus and de-clogging this page. I fully agree with AdelaMae's above statement, and have altered the proposition to this degree. Deano (Talk) 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment — Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Would support this if it were not for "illegal: Any userbox using 'inappropriate' language" - a bit heavy-handed, as unless it falls into the already-covered "Any userbox containing a direct personal attack" it's use is harmless and most likely a joke. However it's much better than some of the more draconian measures such as in Proposal #1. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - The two you mention are not necessarily covered by each other. A template could just read "This user w*nks over his beloved Manchester United". That is definitely not a direct attack, but is completely unnecessary language. Harmless bad-language is allowed - the text reads "inappropriate". That's different. Deano (Talk) 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support — I see what you mean. Yeah, this is definitely many times better than the draconian Proposal #1 --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Conditional Support. I would like to see some of Proposal 5 included in this, as "One Off" userboxes don't have the same wide scale effects as a templated userbox. For example, I had a Liberal "one off" userbox that was similar to the templated Liberal Userbox, only the link was to American Liberalism instead of Liberalism. This userbox would have violated the fifth Disallowed rule about similarity to existing userboxes. If that disallow excludes "one off" userboxes and only affects templated userboxes (which makes sense), then I will change my vote to Complete Support. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - that was implied, but I've clarified it anyway. Deano (Talk) 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Complete Support then. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. This is nitpicking, but could "templatised" be applied to the first instance of userbox in that line? That would match more with what I had in mind. Any userboxes that are virtually identical or very similar to an existing templatised userbox should read Any userbox templates that are virtually identical or very similar to an existing userbox template - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Done and done. Deano (Talk) 20:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. This proposal has my full support, as I think it addresses some of the concerns of those in support of proposal 1. Even if it does not pass in its present form, this is an excellent foundation to which concencus can be built upon. Movementarian 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. SUPPORT. --Cjmarsicano 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Conditional support - support only if categories based on user interests are added to the list of approved categories. For example, I think it would be very useful to have a category linked to Template:User religion interest and Template:User LGBT interest, which do not express a POV on religion or LGBT issues and therefore could not be used to form voting blocs, but could be used to find interested editors for the purpose of article improvement. (As this issue has now been addressed, changing vote to Support.) - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support This represents almost exactly my opinion on the issue. If I were to quibble I'd eliminate the distinction between "Encouraged" and "Allowed", but that's not really important. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, looks good enough to me. —Nightstallion (?) 07:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support with the convergence of the "encouraged" and "allowed" categories. --Angr (tɔk) 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support'. Excellent proposal. (In fact, I've already done it on my userpage - by substing: templates manually.) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. It looks like a reasonable framework within which we are all given the opportunity to freely shove ourselves in other people's faces without the risk of the average joe or jane taking offense or feeling nauseous when viewing user pages. //Big Adamsky 10:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. It's not really bureaucratic when you consider that those "you can do this but not that" were examples. The principle was boiled down to one sentence: Userboxes under this category should be positive - that is to say "in support of something" as opposed to "dislikes something". Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Strongly Oppose. As long as the category restriction is in place.Gateman1997 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why is proposal 6 incorporated? I didn't see much support for it yet. And the way this page is organized now, many people have voted for this proposal without seeing the new incorporated text. I don't think those votes can be counted if they're not informed. As it is, I would oppose it as I think there needs to be more discussion about wether categories should be allowed or not. Larix 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - only users signed above the line have signed without reading the incorporated version, and have/will be informed of changed. If their views stay the same, its coz they agree with the alteration. Everyone after that has read the incorporated version. Content from #6 was incorporated a) it holds true in theory, b) its faults were, IMO, covered by the "interested in" section regarding categories, c) because Wikipedia is about consensus, not conflict. Deano (Talk) 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - Actually it's changed since I voted, and I'm not fond of the additions either. Can we pull proposal 6 since it has no support below and is highly controversial and violates WP:FAITH?Gateman1997 20:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly! This line Deano uses as an explanation was added after my comment. Very weird. Larix 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - It cannot have changed since you voted - the changes you refer to occured where the line is. Anyway, as I said above the incorporation happened because, IMO, WP:FAITH is covered by the "interested in" section regarding categories, b) because Wikipedia is about consensus, not conflict. The WP:CAT policy doesn't violate WP:FAITH does it? Same principle. Deano (Talk) 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    No, the line HAS been added after my comment, just look at the history. I think discussion about point 6 should be concentrated at the place Bourbons3 created above, otherwise discussion on this page will become even worse a mess Larix 20:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    The line itself was added later, after your comment suggesting original votes couldn't be counted. The line has been put at the time when the incorporation happened, and any comments below that line cannot have been made without reading the incorporated version. Deano (Talk) 20:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Im not sure the later #6 comments are even approiate. Ian13ID:540053 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong OPPOSE at least as long as the category thing isn't really settled (see above this page) Larix 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why don't we just remove the addition of Prop 6 from Prop 4 since it doesn't have everyone's support?Gateman1997 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Because it doesn't matter whether or not it has got everyone's support. The overwhelming majority support his proposition in its current form, and I would not have put it in if I did not agree with it myself. Deano (Talk) 21:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, this is better than Proposal 1, but cats to go with the userboxes should be allowed. The cats are a useful way of informing each other of a debate in progress, and if one side uses them, their opponents can too. Saying it's wrong to use the cats that way is like saying it's bad to tell voters when Election Day is. Yeltensic42.618 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Unnecessarily elaborate, redundant, and authoritarian. Instruction creep at its finest. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Comment: I'd support this policy depending on where irrelevant user boxes lie. Like, do we keep any of these? There needs to be some boundaries of areas of importance/relevance to the project, otherwise we'll see everyone creating userboxes on any and every micro-aspect of culture. Could there possibly be a place like Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals where people propose new userboxes and they are created or not based on that vote? Then, we could create a speedy delete criteria for any new userbox created that hasn't gone through this voting process. At least that would regulate it more than the current scheme (Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas) which basically sees people say, "Can someone make this?", and it's done. This keeps the deletionists happy by slowing down the influx of new userboxes, and also allows userboxes on all topics to be created. Harro5 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with everything you have said - a Userbox-creation sorting process would be ideal. I honestly believe this policy would be the best way forward; unfortunately actions outside my control seemed to trivialise all propositions when we were nearing some kind of consensus. It now seems that this page is largely irrelevant. Which is unfortunate. Deano (Talk) 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You ever hear the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"? Some of us (well me anyway) are sometimes not so eloquent, and use many more words than are needed to experess some sentiment. User boxes help us express some of our interests in a heck of a lot less words. They help lower stress levels. User:AlMac|(talk) 05:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Deano (Talk) 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What's so special about location and language skills? What relevance to Wikipedia does it have where I live or what languages I speak that categories for those should be encouraged? --Angr (tɔk) 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Languages are covered by WP:BABEL, and were the founding basis of all userboxes. Read WP:BABEL for greater detail as to why they should remain. Location is useful because geographic articles about places often need the knowledge of people from that area to improve, and the easiest way for this to be achieved is by grouping Wikipedians by location. Deano (Talk) 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have read WP:BBL many times, and contributed to it, and up until yesterday I had a whole slew of Babel boxes on my user page. But then I read WP:UP and removed them because my language skills are not relevant to writing an English-language encyclopedia. I actually like your suggestion of having religious and political userboxes allowed but not explicitly encouraged, but I think the location and language boxes should be in that category as well. They provide interesting information, but they aren't really relevant to writing Wikipedia. --Angr (tɔk) 15:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with you that they don't help write an encyclopedia, but to be honest the vast majority of userboxes do not. I think that their purpose is not to aid encyclopedia-writing, but to build community spirit. I quote User:AlMac from just above here:- "Some of us (well me anyway) are sometimes not so eloquent, and use many more words than are needed to experess some sentiment. User boxes help us express some of our interests in a heck of a lot less words. They help lower stress levels". As I said - I totally agree. Deano (Talk) 15:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: in principle I support your proposal, but I'd like to see "encouraged" points 1 & 2 moved to "allowed". --Angr (tɔk) 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And done. Deano (Talk) 15:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy #5

I think a variety of one-of userboxes should be allowed as long as they don't clutter categories and are made using the {{userbox}} template. - Mgm|(talk) 12:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Yes, perhaps a "One-off" category could be created, although the number of these userboxes should be limited, perhaps by keeping track of the userboxes' use, and deleting ones that are old, no longer relavent or no longer in use. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to be like there should be a slightly less restrictive policy on "one-off" userboxes. "One-off" userboxes are created by an individual user for his or her userpage. Rather than creating a unique template for the userbox, the user just uses the {{userbox}} template (or substs it). The real issue here is the creation of userboxes in the Template space. Basically, I suggest that there be a division between policies that apply to all userboxes and and policies which only apply to the creation of userbox templates. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Most of these one-offs can be made as user subpages, which take up very little if any server space on Wikipedia. --CJ Marsicano 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment/question about the policies proposal #1

I think much of the wrath being displayed on this issue is misplaced. I understand some of the complaints that brought this whole issue around, but I think we need to take a good hard look at things before we decide to effectively ban a harmless bit of wikifun. Userboxes for such purposes as getting a large block to AfD and RfC are inappropriate. What I fail to see is how identifying ones polical association, personal views (within reason of course), or favourite beverage in userbox format instead of writing it is harmful to the wikiproject. If the problem is catagorisation then get rid of the catagories, not the userbox. A question to those that support a proposal to ban most userboxes:

  • If I write, in plain text, that I am member of the Catholic Church or that I am a member of the Labour Party will you delete that? If not, please explain why a userbox (without catagorical affiliation) advocating the same position would be deleted. Movementarian 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
My proposal doesnt delete someone displaying their religios, political or any other views so long as they are appropriate. It also doesnt delete funny or harmless userboxes. This question applies to Proposal #1 - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
My humble apologies. Movementarian 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, just thought i would point it out :-) - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Policy #6

The main argument against political and biased userboxes is that they allow users with similar POV's to find each other and gang up to win edit wars. This is true. Therefore, userboxes that express POV should not have categories assocaited with them, however they should remain to be allowed on user pages. Also, there will have to be some way to address the 'what links here' issue, so that people can't look up capitalist wikipedians like myself through that page.--Urthogie 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, a userbox for deletion page would be nice as well, to help with sorting.--Urthogie 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments, questions, and voting

  • Bullseye. David | Talk 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. If you lose the categories on ideology, you have to get rid of each other user category as well, as issues like gender, race, nationality and sexual orientation could be reason for dispute, too. It can't be said these categories are massively used for finding like-minded people. Larix 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well thats a racist and sexist assumption, that all blacks have a certain ideology, or all women have a certain ideology. It is in fact good to find black people to work on nigger or afrocentrism and muslims to work on arab and egypt, etc.--Urthogie 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What you said is very offensive. I said it can be a reason for dispute, not that it necessarily is. You don't have to insult me for bringing this up - especially as I'm deeply involved in battling racism and sexism. That's the entire reason I'm politically active. Larix 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
second thought. I've been quite busy with this whole issue, user boxes and categories. But I really don't want to take this kind of stupid accusations. I'm out of this discussion, for now. Blegh. Larix 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Okay, I'm in again. Being insulted is not a reason to withdraw from a policy debate. Larix 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
im not claiming you are racist or sexist, but rather that the acceptance of such a principle would be racist/sexist. --Urthogie 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree and would further state that I think this proposal goes against WP:FAITH in assuming cats are used primarily for harm to wikipedia rather then help.Gateman1997 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Larix 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say cats are mainly used for that. In fact, I would assume good faith. I'm merely saying that they can be used in a negative way which should be dealt with. Under your interpretation of assume good faith, it makes sense to assume its fair to by default give out email addresses too!--Urthogie 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Categories are not needed. They have no great use, and are mainly used to track people of similar beliefs or ideologies in a negative way - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have proof of that? Gateman1997 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have proof that it doesnt occur reguarly? See Proposal on categories in general for voting and such on this topic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In this case the burden of proof is on you as the accuser. Especially since the view you take borders or bulls through violation of WP:FAITH.Gateman1997 20:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if he is wrong, the fact is that they CAN be used that way, which is hazardous to a development environment. --Urthogie 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And farts CAN smell bad. Doesn't mean they always do. To base policy on assuming that they'll be used for bad things assumes bad faith about wikipedians, which is against policy.Gateman1997 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Perfect metaphor. The thing is, farts WILL smell bad sometimes. lol.--Urthogie 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
True, but is that a reason to hold them in and have your intestine explode? No. Point is, ANYTHING can be used as a way to find users to side with you in an edit war. Doesn't mean we should eliminate page histories or VFDs after they've been closed or Wikiprojects as all can be used for exactly the same thing. The pluses of cats FAR outweigh the downside. I admit they can in VERY rare circumstances be used for wrong, but then so can half of the features of this site. Point is they are used for very positive reasons most of the time. Networking users to find out about potential wikiproject help, notifying people about AFDs they might be interested in, or just finding users with similar views or interests that you might want to get to know.Gateman1997 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that anyone on Wikipedia has trouble finding someone with a POV. I've never had to look for a POV, it comes right to my articles before I can count to 3. I'd be amazed if these were used for positive networking.--Urthogie 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Prohibiting categories would do nothing. Talk page spammers looking for help in an edit war can use Special:Whatlinkshere. —Guanaco
As I said in the proposal, we would make the what links here not work for such templates.--Urthogie 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there are legitimate reasons to solicit opinions from certain points of view. Userbox for deletion is absurd and will only institutionalize a passing fad. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind supplying an example for why someone would need to do a lookup on deletionist wikipedians, for example? --Urthogie 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of writing articles about Eastern Europe and looking for avowed communists to provide their POV,. — Phil Welch
Well can you see how it could be abused in the same way?--Urthogie 10:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, there is nothing wrong with this kind of categorization. These cats and userboxes should all stay. And don't talk about some of them being "useless" or "silly", they aren't part of the encyclopedia itself, being outside of the main namespace, and do nothing to harm it. If you don't like them, don't use them. Yeltensic42.618 23:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not opposed to the silly categories so much as the ideological categories that COULD fuel edit wars, and surely have been used in such a way.--Urthogie 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The cats are used for contacting users to inform them of a vote going on, and if one side does it, their opponents can too. By your reasoning, it's wrong for voters to be told when Election Day is. As for edit wars on articles, we already have the 3-revert rule and our NPOV policy. Getting rid of these cats or userboxes is nothing but censorship for its own sake. Yeltensic42.618 14:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The three revert rule exists so a given point of view cant filibuster. These cats make it easy to find ideological clones of yourself on an issue.--Urthogie 15:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, this happens anyway. We already have organisations like Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild with users like Yuber (talk · contribs), BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs), Farhansher (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) who constantly rove around deleting any criticism of Islam or making ad hominen attacks on those who try to keep NPOV in Islam-related articles.. The thing is, if you're going to argue for deleting Userboxes and related categories in Category:Wikipedians/Category:Wikipedians by stuff on that view, you're saying that all WikiProjects should be deleted too, and that would just be silly. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to be a muslim to join Wikiproject Islam. Also, even if you are muslim, that doesn't guarantee you hold certain ideological views(e.g: I know Jewish athiests, who just value their culture, as well as religious Jews who keep their culture secret). I think the logic here is muslims can think various things about their religion. You can't know for sure that people in Wikiproject Islam will hold your views, and help you delete criticism. If it is being misused then that should be dealt with seperately. However, the existence of wikiprojects doesn't suggest any bias.--Urthogie 15:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #7

Let's cut the censorship and rulecruft, shall we? In regards to userboxes, all we need is two guidelines.

  • The box doesn't break WP:CIVIL towards another user.
  • The box isn't already duplicated somewhere else with slight differences.

karmafist 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment change the wp:civ part to Wikipedia policies and you have my support.Gateman1997 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Add somewhere that fair use photos are not allowed as user icons and you have my support. Zach (Smack Back) 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that covered by Wikipedia policy? Seriously though mentioning that outright might reignited the Firefox war from earlier this week.Gateman1997 20:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it is covered by Wikipedia policy, but I feel that if that is included here, there is no question or confusion about it all. Zach (Smack Back) 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Condition: Userboxes MUST BE included in Fair Use guidelines, as per Fair Use clause of US Copyright Law. See also Negativland's essay on Fair Use. --CJ Marsicano 21:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As is. Ifnord 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Redundant with existing policy. We already have WP:CIVIL, why add another policy that says that WP:CIVIL applies to userboxes? *It already does*. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though it is redundant with existing policy, but since you suggested it we might as well clarify that it extends to the userboxes. Yeltensic42.618 23:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The more userboxes and categories the better. Larix 00:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. As Phil Welch said, this is redundant and won't address the underlying issues. It's only setting up a time bomb for yet another dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #9

Userboxes are an issue entirely beneath our notice. Some people raise questions about server performance, so I propose the following:

  1. For the sake of server performance, all templates intended for general use in User: namespace should be subst'd immediately and the templates moved to a central page so that their code can be copied and pasted, not transcluded.
    1. Templates within any given user's userspace, intended for use only within that user's space, remain acceptable.
  2. Any templates not intended for use within User: namespace are Candidates for Speedy Deletion either upon becoming orphaned or within 1 week of this policy being enacted, whichever happens first.

As for concerns about offensive userboxes, unfair use, et. al.; we *already* have policies that cover that. Let's avoid instruction creep.

[edit] Comments, support, opposition

  • Support — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, theyre .0000001% of the server load.--Urthogie 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just realized we should exempt multi-licensing templates from this policy, as well as—possibly—the base userbox template. Although if transclusion is such a server drain I don't see how keeping the base userbox template will help. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy #10

I can't believe we need policies on what editors may and may not express on their own user pages using userboxes, but if it is to be so, then so be it. TCorp 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bounds

  • The restrictions in this policy are applicable only to userbox templates made using prefix User (templates such as "{{User AI}}") and not those userboxes made using subsections (sub pages) of user pages (eg. "{{User:TCorp/isupportporkeating}}") made for individual user page use.
  • Users may create their own user boxes on their own pages or as templates residing on user sub pages. The contents of these boxes are subject to Wikipedia guidelines concerning user pages (Wikipedia:User_page) and Wikipedia copyright policy.
  • It is to be assumed that all userbox templates with Prefix "User " belong to the Userboxes Project and are thus to be listed on the "Wikipedia:Userboxes" sub pages. These templates are subject to this suitability policy (see below). (All user box templates using the "User " prefix that are NOT listed on those pages should probably be deleted for being orphans.)

[edit] Suitability

  • All user boxes that are listed on sub pages of the Wikipedia:Userboxes page are subject to Wikipedia copyright policy and Wikipedia:User_page guidelines as they are centralized user page content.

A user box is not suitable and is thus not to be listed as described above if:

  • it promotes or advocates illegal and/or violent activities (ie "This user supports the NAZI party" or "This user is a cannibal")
  • it violates any wikipedia copyright policy
  • it violates any wikipedia policy on user pages (Wikipedia:User_page)
  • it is so irrelevant to the Userboxes Project that the box is best placed on a user page and not as a central template (eg. "This user is happy", "This user is a flirt") User boxes are not emoticons.

Templates that do not follow the above guidelines and policies should either be edited to do so if applicable or deleted by an administrative member of the Userboxes project after multilateral consensus.

I see no reason to crack down on political, religious or interests boxes such as "This user supports Amnesty International" or "This user is a republican" or "This user enjoys watching Lost".

The user pages are not NPOV encyclopedic content as they are to reflect wikipedians, the editors and not wikipedia content, the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a community of users that come together from all walks of life and from all points of view to create a best NPOV encyclopedia ever. For free! Are we to take away the right for ourselves to point out our own political or religious views on our own user pages? Why should the Userboxes Project NOT facilitate a central standardized source of boxes for all sorts of views and affiliation within the boundaries of existing wiki policy for the wikipedia community? Of course, it's only a "nice to know" information when someone has something like "This user is a liberal" box on their page, but if there are numerous people with that same affiliation, why not offer them a standardized way of presenting themselves?

If the argument is database space (highly minimal in this case), then I assure you, one user template for a religion takes less space than all those in that religion making their own user boxes on their pages. Since the templating system is a centralized feature, problems such as copyright and meta-templating (WP:AMT) can be addressed much quicker and are easier to fix.

In my personal view, existing policy and guidelines concerning image copyright and user page content already suffice as what content the boxes may have.

If I missed something, do point it out.

[edit] Comments, Support, Opposition

  • Support the intent but I would still rather see Proposal 1 smithed into this form. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose any policy which would limit the content of userboxes beyond general userspace rules.Gateman1997 05:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This proposed policy limits only userboxes distributed by the above named project sub-pages. You are free to make and have whatever userbox you want on your own namespace (User:username/templatename) within the limits of the existing wikipedia guidelines. I made sure that I pointed that out. In short, this proposed policy was written to demonstrate (elaborately, some may argue) that existing policy and guidelines already suffice the needs of Wikipedians and that userbox methodology actually benefits system performance. That does not mean that all userboxes should be distributed by the Userboxes team on the Userboxes subpages. Some userboxes are best kept in the user's own namespace. TCorp 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you can't believe we need a policy about this then don't write a policy. Seems simple to me. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Seems liberal enough for me. Larix 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support works for me. Yeltensic42.618 14:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #11

Under this proposal userboxes would only be constrained within existing Wikipedia and Wikipedia userspace rules and policies. No additional restrictions would be placed on them as userspaces are not part of the project as a whole and not subject to WP:POV restrictions. Userspace is for users free expression. Categories on userboxes should not be changed or otherwise affected as they are positive and used for networking among the users of the project, users should be trusted under WP:FAITH. Also they do nothing to detract from the overall project as WP is not paper. Gateman1997 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I'm cool with it. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • me too Larix 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support Yeltensic42.618 14:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I am no great fan of userboxes, nor do I particularly despise them - call me neutral. I have none on my "user page" and possibly never will have. If JohnDoe or JoeBloggs wishes to state to the world that he eats hamburgers, drinks Pepsi, believes in aliens, is a Bhuddist that can fly, let him do so on his user page, whether in prose or by means of a Userbox. This whole debacle, however, has spiralled out of control into a power struggle about process and accountability. For those of a delicate disposition, "look away now", because I am about to start shouting for the hard of hearing. USERBOXES DO NOT REQUIRE THE CREATION OF ANY NEW POLICIES. It is more than adequately covered by existing policy as outlined by Gateman1997. If any particular Userbox violates existing policy (WP:UP, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL), then it can be deleted by following due process. If it violates WP:FU, the offending image can be deleted. This whole issue, however, is about the behaviour and actions of certain individuals, not the userboxes per-se. Smokescreens can be seen through. I vote - No new Policy. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reservations.. I find it hard to believe that people go out of their way to network for deletionist or anti-islam users. Could you perhaps convince me, and those who have such reservations, otherwise?--Urthogie 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying you think people use cats for deletionist or anti-Islam reasons? For the first issue, deletionist reasons, I don't see that it should be a problem seeing as inclusionists can use it for the very same thing. The two cancel each other out. Also consider that deletionism isn't a "negative" any more then inclusionism is. As for using cats for Anti-Islamic purposes such as an "Anti-Muslim Category", any such category would be summarily deleted by existing process as violating multiple policies including WP:No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL. We do not need any overarching category policy as they should be taken case by case under existing guidelines.Gateman1997 19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They cancel each other out? That's like saying two people in an edit war cancel each other out-- true, but they usually end up causing huge problems for each other and wikipedia in general. And replace anti-muslim, with "im against israel" or "i dont like disco" wikipedians and the point remains.--Urthogie 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "I don't like Israel" or "I don't like Disco" categories could also be put up for Cats for Deletion just as easily as an anti-Muslim one would be. So again those are covered by existing policy for the same reasons an anti-muslim category is. And you seem to think that deletionist and inclusionist categories would lead to edit wars. I disagree. They might lead to more people being notified about AFDs, CFDs, TFD, etc... that they have an interest in on both sides, which is a good thing since more votes from both sides equals a better consensus, but it won't lead to edit wars. Even if it did, edit wars are again covered by existing policies like the 3RRR and are against those policies.Gateman1997 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you've presented a strong case. I just think you have to be aware that some people are so radical as to want to keep all categories for users, even these ones that go against policy. Ill support for now.--Urthogie 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm certain their are, but that's why we have Categories for Deletion. If someone creates a userbox w/a category that is against WP:CIV, etc... it can be deleted.Gateman1997 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words, no new policy. support. Brighterorange 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. No new policy means nothing has been done to address the problem. Like it or not, Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, et al, will have many following in their footsteps and deleting userboxes, and like it or not, there will be just as many fanatical userbox proponents undeleting them. All this pro-status quo thing does is set us up for another dispute in the future. I'm also very troubled by the contention that user pages are for free speech. Wikipedia is run and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is not our property. As a result, there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, and if there was, it would extend only so far as permitted by the Foundation. Your right to free speech does not trump the right to property - your rants occupying space on the Foundation's servers are the same as picketing in someone's private property. In the latter case, you could picket only as long as permitted to by the property's owner, and it's no different for the former. Don't get me wrong - I express my own strong (and even negative) political POV in a userbox on my userpage, but I don't believe the right to free speech or no censorship exists on Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #12

Principles:

A. Users should be permitted free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance. They may declare any point-of-view, and should be allowed to arrange the space as they wish (including using the use of any userboxes). This should be limited only by policy on personal attacks, civility, copyright, any legal considerations, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free web-host. Declaring one's biases may actually be beneficial, as it inhibits hidden agendas.

B. As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, The main template space, and the server-straining ability to transcluse, should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim.

Userbox Policy

  1. All userboxes should be permitted as free expression (well, almost all).
  2. Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. Userboxes existing in the template space should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping.
    This provision should be interpreted fairly liberally, and would certainly include templates for: languages, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, wiki-tasking (RC patroller, mediator etc)....
    'Editing interest' would allow templates, for example, 'user interested in US politics' but not 'user democrat'; 'user Christian theology' but not 'user Christian believer'; 'user abortion debates' but not 'pro-life'; 'scientology article editor' but not pro- or anti-.
    However, all POV, belief-orientated, extra-wiki affiliation, user-specific, or joke, userboxes, could all continue to exist in user pages, without hindrance.
  3. When templates are permitted, categories can also be created.

Implementation

  1. Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease, except for (obvious attacks on other users and) as below:
  2. Existing templates, which do not meet the above criteria, should not be immediately deleted. A caution template should be placed on them, inviting users to 'subs:' into userspace. Four weeks grace should be given before deletion.
  3. Templates created after the policy comes into effect, which do not meet the criteria, should only be deleted after seven days grace (again tagged for 'subst' during this period). Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the deletion criterion would be 'utility to the project'.
  4. Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements can be copied onto some special pages, from where they may be cut and paste onto userpages as desired.

--Doc ask? 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I could live with this. At least it makes an effort to avoid the debacles of the (not too long ago) past. I'm again troubled by the contention that the right to free speech exists (see my response to Proposal #11). Perhaps mention that "free speech" will also be limited by the Foundation's decisions with regard to Wikipedia, just to make things clear. The rest looks pretty good. :D Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks pretty good, Doc, but I'm still concerned about POV-userboxes being used for organizing. Removing categories and (biased?¹) images from the userboxes, and subst'ing them, should alleviate anything with regards to that, however. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
¹By biased, I mean pro/anti images, because Whatlinkshere can still be used from that image page to tell who is posting a userbox. If the issue is really about "free speech", and not organizing, that should be acceptable to both sides. A non-POV image that can be used by both sides of the debate (like in the GWB userboxes) would be neutral, though. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good proposal overall. I think that any userbox templates not designed to further the encyclopedia should exist only as code (in some central location). This would solve the problem of server load and would allow users to add any userboxes they wish. This solution should make sense for users who are tired of seeing the wording of a userbox change or userbox templates nominated for deletion. Carbonite | Talk 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That's esentially what I'm aiming at. Move the contraverial stuff out of templates and we can all leave it at that. --Doc ask? 11:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support this as a reasonable solution. David | Talk 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This directly contravenes the Arbitration Committee's principle in the pedophile userbox wheel war that it is implicit at wikipedia:user page that userpages should not bring the project into disrepute. Raul654 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does, but it was authored before that finding. A later version User:Doc glasgow/workshop from which Pathoschild has been workign was ammended to take that into consideration. The policy is open to amendment if there are further concerns. --Doc ask? 18:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #13

A bot should be run to subst userbox templates. This solves any issues raised regarding needless server load and vandalism vectors. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

subst'ing isn't the only issue, there is also issue of what template space if for. --Doc ask? 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • True. This was intended as a compromise. Radiant_>|< 19:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Doc glasgow but no reason why this can't be put in place in addition to a restriction on the template namespace. David | Talk 14:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)