Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Two points for clarification

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

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

  • We wouldn't need a new criterion to speedy personal attacks, we've already got that one. - brenneman{T}{L} 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Currently the only attack CSD is CSD A6 covering Wikipedia:Attack pages in the article space. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 02:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] My own proposals

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

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

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

[edit] Point 2C

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

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

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

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

[edit] Advocacy

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

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

[edit] Perceived problems with "current situation"

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

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

[edit] Commentary

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

[edit] transclusion used for organization within userspace

Please see excerpt below:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wording Change Proposal

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

"Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded."

be changed to:

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

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

  • Support, makes it better (though, alone, isn't enough to change my overall vote). --AySz88^-^ 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I would vote yes on the overall proposal if this change were made. --TreyHarris 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed wording is more accurate. --Yannick 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- yeah, well spotted -- Gurch 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Lukewarm support - I honestly can't see any difference, and it's not the sort of thing that will get to change my overall vote. It seems to me that "advocacy" is very broad anyway. But if this is going change of wording is going to make some people happier without changing the interpretation that Doc offers below, then by all means make it. Metamagician3000 10:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Can sommone clarify what difference this would make, and what 'grey areas' it would clarify? Perhaps cite an example or two? --Doc ask? 11:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
See vote #3 by TreyHarris at Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Abstain_.2F_Neutral_.2F_Comment. --AySz88^-^ 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - prevents flamewars over interpretation/abuse by over-zealous people on both sides as we have had with T1 Cynical 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (co-proposer), as that's exactly the meaning that was intended. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 14:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The wording change is a waste of time, when we should gutting this proposal altogether. The very notion of frustrating one's sense of community and association by blinding one to the diversity with which he is surrounded is misguided at best, fascist at worst. It is as if we are to all don some NPOV burka so as to conform to someone else's expectations of neutrality (and homogeneity). If I am a fervent believer in something, it would be equally desireable to know I am on the fringe, or surrounded by tens of thousands of my fellow zealots. Consider: we edit what we are interested in. To take your concerns to a logical extreme, we should edit only articles assigned to us at random, as if pulled from a jury pool and by voire dire excluded from any we might have opinions on. This is not the way to avoid flamewars. Even if it were, the result is worse than flamewars. Make a Userbox: namespace, and be done with it! StrangerInParadise 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss this rather than vote on it. I could support this if we make the ambiguities inherent in the new wording less so. Advocacy or declarations of bias, rather than declarations of skill or interest, are specifically excluded. What do we mean by interest? If we clarify this to be 'editing interest'. But we don't want templates on irrelevant personal interests, or interests too specific to be useful. (Those are of course fine if hard coded.) Again 'skill' should be skills relevant to wikipedia editing 'e.g. this user can speak language x, programm a bot etc. We don't want irrelevant personal skills 'I can play football' or 'I'm rather good at martial arts'. You can have an editing interest template for those - but what's revevant is not your skill but your knowledge of the subject. If we change the wording here, let us make it clear that this is to be interpreted within the general ethos of 'utility to the encyclopedia' (everything else should be hard-coded). I'll support the change if it reads something like:
Advocacy or declarations of bias (rather than declarations of relevant skill or editing interest) are specifically excluded.
--Doc ask? 15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I like Doc's formulation. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Any of the proposed wordings are fine with me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was told on #wikipedia a bit ago that the definition of "POV" in Wikipedia:Glossary has force of policy. (Since the glossary page does not have a policy banner, I was not aware of this fact.) The definition reads, '"Originally referred to each of many perspectives on an issue which may need to be considered and balanced in an encyclopedic article. Today, more often used as an insulting synonym for "bias", as in "That reply was POV, not neutral."' So does the problem actually exist? The sentence of the proposal I objected to reads "bias" already, apparently—I just didn't know I was supposed to read it that way. (Something really needs to be done to mark the glossary as policy, by the way, I barely even glanced at it before today. I think it's a bad thing to have policy that not everybody even knows is policy.) --TreyHarris 10:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestion for clarification of proposal, for the benefit of the technically clueless

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

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

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

[edit] Discussion from main page

Copied from voting page:

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

New comments

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

[edit] Amendment rule

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Record of discussion on project page

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

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

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

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

[edit] Starting to put this into practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Speaking of directories...

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

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

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

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

[edit] Implementation 1-3

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

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

[edit] Voting procedure

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Counteroffer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Is there really a problem?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Poll

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

When consensus is clear. --Doc ask? 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's give this the full two weeks too make sure everyone has chance to participate.--God of War 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Not fussed personally, if the result is volitile or bordeline then that or even longer may be neccessary. On the other hand if it is stable and clear over a period, it may not. These things just happen. --Doc ask? 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed amendment to allow personal page transclusion

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Clarification 2

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


  1. The policy is perfectly clear. B. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy. As such, the main template and category space and the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim.
  2. You are wrong about deletion. All such userboxes can remain on userpages. Any templates should be subst onto userpages before deletion, indeed four weeks will be left to alow this to happen.
  3. Folk have gone on about the right to free expression, and the benefits of declaring POV on userpages, both of those are guarenteed under this policy - as are userboxes on userpages. --Doc ask? 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User sub page transclusion amendment, version 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Screw userbox debates

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

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


[edit] Lets Close This Vote

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

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

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

It's been linked from the Recent Changes page for at least a few days. Aren't I Obscure? 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone uses Recent Changes for RC patrol (I only use the IRC channel) or does RC patrol at all; maybe watchlists or something would work better. --AySz88^-^ 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why close? This shows enough opposition, despite the debate on the vote page, to show there is no consensus. Dominick (TALK) 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, why hurry? We may as well get this right. Ian13/talk 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The vote is looking closer than it did. I think it's best to hang on for awhile and see how it looks after at least a few more days. Metamagician3000 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright. How about March 08 20:05, making it a full fortnight? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A technical proposal which would make sense

Usage examples,

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

StrangerInParadise 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a simple technical solution, to be honest; you're talking about introducing the concept of a userbox to the software. MediaWiki doesn't know what a userbox is. Sounds like a waste of time to code, to me, and it's not as clearly thought out as you might like. Rob Church (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments User:Arthur Rubin

  • To be consistent about the objections to vote stuffing, the corresponding categories (such as Category:Jewish Wikipedians corresponding to Template:User Jew) should also be deleted. As this is not in the present proposal, that justification is hypocritical, and should be considered void. It is there. Never mind.
  • I have no objection to reducing the load on the servers -- but it has been stated that the difference in load between subst'ing the userboxen or transcluding them is very small. If correct, that justification would be void. Even if not, if a user wants a userbox, and has difficulty finding one to his liking, that time is directly taken from the time he would have been editing. See my change to a conditional abstention on the talk page.
  • Therefore, if this proposal, or anything like it becomes policy, the value of the project will be reduced unless all speedily deleted userboxes are undeleted and moved into userspace -- whether under [[User:Boxes]] or [[User:trusted person/Boxes]] makes little difference -- and there is a pointer to the unofficial userboxen on the official userbox page. Implementation 1-4 should be made mandatory on the part of the person deleting the userboxen, and all speedily deleted userboxen which are not clearly divisive should be moved to that area. (If this is made a formal part of the policy, I would change my vote from Oppose to Abstain.)
  • As for not aiding the editing of the encyclopedia -- part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug related to whether RJII was editing from a libertarian POV. The question of whether he considered himself a libertarian would be relevant to determining that, which would help the project as a whole.

22:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strikeout's deleted and italic text added. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification request

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

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

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

We're already making efforts to do this; see User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes#HTML to {{user box}} conversion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does this solve?

As I said in my Oppose vote (number 34), People will still be free to say "I'm a Christian" on their user page anyway, so what's wrong with a little template for it? Gerard Foley 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering Format

Can someone fix the numbering in the oppose section? It's seems to have gotten messed up.--God Ω War 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --AySz88^-^ 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conditional Support

Check out my "Conditional Support" entry on the main page. I'm curious to see what you all think. If my proposed comprehensive listing were added, I think it would bring more opposition into support of the new policy.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a new "conditional support" section is a good idea, because the poll is on how the policy is worded right now, I doubt policy is going to be changed mid-poll. A lot of the oppose and abstain neutral votes also have conditions with which they would support. I would suggest moving your section to one of the three existing sections, for clarity. Right now, it appears to me that those who want amendments after the current proposal is enacted are voting support, while those who want them before it is enacted are voting oppose or abstain neutral. --AySz88^-^ 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (fixed --AySz88^-^ 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to list separately, but I have already asked a few folks (including Jimbo) to look for it as it is. I would appreciate your indulgence. BTW, my idea of "conditional support" is that it is not support if the condition isn't met.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you supporting this anti-userbox nonsense at all? It is bad for all concerned. StrangerInParadise 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think the main proposal + my proposal would leave us practically where we are today, minus only two things: (1) some userboxes not being "template-ized", though they would be centrally listed (per my proposal) and ALL userboxes would be allowed to be on userpages, and (2) the bulk of the userbox wars (and hopefully all the grief) would be gone.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, why do you think a userbox that creates a list of adherents is a bad thing? Are any of these bad things prevented by forcing people to organize off-site and bus the votes in? StrangerInParadise 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think this proposal is the way to do it, but there's no sense in making it easier to votestack than it is right now. It's probably extremely difficult to get people already established at Wikipedia to then congregate off-site and form an off-site votestacking or POV-pushing bloc - that's basically a cabal. But there is no cabal - that is, in the same way it's near-impossible for "the opponents" to form a cabal, it is equally near-impossible for you to form a cabal.
Given the difficulty in off-site blocs, one of the more obvious ways to votestack would to bring lots of real-life or off-site friends to Wikipedia - but it's obvious to admins too, and the "meatpuppet" "votes" are not really counted, with a box at the top explaining that _fD (or whatever) is not a vote but a discussion. However, there have been quite a few examples of people attempting to votestack or POV-push via the userboxes. Some people are trying to make sure userboxes can't be a vector for votestacking/POV-pushing, and, as the reasoning goes, if the userbox What-Links-Here hole is patched, such meatpuppetry or votestacking or cabalism or whatever from inside Wikipedia will drop significantly, and prevent occurances of the bad things. --AySz88^-^ 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have absolutely NO problem with having a "userbox that creates a list of adherents" and do not believe it's "a bad thing". In fact, I have defended that very thing in some of these endless defenses of userboxes. I personally have no stake in vote-stacking, especially given that rogue admins don't really care what the vote is, and typically seem to get their way ... at least until cooler (and more freedom-attuned) heads prevail. My only reason for my conditional support (dependent on acceptance of my comprehensive listing proposal) is because it would probably be the best outcome possible, given that deletionist admins do not seem willing to follow consensus and let up, and they are getting on board with this policy generally, and if we can get the comprehensive listing, it wouldn't be so bad. I am personally very tired of these endless debates, and want to stop being distracted from creating the encyclopedia.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote dynamics projection

You heard it here first (or not): with six days to go, the non-admin vote is rolling in, and the margin will slip to less than 60% in favor. StrangerInParadise 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems that you were right about that one. Very close to falling below 60 now.--God Ω War 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This does not seem to accomplish what most people voting support believe it does.

As far as userboxes go atleast

With the combination of policy line 1 "Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in A)." and the line in Principle A "Users should be permitted relatively free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance. They may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." this gives people the right to make any userboxes they wish as long as it is in their userspace. POV userboxes will not go away, they will just be moved. For example if I wanted to make a "I am Pro-Choice" userbox that can be used to keep track of other pro-choice people i'd upload a small image either public domain or that I created with a pro-choice symbolism. I'd then create a userbox on my user page using the userbox template with the id being that image. Then if anyone else wants that userbox they just need to copy the userbox code off of my userpage. Now if I wanted to use my pro-choice userbox to find support for a vote all i'd have to do is click on the image and hit "what links here".

What this does is give users the right to make any userbox they want on their user page(Pedophile userboxes would be ok) without regulation (As long as they don't break other rules like WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL). And it clears the userboxes out of the template namespace. Seraphim 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It only makes it harder for people to put userboxes on their page. You're not allowed a template but you are allowed to write the code. I would consider templates beginning with "User " to be part of user space, as you can't use them on articles. Gerard Foley 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not really hard. They just have to copy paste a longer, messier template. The generic userbox template is not being removed. It reminds me of the DeCSS case. The policy is just removing the ability to have specific userbox templates made, but it's leaving in the ability to duplicate everything the specific userbox templates do.
Instead of {{user muslim}} it would now be {{{{subst:userbox |id=Image:Qubbat-esSakhrah.jpg |info=This user is a '''[[:Category:Muslim Wikipedians|Muslim]]'''. [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Muslim|{{PAGENAME}}]] |info-c=black |info-s=8 |border-c=#aaffaa |border-s=2}} (I think that's correct haven't actually used the template:userbox before) and all users have to do to see who has that tag on their page is click on the picture. Nothing changes except now userboxes that are deleted {{user christian}} will show up again and will be protected under this policy. Seraphim 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Muslim.
Actually, this seems to me a good example of something that would not be allowed under the proposal, under #3. I don't see how it can be reasonably construed that a [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians]] (or any other such grouping, such as [[Category:Christian Wikipedians]] or [[Category:Discordian Wikipedians]]) is not categorizing by POV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I realized that after I posted it. I just picked a random userbox obviously I didn't pick a good one. Pretend I used {{user admin}}. Same point no category involvement Seraphim 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, if you use the 'what links here' option on the Qubbat-esSakhrah.jpg image, it does not show any pages. Are you sure that in this formatt such an image can be used in a similar way to a category? David D. (Talk) 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just learned something. You cannot use 'What links here' for pictures instead you go to Image:Qubbat-esSakhrah.jpg#filelinks. That is also true for you freemason example that you mentioned below, Image:Square_compasses.png#filelinks. But, point taken, it is a good example that proves your new idea for categories will work well. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It only makes it harder for people to put userboxes on their page. You're not allowed a template but you are allowed to write the code. I would consider templates beginning with "User " to be part of user space, as you can't use them on articles. Gerard Foley 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The goal of clearing the template space is not a bad one. The solution proposed is a cultural disaster where a technically elegant and simple solution would have avoided all this. MediaWiki is a collaborative tool. Wikipedia is a project with a million contributors. The idea that the technology should not allow for ease of association and identity is at least naive and at worst a tragically missed opportunity. People are so hung-up on vote stacking and the excesses of passionate advocates, they are willing to sterilize the culture to prevent it.
StrangerInParadise 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You just made my point for me that people don't understand completly what this does :). This does nothing to stop votestacking or people proudly displaying their POV through userboxes. Infact it protects the user's right to do so and protects the users right to any userbox that does not fall under WP:CIVIL WP:NPA copyright and a few others. A ton of the deleted userboxes will be coming back if this passes. Seraphim 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
' This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.
You're mistaken. I should be able to add a userbox, and at the same time add my name to a list, and explore that list to see who else is on it. Also, I'd like to tag talk statement easily, like this. Today I can (barely, having fought off a few rogue admins), after this passes, I won't. Besides, your notion that, it's the same, you just have to paste the raw code, how easy! is repugnant on so many levels.
StrangerInParadise 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah but that's where you're wrong :) it will still be possible to do exactly what your explaining. If the userbox has an image in it just click on that image, then go to "what links here". You will get a list of all the user pages with that image on it, and therefore it's a list of people displaying that userbox on their userpage. Plus it is just as easy to copy paste the code, it's just messier. Seraphim 23:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Erm-- a given image may be used in a great many places besides a userbox, or in multiple userboxes. Even those on a User: page cannot be guaranteed to be in a box, expressing the same POV. This is nowhere near as reliable as a category for the purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If the image is specific enough it won't be too big of a problem. Obviously categories are more reliable, but it's pretty easy to glance at the page to see where the image is (since you go to their user page where the image is displayed) before you click over to the talk page. This does very very little to prevent vote stacking. Seraphim 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a good example: this is an image of the square and compass. There is currently no category for freemason users, however if you go to the image page and click on "what links here" every single "User: Username" link brings you to a page of a member that is a freemason. Consider it a proof of concept :) Seraphim 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather than using "what links here" you would use Image:Square_compasses.png#filelinks. Nevertheless your point is not changed. David D. (Talk) 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah my bad. I checked my example but forgot on images you just scroll down :p Seraphim 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
ALso every single thing stated in that user freedom tag is supported and protected by this proposal. POV and religious userboxes will not only be allowed, they will be protected. Seraphim 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't generalise that people who vote against you don't understand why, it can be seen as condescending. This policy is trying to make the split between User and Non-user space complete. User space is allowed (within reason) to be POV, but anything in wikipedia space should be NPOV and for the benefit of the encypclopedia. Having POV templates (in wiki space, using encypclopedia resources) - even if they are designed only to be used in user space - is an anomoly, which this policy is trying to fix. MartinRe 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not generalising at all. Go read the support votes. I'll quote some of them. "I'm all for "I belong to this group, so I know a thing or two about it" boxes, not for "I belong to this group, so here I am, pushing POV" boxes" "If userboxes are not allowed to advocate a position, merely declare an interest in a topic, this limits that capability drastically, and reduces it to where it can probably be managed via normal, unofficial processes." "This policy may not be perfect, but if it isn't, it can be tweaked later. All of the advocacy, POV, and generally frivolous userboxes make user pages look like MySpace or LiveJournal sometimes" also from the responses on this page. It seems to me that some people (i'll agree I shouldn't have said most) believe that this policy will prevent votestacking through userboxes and POV userboxes. Both of which this does not do at all. Also moving things to userspace from template space is just moving it, the same amount of resources are being used, especially when everyone is going to start using template:userbox to build off of. Seraphim 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I consider templates beginning with "User " to be part of userspace to begin with. Gerard Foley 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If you read the oppose votes, there is similar confusion among some of the voters, thinking that getting rid of template based userboxes is the same as all userboxes, but that does not mean that "most people" voting against don't understand. Also, moving from template to userspace should reduce resource used, as userpace template userboxes will be subst'd via Implementation 1.2. Yes, it is possible, everyone will updated their "subst'd user ABC" to a Userbox (ABC image/text), but personally I think that will only happen in a small amount of cases. If it happens, as you think it will, I'm sure it will be looked at, but this policy is looking at the situation *now*, not one that might be in future. (PS I believe treating templates begining with User as userspace (even if they really are template space) was tried and failed, which is why we're in this situation. MartinRe 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Subst'ing to the raw HTML instead of a userbox is vandalism. It may be justified in some cases, but it's still vandalism, even if policy. User:Arthur Rubin 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thinking of this proposal as a techinical optimization is nonsense. StrangerInParadise 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for cancellation of vote

The diffs here show that the stated policy is capable of completely incompatible interpretations. Clarifying would probably change a number of votes, so this poll should be considered strongly suspect, and should only be considered "consensus" with a much higher percentage of support votes. I think 85% might be adequate, but I'd need to be convinced. The "traditional" 75-80% should not be adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Support - I've already shown on the talk page evidence of users not fully understanding what the proposal would actually accomplish. Also I think it's apparent that the policy is written in a confusing way, the addition of the "Clarification" section when the poll was already at (88/25/11) means that alot of users voted on rather unclear text. Seraphim 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that cancelling the vote is premature at this stage. Although some voters may have misunderstood the proposal, I'm not convinced that the number who would object to a clarification, or change their votes based on a clarification, is statistically significant. The largest bloc of votes seems to me to be people who are happy to see a compromise which allows free expression on user pages and removes POV content from template/encyclopedia space. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposed policy has changed significantly, not just voters' understanding, during the vote. Under the circumstances, that, if this were a poll, it would be fair to drop the Support percentage by 10% before applying the 75-80% guideline for "consensus". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You can't go and try to cancel the vote just because you don't like how it is going! I voted oppose, but have accepted that it is going to pass, so I'll support the communities decision. It seems everyone knows exactlly what they are voting for --T-rex 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's less than 70% support right now, so it looks like it won't pass (though the margin is very close). --AySz88^-^ 21:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well it was around 74% when I wrote that and looked like a done deal at that time. So is there an alternative policy being proposed anywhere? --T-rex 20:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two alternative policy proposals, but the 2 or 3 RfAr's show that there's no point in making a proposal unless Jimbo formally states he's not opposed to it, as some Admins will boldly delete userboxes which state a point of view, regardless of policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed policies include Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes, and Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy, and a proposed meta-poll presently at User:Arthur Rubin/UPP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support - This policy has changed so much that a re-vote would be healthy with a new revised policy. Also I have a solution at the bottom the page that could make everyone happy so there is no need to force through this divisive policy.--God Ω War 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Let the vote go on a bit longer, I think. It seems to me that the vote will fail. It will only get about 65 per cent support at this rate, and the people supporting will do so for many different and even opposed reasons, so no one can draw any conclusions about what the majority attitude is to userboxes that contain personal beliefs. If the vote does fail, I'd like to see a debate on your proposal. Metamagician3000 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So what does this proposal say about lists of userboxes?

Rereading the discussion, there seem at least three readings of what this policy says about a list of userboxes, kept so that users who want them can copy and paste into their own userspace:

  • Fine, this policy permits this with no problem.
  • This policy permits this as long as the subpages, with the actual userbox texts, are in user space.
  • This policy forbids any such list, anywhere.

We really should decide on one of these – and put it explicitly into the proposal – before it becomes policy; or we will see Userbox War II immediately upon its adoption, since some people are enforcing their own version of this before its adoption. Septentrionalis 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We should decide about this. We should not amend this proposal to do so. I agree that this is an issue that will need to be decided, but this proposal is not the place to do it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not? I'm not currently bothered about it enough to change my reluctant support vote, but these practical issues are important and I thought the idea was to see if consensus is possible. A good answer might be to say that such a policy does not determine what happens unofficially in user space, so it keeps silent on that (which would mean the second on the list would apply in practice, but that does not need to be stated officially in the policy). If that is the answer, then there's no need for any further issue to be decided later on and no one needs to decide their vote based on fears or desires about what might happen next. Metamagician3000 00:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Because lots of people have already voted; because it is a seperate point than whether pages in the Template space should be used for purposes unrelated to the encyclopedia; because it is a seperate point than if and when templates containing only the code for one userbox should be deleted, and what should happen regarding uses of them before that - all of these reasons. My hope (somewhat dashed, admittedly) was that the acceptance of this proposal could help to calm and clarify the userbox debate, and let us discuss the remaining issues in a manner more calm and less inflamed by apparently arbitrary deletions and cries of censorship. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (minor wording changes -- 03:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
You may be right. I'm finding it difficult to get clear on this. I'm sure I've contradicted myself more than once on this page. :) Metamagician3000 12:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of those aren't "seperate points" on this proposal, apparently, because people not so familiar with how it was created might not understand what the compromise even is. Maybe we can make them seperate points and do straw polls on them individually to see how people stand (I've started trying to pick out the points at my sandbox), and then try to mesh everything into a better compromise - but that'll take weeks or months, and people seem tired of it already; I'm not sure how much time we have. --AySz88^-^ 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "If Jimbo is in agreement"

From the policy poll: "If Jimbo is in agreement, WP:CSD T1 (at least for userbox templates) might be replaced with userbox templates that obviously do not conform to the agreed userbox policy." I would like to know why do we need Jimbo's agreement, if the poll passes. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because if he didn't agree, the poll is worth nothing. Although Jimbo is known to almost always listens if the community polls something, he by no means has to. Since some people have interpreted statements by Jimbo to basically outlaw certain userboxes, stating that he would agree with this proposed policy (which is much more lenient than that) makes sense. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo has to listen to what the community wants, unless he has plans to write the encyclopedia by himself! Gerard Foley 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends on what you mean by "has". It certainly wouldn't be wise to bring up the community up in arms, but he has no obligation not to do so. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I like Jimbo and his work a lot (otherwise why would I be here?), but I think that one of the basic ideas of an open encyclopedia is that the community has its obligative word. Otherwise it's just an "enlightened dictatorship". At the Wikipedia of my language, every policy change has to pass with 65% (every user with more than 1 month experience and 100 edits can vote) and then it's obligative. If it doesn't pass, it's obligative not to change anything, so the bureaucrat doesn't have any word more than the average user. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Theory and practice differ. In practice, you're right, but here's the theory: Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation board touch community decisions even less in other Wikimedia projects. But be aware that Jimbo and the Board (wow, I'll start a band with this name one day) can and will override the community in other language Wikipedias if they should deem it necessary. What we have here is a dictatorship (sometimes bordering on theocracy ;) ), even though it is very enlightened - But look at WP:OFFICE, try to vote it away, and see what happens. That does not mean it is remotely likely that Jimbo would go against a direct poll, but it is theoretically possible. Also, be aware that a certain percentage will probably share Jimbo's view, even if it does not meet the "consensus" threshold, whatever that one might be at the moment. You might want to read the discussions prior to the last ArbCom elections, where these points were pondered ad nauseam. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I don't care that much to act against it, I was just expressing my opinion. So far what Jimbo has done seems to be fair (although I'd have liked to see a vote regarding not allowing anonymous users to open a new article), and if it stays that way I have no problem with the current system. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Solution

This poll looks like it is going nowhere so I have proposed a technical solution to the userbox debates. This should make everyone on both sides of the debate happy. Please look here Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.--God Ω War 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two issues confused

There are two problems discussed here, which are confused,

  • the idea that the namespaces Category and Template, along with Main and Help, should be completely NPOV
  • the idea that the modes of speech with POV Userboxen and Lists of Wikipedians are inherently unacceptable

I support the first and oppose the second with equal vehemence.

Here is why the first problem is a problem: in principle, one should be able to lift Main, Category and Template and get an NPOV encyclopedia out of it. This is not the case today. My technical solution is simple, and would completely satisfy the first problem. Migration could happen in weeks, and the culture would be much stronger for it.

This is what is so tragic about this Userboxenkampf: instead of implementing a clear technical solution which would satisfy the first, we squabble about the second, releasing all the ignorant partisan POV the proposal claims to fix. So that we are clear: when we have admins trying to parse the degree of POV on the templates and userlists we create for use outside of articles, this is their POV intruding on our editorial freedom. It is not their job to decide how Wikipedians choose to align with one another, or otherwise identify themselves. It is perhaps the most anti-intellectual thing I have seen at Wikipedia— official censorship and book-burning, what ought to have been their first clue— and yet it always comes with the pretense of improving the encyclopedia.

Many of the proponents of this measure cry vote-stacking, yet think nothing of running to a channel packed full of admins to come gang up on some measure they do not like. In a collaborative effort involving over a million people, we need more tools to communicate, not less. Less than two hundred have voted this far on this measure, with a very high percentage of admins in attendance. How does this translate into community consensus? Many of the admins supporting this measure do not oppose vote stacking, they oppose breaking their monopoly on vote-stacking.

StrangerInParadise 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any deliberate effort by admins (who are far from a homogenous group) to "stack" the vote one way or the other. I am aware of a user going round spamming talk pages with a user-space template in an effort to garner opposition votes. Have you no decency, at last? Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
StrangerInParadise: Please don't solicit people to vote oppose. It illustrates the problem, actually: giving people your spin on things and before they've seen the original proposal will, of course, bias them against the proposal before they've seen it. There's now a number oppose votes from those who apparently don't understand what the proposal is (or haven't expressed themselves clearly). Such votes don't help with moving towards consensus and an agreeable compromise and their non-applicable reasons for opposing don't give any idea of what kind of compromise they would rather have.
As for the rest of your post: There are actually many precedents for Templates being used for non-encyclopedia things, such as {{proposed}}, {{style}}, and many others for the Wikipedia namespace, and {{userpage}} and {{Pic of the day}} in User namespace. --AySz88^-^ 03:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The stacking is implicit. I explain further at WP:AN/I#At long last, Stranger is free to reply to his many detractors. Decency? I lay out a clear case of vandalism, and your only concern is that I would criticise the perpetrator, how indecently biased is that? StrangerInParadise 08:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results, so far

The required 70% concensus hasn't been reached yet
The required 70% concensus hasn't been reached yet

WikieZach| talk 03:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to Divide Proposal

I hereby move to divide the implemention section of the proposal, so as to allow for better and more detailed concensus, creating four seperate resolutions:

Userboxes that are blatant infringements of applicable Wikipedia policy, such as No personal attacks, should be speedy deleted.

Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should not be immediately deleted. These should be substituted onto user pages, or users notified to substitute them onto their user pages. These templates should be deleted after a period of four weeks grace or once all instances have been substituted.

Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the project'.

Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements may be copied onto some special pages, from which they may be cut and paste (hard-coded) onto userpages as desired.

--WikieZach| talk 04:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to split the criteria too. --AySz88^-^ 04:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Great idea to vote on the different parts of the proposed policy seperately. A comment on your first proposed resolution: what is to be done when a userbox blatantly infringes on WP:NPOV ? At least in the original proposal POV userboxes are explicitly allowed in personal user space, which is why I've voted to support the proposal. -- noosphere 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Clarification:
The first point must make it clear that WP:NPOV is not "applicable Wikipedia policy" for the purpose of that provision.
The second point must add that all deleted templates which do not violate the first point shall be undeleted (returning to the status quo ante vandalism). (This needs to be added in the same point, rather than as a separate point, or voting becomes entirely too conditional.)
The fourth point should have "may" replaced by "shall".
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I can't really support this

This entire proposal has been tainted through excessive editorial in the preamble.

"there should be no prohibition; prohibition is, in any case, unenforceable. Users should be permitted relatively free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance". Bullshit. Wikipedia is not MySPACE. User pages do not exist for free expression, they exist to further the project. There is no free speech on Wikipedia. If we decided to limit the damage done to our project by users who choose to have unprofessional POV laden userpages, we could do so... Although that would require blocking users who place advocating their POV over the goals of the project, I don't believe that would be a bad thing.

The text goes on to make the free expression mentioned at the top meaningless by denying almost every case of free expression that anyone would likely ever disagree with. Some who share my position might consider this as redeeming the proposal, but I don't see it that way. To me that text just seems mealy mouthed and dishonest. It appears that we're trying to gather the support of users who think userpages should allow free expression by tricking them.

This theme is continued through the proposal... It makes bold statements claiming to support positions I find unsupportable, but then making those claims meaningless through limitations. I simply can't support this as a result. I understand that it has become exceptionally difficult to get anything accomplished on Wikipedia because of the hordes of me-too voters who don't understand the long term goals of the project, and refuse to discuss... merely voting down the party line... But if the situation has become completely broken, the solution is to disenfranchise the useless voters, not deceive them.--Gmaxwell 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Greg. This whole thing seems so..dishonest. I don't think anyone's trying to deliberately decieve here, but I don't like the way this is written. I can't support this, but I don't want it oppose it either because it's good in principle. But oh well.--Sean Black (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When JIMBO made wikipedia, he made a source of knowledge for us, but this is the year 2006! Userboxes are now the present. Wikipedia has changed greatly, and there is no reasons that USERBOXES ARE BAD. WikieZach| talk 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

They aren't intrinsically bad, but they can be put to bad use like anything else. Some have caused harm on Wikipedia by encouraging users to argue rather than collaborate, and some cause harm by making our user pages look unprofessional and disreputable. All these things are possible without userboxes, but userboxes have become a single point where such problems are concentrated. Once the userbox issue is resolved, I have no doubt that we'll begin tackling the same problems elsewhere. There is certainly nothing special now compared to the start of the project that make userboxes more necessary for our project... in fact, I'd say that the use of userboxes has come along with a huge number of new users who don't really know the difference between Wikipedia and myspace. Which is all the more of a reason to clean them up.--Gmaxwell 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Although you don't seem to have noticed it much, the encyclopedia still exists. the wub "?!" 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am intrested to know what the userbox haters think of my suggestion here. By using a technical solution, I think that both sides will get what they want. Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.--God Ω War 06:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good step, but I think you're missing the bit about how some people don't want the bias userboxes, now matter how they're being included in userpages.... --AySz88^-^ 06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There will always be bias, either on userpages or in templates.--God Ω War 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. Thats not a solution at all. The solution is to politely ask people who are doing harmful thing to stop and patiently explain why... and if they refuse, we should block them. --Gmaxwell 08:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Supress anyone who tries to express their opinions. Sounds like Stalinism to me. Hey, guess what? I will express my opinions on my user page...period. People also should have a reward for the time and effort they spend editing Wikipedia. Nothing big, just the right to express their opinions, so long as those opinions aren't meant to insult another user, group of users, or other users' beliefs. If I'm not biting anybody, why should I have a muzzle over my mouth? If you think saying things like "I support the Republican party" is biting, you need to think again. I slave for Wikipedia and what thanks do I get? A bunch of jerks telling me I have no rights here and there isn't a blame thing I can do about it. Can't you see how ridiculous such a philosophy is? Users should be able to contribute info and have casual fun away from the encyclopedia on the user space. The Wikimedia Foundation should start printing that "No rights" policy page in their ads and see how that goes over. I guarantee you that there would be protests and lawsuits. No rights, surpress induviduality, protests surpressed or falling on deaf ears, and Wikipedia's higher power not giving a crap about any of it...Ahhh, doesn't that sound wonderful. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC), proud supporter of WikiFreedom.

You "slave for Wikipedia"? Please don't. If writing and editing the encyclopedia is not rewarding of itself, then by all means - stop doing it. This is not a job. You are not being paid. This is a volunteer oppurtunity. If you need a "reward for [your] time and effort" other than the enjoyment of the work, and the free use of the result, put your time and effort elsewhere. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solicitation

A disengenuous, bad faith solictation of voters has made this poll inherently untrustworthy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for this conclusion. Ansell 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
StrangerInParadise's contributions are a notable example. For example, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and especially [18]. How absolutely ironic. The policy is being shot down using the very vote stacking it was partially meant to prevent. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
While StrangerInParadise's action was unacceptable (and he should stay blocked until he figures out why it was wrong), it's not really changing the results... if you exclude the votes from all those people we still get the same general outcome. --Gmaxwell 08:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You assume that this user is the only one doing this. I've seen many other users doing the same; whether or not it significantly affected the outcome doesn't particularly matter at this point. It just goes to show why we need this policy, and why the fact that we need it will prevent us from getting it. Administrator cynicism level up. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That a fair point, but we had problems with vote stacking before userboxes existed (for an extreme example, see Wikiproject Schools history). It's better to address things by attacking the root cause. Why are we allowing twits to have a voice? Wikipedia is not an experiment in extreme anarchy.--Gmaxwell 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this vote stacking? How is it possible to stack a vote that is by definition Wikipedia-wide? Which of the 255 UN Wikipedians who would be forced to disolve should not have been told of the vote? (Hint: every one of them was a victim of various rogue actions such as userbox burning, category depopulation, etc, and are the tip of the iceberg of those affected, and most did not know about the poll).

How is it bad faith? My message to those contacted was simple,

  • You use Template:User UN and are listed in Category:United Nations Wikipedians
  • You were recently the subject of wrongful blanking action by an admin abusing his tools, and were briefly delisted from the category
  • There is a policy poll, which should it pass will mandate the deletion of this category and template
  • I urge you to oppose it

It should be obvious that,

  • This proposal has only minority support, but is buoyed only by its very obscurity
  • Support was sinking before I told even more people about it (as I predicted above)
  • It is advertized mostly in places were admins read
  • The percentage of admins responding is much higher than in the affected community
  • It is a divisive power grab on the part of a highly ideological faction of admins
  • It is an awkward implementation

I have been told that by telling 43 Wikipedians about this poll (I intended to tell about 55— S through Z— and call it a day), I disrupted an attempt at consensus. What would consensus mean if only a self-selected 80% of one-fiftieth of one percent of Wikipedians managed to support? The policy would be slammed into effect immediately.

I've been accused of doing something out-of-policy. The blocking admin cited an arbcom ruling on an editor who tried to stack a vote on a small content dispute. How does this apply to me? How would I know this was even against policy. Where was the warning that this was a blockable offense (hint: not in any policy page I've seen)? BTW, I was engaged in discussion with Midspillage on why this was a problem when I was blocked. The notion that the block is the only thing which stopped me is ridiculous, as I was unblocked immediately and did nothing further.

Finally, enjoy the spectacle of the supporters of this proposal making several false accusations, then conspiring right in the AN/I to use it to push passage of their proposal, in part by banning me until it is over.

I'm the one corrupting process?

StrangerInParadise 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone should assume good faith on the part of the admins. If you thought people should have been notified somewhere else, suggest such a place instead of unilaterally trying to petition users - recruiting biased people and biasing them before they've even seen the proposal is probably worse than what you're accusing the admins of. (I don't want to repeat the rest of what I said before under #Two issues confused.) --AySz88^-^ 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, if this was supposed to make a point, then see WP:POINT. --AySz88^-^ 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise, it's vote stacking because you specifically targeted a large number of users who would be likely to support your position. Had you been more equal in your actions, contacting users on both sides, it would have been more acceptable. Your actions, if permitted, would just turn the discussion into an arms race over which side can spam the most users. Further, it would reduce the credibility of the outcome, because we can't tell how the results would have differed without the spamming. --Gmaxwell 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's no different then posting the message about this poll to the administrators notice board. Seraphim 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's different. Posting a note about the discussion to every admin's talk page would be no different than this. Posting this to Requests for Comment and/or Village Pump (policy) would be no different than posting to the AN. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really, according to gmaxwell's numbers. 88.8% of administrators have voted to support while 11.1% have voted to oppose. Which means that advertising designed to specifically get more admins to vote could be considered votestacking. Seraphim 00:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's still a noticeboard (and it's not even read exclusively by admins). Okay, maybe the better analogy would be posting this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes, which, surprise surprise, has happened with no objections. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I answer further for my actions here. StrangerInParadise 08:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I just had another look at that notice, and now understand what my detractors think of as a neutral notification,
A proposed policy on userboxes has been created to help decide what should be considered acceptable for userboxes. A separate straw poll is underway.

It has been proposed to migrate some userbox templates to the user namespace.
The notice is quietist to the point of soporific. How about,
Nothing to worry about, just a little move to a lovely place called user namespace.

Oh, and we will be destroying this directory and all categories pointed to by userboxes.

Oh, and just a technical point, user namespace can't actually support userboxes without hardcoding.

Not a programmer? Let us explain further: you can have bumper stickers on your car, but only if you draw them by hand, and photocopy them one-at-a-time (and no glue on the back, and no central place to browse them).
Oh, it just gets better and better! StrangerInParadise 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to make your point clearer. Getting people riled up is bad and isn't protected under free speech - even in U.S. law - see Schenck v. United States and imminent lawless action. At Wikipedia (in the context of the community), that would probably apply with something more like "non-good faith" instead of "lawless" - and soliciting with that kind of wording certainly promotes looking at the proposal without good faith). --AySz88^-^ 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deleting divisive images

Images that are solely used for divisive user boxes should get speedy deleted: Wikipedia is no free web space. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of the meta analysis disputed?

Why? It's simple factual information, I tried to avoid adding excessive editorial. If people are going to look at a tally without reading what people are saying it should be clear that no all editors are equally experienced.--Gmaxwell 23:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(Why does it let you add sections but not me T_T tried 5 times) It's simple, the information does not belong on the poll page. The experience of editors is completly irrelevant to the poll. The analysis clearly shows that "experienced" editors are tending to go towards support, however that information is irrelevant. Why should someone coming to the page be presented with that information? The point of the poll is for people to read the policy and vote on the policy, not to see how other people are voting and jump on a bandwagon with the more "experienced" (and I say that only because edit count is not an indication of experience) users. The reason the pie graph of the total vote is fine is because it's an open poll. Anyone who wants to see the current status of the vote can just count it themselves by scrolling to the bottom of the support/oppose sections. You pretty much summed up my point in your comment here "If people are going to look at a tally without reading what people are saying it should be clear that no all editors are equally experienced". You seem to be implying that the opinions of editors with more edits are more important then editors with less edits, that is not valid. If you want to post analysis of the poll put it here on the discussion page where the information is relevant. It does not belong on the poll page at all, atleast untill the poll closes. In addition i'd like to point out that the analysis is out of date everytime 1 person posts a vote. It's trivial to update the vote tally, however the "analysis" will only beable to be updated by you. It simply doesn't belong for the same exact reasons that it's illegal to stand outside polling places on election day and tell every voter before going in that the "smarter people" are all voting one way. It's trivial and irrelevant. If even one person's opinion on the vote is changed by your posted analysis then it will have tainted the poll results. Seraphim 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The statistics about the voters shouldn't matter until the poll ends, and, in practice, the statistics triggers biases of voters unrelated to the proposal. Implication of ad hominem, even if unintentional, is bad. I would just remove all the charts until the poll ends. --AySz88^-^ 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Anything that can change a voter's opinion that is unrelated to what they are voting on does not belong on what's basically the ballot. Seraphim 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. We don't have simple votes on Wikipedia, we try to achieve consensus through discussion. Since most of the participants here have said nothing about their views, we can only guess. In any case, a discussion of the voters is pertinent. Not all participants are equal. If I was going around declaring voters as smart or dumb, Seraphim might have a point... but I'm not, I've presented simple facts. --Gmaxwell 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
First off the page is a vote designed to test for consensus. It is not discussion. The discussion is on this page ("Discussion on the talk page"~bottom of the article) which is exactly why i'm suggesting that your analysis be on this page not the vote page. Secondly you said "If people are going to look at a tally without reading what people are saying it should be clear that no all editors are equally experienced." that shows that you are not treating all editors as equal. The opinion of a person who has been here for 2 days has the same exact weight as an admin that's the entire point of a wiki. Adding text to an "unbiased vote" to show people that the more "experienced" users have decided it's a good thing and they should support it is completly innapropriate. The pie chart presents no new information, the page automatically tallies up the votes and the pie chart is just presenting the current poll standings, that has no bias to it at all. Posting stuff like an "analysis" of the voters on the ballot is not appropriate at all. After the vote is over then you can post it so people can determine what they need to change, what areas they should target, however posting it now taints the poll results by influencing voters. They should be voting on the policy, not the vote tally or the fact that editors with alot of edits are trending towards support. Seraphim 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the reasoned opinions of new editors should count as much as reasoned opinions of old hands, I can't automatically agree that new editors should have as much of a say in site policy as experienced editors. It's hard to see how somebody with little experience in editing of articles can have a meaningful understanding of how writing of the encyclopedia (which is what we do here) really works. It is a common misconception among new editors (and among some old hands, too) that Wikipedia started just before they joined, and that things have always worked the way they worked when the editor joined.
All that said, the analysis does belong on the talk page, not on the poll.Zocky | picture popups 06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The analysis should be on the talk page. I don't have time to rebut the rest, except to say that cultural evolution is being misrepresented as cultural catastrophe. The actions of certain senior people in the userbox wars belie the assertion that experienced editors know what is best for the community. StrangerInParadise 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reflections

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to organise opposition to the policy by asking people who might not be aware of it, and are thought likely to be against it, to come and vote. Accusing people of vote stacking, or whatever, doesn't help the debate; it just raises emotions. Vote stacking implies something corrupt - like getting friends to sign up as wikipedia members just so they can vote, creating sock puppets to manipulate the voting, or offering kickbacks for voting. Just trying to organise some opposition is not vote stacking. I'm sure there has been some organising of support for the policy as well - though probably through networks of people who know each other. That is also legitimate; there's nothing corrupt about it.

I do think this is a pretty good policy in all the circumstances. The trouble is that some admins evidently jumped the gun and started deleting relatively innocuous userboxes before the community could respond to Jimbo's words through a consultative process. That was an unwise way to deal with an issue of symbolic importance. As a result, a lot of users are evidently confused and upset (as I was a couple of weeks ago). I wish the whole thing had been done consultatively with a vote to ratify this as a compromise after a lot of discussion (maybe taking some weeks) and no pre-emptive action. I'm sure it would have had overwhelming support in those circumstances.

IMHO it's just not tenable to allow template space to be used forever the way it has been in the past - Jimbo is right about that - but there has to be a transition period, adequate protection of users who still want easy ways to express their beliefs in their own user space, and a moratorium (while we all digest what is needed) on deleting boxes merely because they express political or religious beliefs. This policy does all of that about as well as possible. However reluctant people are to abandon the old situation, I think something like this policy is necessary.

I suggest that people who are upset, and want to express it by voting against the policy, think about whether the old situation was really tenable. It seems to me that it wasn't, given that having these things as templates really does give an odd impression to newcomers and the public, and besides Jimbo's views, which he is entitled to since he's putting such resources into this, will ultimately have to be deferred to in some way. If you can accept that the old situation is not tenable long-term, try to consider this policy on its merits - i.e. separate from the premature actions taken to delete templates in advance of the process of working out a policy. If you agree that the policy itself is quite good, you can support it while expressing your reluctance or regret that it is needed, and/or you can support it while also using other forums here to oppose continuing attempts by some people to jump the gun. E.g. you can vote to reinstate deleted templates pending this policy getting wide agreement.

Conversely, if this vote fails, I ask people who want to stop the kinds of userboxes concerned to accept the result for now and look at any alternative proposals on their merits. Maybe someone could propose a rejigged policy like this in a couple of months, during which people are not being antagonised by premature attempts to delete userbox templates. It's more important to get this right than to prove a point, win a victory, or make a painful (if needed) change quickly.

Just my two cents. :) Metamagician3000 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta analysis meta argument

Since it appears that Userbox POV pushers are going to continue to try to suppress this information, I've moved it to the talk page where no rational objection can be made. Now that its off the primary page I see no reason not to editorialize: I think it's clear that, overall, experienced editors are opposed to the current trend in userbox use. It is also clear the people in support of this proposal are not opposed to userboxes overall (nearly half use them themselves). It appears to me that the entire trend to use new userboxes has been driven by a set of new users, who have not yet adapted to our community and whom believe that their ability to abuse Wikipedia as a platform for 'free speech' (i.e. POV pushing) is more important than the goals of the project.--Gmaxwell 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Generalizations like this are uncalled for. I'm not a Userbox supporter by any means. My problem with the policy is that it actually gives extra protection to userboxes and gives users permission to do whatever they want on their userpage. All the policy does to userboxes is move them out of template space and into userspace. Your insinuations that i'm a lesser user because i've only been here for 3 months, or that just because someone has more edits then someone else they are somehow more valuable go against everything wikipedia is. You need to re-read the policy since apparently you are under the false assumption that the policy limits POV pushing, when infact it instead gives people the right to use their userpages for their own pov pushing. Your demonstrating my problem with this vote very clearly, alot of people believe that the policy limits userboxes and POV pushing on userpages, when infact it does the exact opposite, it gives people the right to create whatever userboxes they want (in userspace) and to say whatever they want on their userpages. Seraphim 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Your response is a perfect example of an ongoing problem we're having on Wikipedia: People need to quit jumping in with their own views before reading what has already been said. I don't think you're a 'lesser user', my statements are based on the aggregate not on single people... there are people I support and respect in both camps, but the oppose camp is far less experienced with Wikipedia overall. --Gmaxwell 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more I posted that 2 days and 6 hrs before you. You should try to read before jumping in with your own views next-time it keeps unnecessary sections from being started and clogging up the talk page. The fact that the oppose camp is less experienced does not mean our points are any less valid. On here everyone is equal which means that a 2 day old user can cancel out a user with 25000 edits. Age/edit count means nothing. Seraphim 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I was indeed aware of your post, but didn't want to me-too... I thought my rant would have better visibility freestanding since that thread was 2 days old. :) As far as everyone being equal, you're quite wrong about that. We're equal in spite of many outside differences (our ages, our professions, etc) but our contributions, our experience, and our words are very significant. There might be a situation where a 2 day old user is considered equal to a longstanding contributor, but that would be rare indeed and I'd only expect to see it happen if the newbie gave an enlightened argument. Wikipedia is not an experiment in extreme democracy, and we don't believe that all editors are equal.--Gmaxwell 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Unequal in some aspects doesn't mean inherently unequal in the "experience" aspect. I think "experience" especially is not something that determines how input is unequal - words, arguments, and reasoning probably yes, but edit count or account age? Hopefully not - the opinion of someone newer shouldn't be at an inherent disadvantage (though they may be more likely to not be familiar with Wikipedia policies or norms). --AySz88^-^ 06:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
First off "Your response is a perfect example of an ongoing problem we're having on Wikipedia: People need to quit jumping in with their own views before reading what has already been said." if you were aware of my thread why did you post that? It wasn't appreciated nor are your attempts at damage control. Also i'd like to point out that as far as wikipedia goes someone that's 2 days old is infact on equal footing with a longstanding contributor. That's what makes the system unique, anyone can get an account and start editing. Also i'd like to point out that I was talking in the sence that on this poll someone with 2 edits or 3000000 edits both get counted equally, the only person that's above the vote is Jimbo. Also I don't know where you got your information that says "we don't believe all editors are equal" because that "we" is talking about a small majority who are going against the ideals of wikipedia. No editors are above other editors, not even admins("Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided that they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."" From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but they should be a part of the community like anyone else"). All editors are equal, their voices are equal, their opinions are equal, mabey newbies might not be aware of some of the policies but it doesn't prevent them from typing, that's how it works here. Seraphim 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That may be true, but it's not evidence for the merit of the proposal. If anything it suggests that the concerns of the less experienced users have been overlooked until now, possibly because there are tacit understandings among the more experienced users about how things work, which have led them to underestimate the upset this process would cause. Putting it bluntly, it could suggest that there's an elite corps who were getting out of touch with the troops. I'm not necessarily making that claim, but I'm pointing out that this sort of data is open to many interpretations, and that relying on it in any way is not a good way to argue the case. It's more likely to antagonise opponents of the policy than to make them feel their concerns are taken seriously. Metamagician3000 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
' This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.
I agree with Metamagician3000, but less tentatively. I'd like to thank Gmaxwell for the admin/non-admin breakdown, which confirms what I already suspected. I called this civil war above, and Babajobu refered to it as a class war. Gmaxwell's implicit thesis seconds this. Beyond this, I have also called it a culture war, between NPOV-hardliners and, well, call us declared-bias advocates. As I say on my user page, I think the view of the NPOV-hardliners betrays a flawed understanding of NPOV, and perhaps a failure to adapt to a cultural shift. Also, the high admin support is likely in part a frustration with cleaning up after conflicts they see as facilitated by the userbox phenomenon. As I point out above, the cultural issue has been mixed with the goal of purifying namespaces, to the cost of both. StrangerInParadise 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"10.1% of opposers are Wikipedia Administrators, 40.9% of supporters are Wikipedia Administrators" - As Metamagician already said, this sort of data is open to many interpretations, even the polemical view bellow may also be offered:

  1. Generally speaking, people want power and the ability to tell others what to do.
  2. This is also true for administrators. (It is not necessarily selfish or anything: the person may believe he will “do the right thing” for the project...)
  3. Users organized by POV will likely reduce the power of the people currently in charge (i.e. administrators).

Conclusion: Administrators are unconsciously predisposed to keep their power by not allowing users to organize efficiently. For this reason they are supporting policies that make organization by POV harder, (but rationalize this action by saying that it will reduce "corruption" in the voting process, etc…). --Leinad ¬ pois não? 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta analysis

Updated as of 06:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Red line represents the total edit counts of opposers, blue line represents the edit counts of supporters
Red line represents the total edit counts of opposers, blue line represents the edit counts of supporters
  • 50% of supporters have fewer than 3649 edits, while 50% of opposers have fewer than 920 edits.
  • Supporters have an average of 2.42 total edits per article edit, while opposers have an average of 3.14 total edits per article edit.
  • Supporters have, on average, used Wikipedia for 3.3 months (108 days, vs 90 on the last stats run) longer than opposers.
  • Opposers have, on average, edited 795 distinct Wikipedia articles while supporters have edited 1557 distinct Wikipedia articles.
  • 10.1% of opposers are Wikipedia Administrators, 40.9% of supporters are Wikipedia Administrators.
  • 56.1% of opposers have a userpage which trancludes a template matching the regular expression ^[Uu]ser_[^-]{3,}.*$, while 44.3% of supporters transclude such templates in their userpages. The regular expression is designed to match most userboxes but exclude the babel boxes. A table showing the userboxes most frequently used by voters is available.
  • On average, opposers use 20.2 distinct three or more character userboxes, while supporters use 6.1 on average.
  • In the past 34 days opposers have made an average of 5.2 article edits per day, while supporters have made 11.2 article edits per day.
These numbers are incorrect. Someone needs to go over them and fix them. "Supporters have an average of 2.42 total edits per article edit, while opposers have an average of 3.14 total edits per article edit. " combined with "Opposers have, on average, edited 795 distinct Wikipedia articles while supporters have edited 1557 distinct Wikipedia articles. " make the statement "50% of supporters have fewer than 3649 edits, while 50% of opposers have fewer than 920 edits. " impossible. If 50% of opposers have fewer then 920 edits, 50% have above it therefore the average edits by opposers is 920 edits. Opposers have an average of 3.14 edits per page and have edited on average 795 pages, 3.14*795 = 2493. 16 as the correct average edits for opposers, not 920. Nobody should consider these numbers valid they are biased towards supporters. (If you do the same calculation average edits per page vs average amount of pages edited for supporters you get 3767.94 average edits per supporter which is close to the 3649 number he has posted and can be explained by rounding errors, however the difference between 2493 actual avg edits for opposers vs the 920 listed is too large to be simple error, especially when the same discrepencies were in the older numbers posted) Seraphim 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your analysis of the analysis is mathematically defective. Please refer yourself to any book on elementary statistics to understand why "If 50% of opposers have fewer then 920 edits, 50% have above it therefore the average edits by opposers is 920 edits" is invalid. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting that the mean and the median are so different for the group in question. Haukur 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You could have pointed out her error and linked to median and mean without being so insulting. Also, mean and median should probably both be listed explicitly. --AySz88^-^ 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I read it wrong. It says alot about the bias of the editor that he chose to list the median which has a significantly larger disparity then the mean, but not even mention the mean. The fact that the opposers have more edits per page, and obviously due to the disparity of the median and the mean have a large block of editors with very high edit counts, shows that it's not simply unexperienced users not backing the article. I think the most important number for people to notice is that the opposers have a lower number of administrators (who have a large number of their edits as simple administrative edits) and tend to grab onto a single page instead of just randomly going around spell checking pages or running bots. Seraphim 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Insulting? Just stepping in and crapping on the data is insulting. You could have just pinged me and I would have explained that the median is not the mean. If you want the raw data, you're welcome to it. The numbers are accurate. The mean is a less informative metric in this case because strong outliers like SPUI make the mean somewhat non-representative. If there are 100 people in a neighborhood, 99 have $100 in the bank, and one has $1,000,000 would we be correct to say that the average person has $10,099? This is why I provided the CDF graph. The disparity of the mean is pretty large as well, this is reflected in the average article edits / 34 days. I thought it would be silly to state what is effectively very simmlar data twice (means of article edits/day and mean of total edits) Since you're being a twit about it: The means for total edits are 2831.2022 and 5560.7584 (same data as the most recent graphs). --Gmaxwell 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW. "More edits per page" doesn't always mean "grab onto a single page", often it means they don't use preview. In anycase, avg(art_edits/distinct_articles) is only 2.4 for support 2.1 per oppose, and I don't think thats a big enough difference to mention. If I compute the "average time between edits to the same article" for each group, I promise that it would be vastly lower for the oppose group, since I've measured that in the past and it was strongly related to time on the site and number of total edits.--Gmaxwell 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Histogram of userbox creation times. The majority of our 5,148 non-babel user boxes were created within the last 60 days.
Histogram of userbox creation times. The majority of our 5,148 non-babel user boxes were created within the last 60 days.
Question: does this graph account for the userboxes burned by vandals and recreated by users? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StrangerInParadise (talk • contribs) .
"Burned by the vandals"? ... why haven't we banned you yet? Assume some fucking good faith, dickhead. --Gmaxwell 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, who else would burn a userbox, and how would good faith apply? Or do you deny this sort of thing ever happened? BTW, where was your assumption of good faith in my question? I'm a bit of a fan of this meta-analysis. StrangerInParadise 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Wiki isn't paper. It doesn't burn. :) I'm not failing to assume good faith, I'm sure you have the best intentions while you crap on the project and that you can't help being a divisive dick. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it. --Gmaxwell 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Though it was too biased for the vote page, I have supported your analysis. How is it that you, who are trying to statistically split respondants into two quality groups are less divisive than me, who has spent considerable effort including as many people as possible, defending Wikipedia against many acts of vandalism against a broad spectrum of pages and patiently answering (sometimes foul-mouthed) detractors? How am I crapping on the project simply because I disagree with you? For your language, how will you not be banned? StrangerInParadise 06:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"*10.1% of opposers are Wikipedia Administrators, 40.9% of supporters are Wikipedia Administrators." is a fact, I'm just reporting on it. Your 'vandal admins burning userboxes! stop the terror!' is divisive. I'm not shocked that you can't tell the difference, since you didn't see why your talk page spamming was wrong.--Gmaxwell 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"Those who burn userboxes are vandals", is a fact. That admins were doing it (or that it might bear a resemblance to terrorism) was not relevant to my question about your statistic, which you have yet to answer. "Vandal", signifies only the wrongful removal which would skew your results towards newness (as opposed to the volutary removal and replacement). Your thesis is divisive, but not terribly inflammatory (perhaps because few have read the inherent elitism in it). I don't have a problem with it, so long as it is on the talk page. I do have a problem with your hostility, language, and of course massive assumption of bad faith because I disagree wih you. StrangerInParadise 16:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: I certainly remember people pointing in previous discussions that many of these apparently "new" userboxes where actually older boxes that were moved to new names by copy and paste (with the loss of their edit history). But I don’t know if this statement is accurate. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 06:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few of the boxes used to be combined using {{switch}}, but then were split into new templates due to the now-defunct Avoid meta-templates. I'm not sure which peak that corresponds to, or exactly how many have its origins from that. --AySz88^-^ 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More meta

I found it interesting that both people supporting and opposing this policy make widespread use of userboxes. That made me wonder if there is a difference in the character of the userboxes they use. I've provided a table below with the top 50 userboxes used by voters. The userboxes with only two characters like User_en and User_fr-1 were excluded in the percentage numbers I gave, but I've included them here. --Gmaxwell 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

template opposed support O/S ratio
{{User_Recycling}} 10 1 10.00
{{[[User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech

]]}}|12

 2 6.00
{{User_AI}} 6 1 6.00
{{User_freedom}} 10 2 5.00
{{User_politics}} 8 2 4.00
{{User_vote}} 6 2 3.00
{{User_PC}} 5 2 2.50
{{User_winxp}} 5 2 2.50
{{User:UBX/chess}} 5 2 2.50
{{User_clean_fuels}} 5 2 2.50
{{User_world}} 5 2 2.50
{{User_Irish}} 5 2 2.50
{{[[User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User non-smoker

]]}}|7

 3 2.33
{{User_serial_comma:Yes}} 9 4 2.25
{{[[User:Feureau/UserBox/ubx-5

]]}}|9

 4 2.25
{{User_html}} 6 3 2.00
{{User_Pizza}} 6 3 2.00
{{User_Writing}} 4 2 2.00
{{User_liberal}} 4 2 2.00
{{User:UBX/Sum}} 4 2 2.00
{{[[User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox

]]}}|5

 3 1.67
{{User_male}} 9 6 1.50
{{User_vandalized}} 7 5 1.40
{{[[User:Menasim/Userboxes/User Google

]]}}|8

 6 1.33
{{User_Birthday}} 4 3 1.33
{{User_42}} 4 3 1.33
{{User:UBX/preference}} 4 3 1.33
{{User_wikipedia:RC_Patrol}} 4 3 1.33
{{User_Drug-free}} 6 5 1.20
{{User_wikipedia/RC_Patrol}} 7 6 1.17
{{User_es-1}} 7 7 1.00
{{User_straight}} 5 5 1.00
{{User_instrument}} 4 4 1.00
{{User_screw}} 4 4 1.00
{{User_fr-3}} 3 3 1.00
{{User_mad}} 3 3 1.00
{{User_ot}} 3 3 1.00
{{User_fr-1}} 10 12 0.83
{{User_alignment}} 4 5 0.80
{{User_es-2}} 4 5 0.80
{{User_en}} 34 44 0.77
{{User_fr-2}} 3 4 0.75
{{User_de-1}} 3 4 0.75
{{User_en-3}} 4 6 0.67
{{[[User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox

]]}}|10

 16 0.63
{{User_Wikipediholic}} 2 5 0.40
{{[[User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox

]]}}|3

 8 0.38
{{User_wikipedia/Administrator}} 3 9 0.33
{{User_admin}} 2 6 0.33
{{User_en-N}} 1 5 0.20

[edit] Is anyone going to update the tally?

It is well out-of-date. Also, could neutral/abstain be separated from comments, as some have voted and commented?

StrangerInParadise 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The raw tally has assumed somewhat less importance than formerly, since the attempts to fix the vote. The straw poll still does serve a useful purpose in indicating the strength of the consensus among experienced Wikipedians, however, as Greg Maxwell has ably demonstrated. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's putting a brave face on it. I'd love to take credit for sending this absurd proposal to the bottom, but plenty have come from all parts to oppose. The select announcement of this poll has done far more to fix the vote than my telling 43 people about it. If anything, this poll demonstrates its dependence on secrecy for its short-lived success. Also, although I am grateful to Greg Maxwell for his analysis, this does not factor out the self-selection factor, as respondents are biased (over the general population, experienced and otherwise) on this issue. You may claim an uneasy consensus among the selected minority that agree with you, but that is it.

It fails because it is unpopular and so poorly conceived, period. If you want to clean the namesspaces rather than wage a pointless culture war, consider my proposal, above.

StrangerInParadise 20:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If we interpret the split as just being caused by 90 days and a few thousand edits, there would seem to be no justification to calling this a 'culture war', most of these users views will shift as they stay longer with the project. This is the interpretation I'd like to prefer. If we interpret the split as being mostly between users who are lesser contributors and established high-quality contributors, then I think you could call it a 'culture war'... but in that case, we should only be paying attention to the views of the established and high-quality contributors since they are doing much more to further the goals of the project. --Gmaxwell 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not the case at all. The "split" is seen easially by the admin vote, people who are in charge of cleaning up messes want a policy on this, heck alot of the support votes are just saying "this is good for now". It just so happens that the people who are in charge of cleaning up messes are people that have been around longer. Plus edit count doesn't mean that your accomplishing anything with the edits. If I hadn't gotten involved in some contravercial pages by accident my edit count would be significantly lower well below the 980 edit number. Your idea that my imput is less important then yours is not a very enlightened pov. WP works by reaching consensus, it doesn't work by reaching consensus only within an aristocratic group. Seraphim 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you were trying to say; my reading of your comments ends up with the impression that you agree with Greg's argument, above. The split here is between unenculturated newbies, who are not familiar with the nature of Wikipedia, and enculturated non-newbies, who are. Basically, people who have been here a while "get" it, and people who haven't don't. It's not a culture war, it's just learning curve. The reason why most of the admins are on the "support" side is that in general people who don't "get" it don't get made admins (although there have been some exceptions to this). Now, if it happens that a lot of our current unenculturated newbies are actively refusing to "get" it, well, then, yes, there's a culture war. People who don't "get" Wikipedia (that is, those who don't understand that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia) shouldn't be in the community. Anybody who is here for a purpose other than to write an encyclopedia, or who is here pushing notions that are inconsistent with writing an encyclopedia (for example, the notion that Wikipedia is, or ought to be, a free speech forum), will find that their presence here is not desired. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There is much to be established between the results you have assembled, and your claim that the proponents are high-quality contributors, or that their views will shift, though if the latter were true, then there would be no use for a policy to begin with- newer contributors would outgrow their silly userbox infatuation. I have been here much longer than this username would suggest. StrangerInParadise 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Generally speaking, the thoughts of those who have less of a stake in the project count for far less than of those who have made substantial contributions. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

StrangerInParadise is of course trying to claim that the straw poll was inadequately advertised. This is simply incorrect. It's been advertised on Village Pump, Current Surveys, Centralized discussion and WikiProject userboxes for about two weeks. He is attempting to defend the indefensible: his doomed attempt to sabotage a policy poll by spamming inflammatory edits on many user talk pages of people he hoped would cast a kneejerk vote against the proposed policy. It is precisely that kind of sabotage that reveals someone who does not understand how Wikipedia makes policy. "Getting the vote out" will never work. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it an aristocracy. I won't bother refuting- again- how this poll is not adaquately published. My point is not that the proponents deliberately obscured it, but that inherent to how it is published, it is not representative of the community, the consensus of which you were trying to demonstrate, at least until you shifted gears and claimed to demonstrate consensus of the quality part of the community. As to the stake in the project you claim on behalf of the better sort, please consult WP:OWN, which applies broadly as well.
StrangerInParadise 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Before people continue to generalize, shouldn't we take a look at the actual stats first? I doubt that all of the 43 solicitations translated into actual oppose votes. With 129 support votes, 64 oppose votes would drop the proposal to under 70% - which would occur even if 22 votes were tossed out from the count right now. (Up to something like 85%, I would think that people would need take a look at the arguments before declaring a consensus.) I really think that the arguments should be looked at first before dismissing so many opinions just because some/many people voting on the same side have fewer edits or are newer. If too many people don't understand the reasoning behind the proposal - even new people - that's a fault of the proposal, not the voters. --AySz88^-^ 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider the consensus on the oppose side that they are comfortable with modes of POV and NPOV communication as they are, and find the proposal absurd. Tragically, there are several votes on the support side who are voting only to end the conflict. StrangerInParadise 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Oppose

A lot of people are giving Strong Oppose. Does that make any difference over just Oppose? Gerard Foley 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as consensus is to be demonstrated, the difference is qualitative. StrangerInParadise 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understand any of that. Gerard Foley 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The only difference is to judge how strong the opposition is, i.e. the difference between a "no" and a "hell, no". --AySz88^-^ 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Shall we now have a contest to see which side can add the most adjectives to their statements of opinion? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But does it make a difference to the result? Gerard Foley 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • According to Tony Sidaway (above) only the opinion of administrators and (experienced users) matters ever since they lost this poll.--God Ω War 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let each side call forth their champions! The matter can only be decided in a face-off between,

  • Strongly Oppose so much that it can even be lethal, versus
  • Inflammable super strong extreme lesbian support

...and I confess to being less than sanguine about the outcome! =]

StrangerInParadise 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are all missing the point of consensus-building. There aren't sides. People should give their honest views, and then someone puts together everything (including view strength and reasoning) and gives their guess on whether there's a rough consensus. That's how it's done on AfD at least, but it's a hard job here. -- SCZenz 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose vote and Comment

Oppose 1/ the technical limitations argument is specious 2/ If "political" userboxes go, then all the 9/11 and US war in Iraq related userboxes have to go 3/ This proposal would offer aid and comfort to those deleting user categories which has already happened as part of the action against userboxes (come to my talk page and ask if you want an example). Alex Law 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I felt I had to put this here given the scale of the problem. Many people seem to be voting 'oppose' on the basis that the proposal will prevent the use of userboxes/expression of opinions on userpages. This is not the case. You will still be able to use POV userboxes on your userpage - the only difference will be that you will have to use the

...

raw code rather than a template call Cynical 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Comment on comment. Cynical seems to have misread me. Their comment on my vote seems utterly unrelated to the content of my text.

Currently affiliative Categories are allowed, currently affiliative Userboxes are allowed. However, a small group of very active admins is deleting these outside of policy, including by emptying categories by editing all affilated userpages, and then speedy deleting the category as empty. This proposed policy offers aid and comfort to that behaviour (indeed institutionalizes it), without addressing any of the underlaying issues.

What this policy seems to say is something very much like: "You may place any bumper sticker on your car (as long as you hand lettered it, you may not duplicate any other bumpersticker). You may not purchase bumperstickers from a third party."

I find it disturbing that attempts to bring this vote to the attention of people who may vote in opposition are being actively targeted by some partisans by various uses and (I feel) misuses of proceedure. Alex Law 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently only four (really five if include Ian13) advocate my "Conditional Support" category, but it would answer your bumpersticker issue; though you would still lack affiliative categories for partisan POV userboxes (policy: all boxes could be hard-coded, only non-partisan boxes could be templates).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times and in how many ways shall I have to say this,

  • new namespace easy
  • hardcoding dumb

StrangerInParadise 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When?

Since when do we require the need to utilize template space for bloody userboxes like {{User_Pizza}}...? I was under the impression template space was for mainspace and articles; its all too simple to create userboxes independtly in userspace. This isn't boxopedia.-ZeroTalk 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not under the proposal, which defines transclusion from userspace as "templates" depending on its content. This is really about association and dissemination, not pizza. StrangerInParadise 16:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Curiousity simply slapped me there. I would be interested to know how the inclusions of an template saying "I consume pizza" is constructive to the encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Image:Ducks in a pram.jpg thing isn't completely constructive either, and {{userpage}} and {{pic of the day}} are just courtesies, but I don't really see any objection to those. --AySz88^-^ 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Amendment

Wikipedia should add a form of "page locking" which admins may use to supress the "What links here", or maybe just supress it for transclusion. POV user templates may be slowely reintroduced, but must have this "page lock" flag set by an admin.

As in the main proposal, admins will delete, instead of flag, any new POV userboxes they feel are inappropriate. Requiring the flag ensure that users can't not use "What links here" to form cliques, and that all POV userboxes must pass the approval of one admin.

Thoughts? JeffBurdges 18:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's generally a bad practice to treat the symptoms rather than the cause... of course the same could be said about the whole proposal... We shouldn't be deleting divisive userboxes, we should be blocking the users who continue to use them after we've patiently explained why they should not. --Gmaxwell 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
And what policy justifies blocking people for expressing a view on their userpage? Cynical 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the harm here?

That (non-rhetorical) question needs to be answered before a policy can be proposed. (Let us define a non-helpful affiliation as one that is not directly related to editing interests, whether or not potentially divisive.) Possible harms and remedies include

Campaigning for votes by stated bias
Ban non-helpful userbox templates (unless they can be made non-traceable, as proposed at least twice in this talk page), and categories. Specifically allow boxes to be created in User-space (for copying) and cataloged in Wikipedia-space.
Server load problems
Ban second-order transclusions of boxes, even from within user-space. Ban transclusions of non-helpful boxes. Specifically allow copying of boxes from userspace (or even template space) and cataloging in Wikipedia-space.
Stating bias on userpages
If this is a problem, then Wikipedia is dead as a concept. It is important for editors to be able to state their biases, so that other editors can determine whether they are improperly acting on them.
Casting disrepute on Wikipedia.
Only the joke boxes and boxes that would violate guidelines even in text form do so cast disrepute on Wikipedia. This proposal, on the other hand, does cast disrepute on Wikipedia, and should be resolved ASAP.

I should add -- Almost none of the userboxen in question are divisive. Those which are (not including objective statements of the user's affiliation or potential bias) would be deletable whether or not in a userbox, and should be deleted whether or not in a userbox.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comment 14 on the project page for an example. There have been other attempts at ballot stuffing, often very cynical. Another case is here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich where the editor canvassed Wikipedia inclusionists to save articles he had created from deletion, shortly before he initiated a series of retaliatory deletion nominations. This proposal would let people continue to express their POV while reducing that sort of exploitation. After reading it with a very critical eye I decided to give it my support. Durova 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Being inclusionist is relevant to the project, although possibly not helpful as I would define it. In other words, this proposed policy wouldn't have affected that case, as being inclusionist would almost certainly be an allowed userbox. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the other example where Roman Catholics were canvassed? Durova 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. The first step, which has not yet been taken, is to declare such canvassing inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, everyone thought that was obvious enough (from "Not a Democracy" and "Voting is Evil") that it something like "don't solicit votes" (00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)) doesn't have to be said. I still think that should be obvious enough, though apparently it might need to be said anyway. --AySz88^-^ 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It still seems that specifically allowing the "templates" to be cataloged and made available for copying is a good thing. Technically, the current proposal seems to state that, but others differ (see #Call for cancellation of vote). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to Close:Parliamentary Rules on the Subject

Just some info here. If at any time, a user which has taken part in conversation and the voting of this new policy adoption feels that voting should cease, he can make a motion to close. This motion to close must immediately (within an hour or will be discarded) followed by a second, and then for a period of exactly 24 hours since the second was made, the vote will take place on the motion to close. It requires a 3/5 vote to close at a time, and may be made as many times as possible. Here is an example:

I move to close the voting.

I second the motion.

Then the 24 hours will commence. Just some parliamentary expertise, that's all. WikieZach| talk 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the vote is scheduled to close on the 8th anyway. Seraphim 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is correct. Wikizach's complicated parlimentary rules are not used at Wikipedia, are not used on this poll, and are irrelevant. But thanks for trying! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With less than 18 hours to go anyway, I don't see the point of doing something like this. --AySz88^-^ 02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Save Wikipedia, Please Read

As a person familiar with these kinds of controversies, I find it very hard to pick sides on this issue. I believe we are all trying to reach the same conclusion, that Wikipedia is to become more united. The bad thing is just that we dissagree on how to get there. I voted against the proposal, because when my attention was brought to it, I knew immediately of the confusion some people had. Since userbox policy must be made eventually, I propose that we just drop this vote, and allow for some more time for discussion. The more the better, even with an entire's month's worth already. I think what would really help if we divided the proposal. Just some thoughts as the vote climax nears.

WikieZach| talk 02:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The vote ends in like 18 hrs... it's obvious there is no consensus on the policy so it won't be put in place. There's no need to drop the vote. Seraphim 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless suddenly there are 66 support votes (or 28 oppose votes are somehow tossed out), there will be additional discussion. --AySz88^-^ 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw sub-poll

My reluctant opposition is based solely on the indecision on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Is there actual consensus on what the proposal would do on this if accepted?

This is a quicky strawpoll, to end one hour before the main poll. The question is:

What would be the status of a list of userboxes intended to be cut-and-pasted onto user pages under the proposed policy.

Approval voting, please add choices if necessary. Please vote:

[edit] No problem

Such a list would be perfectly acceptable in WP-space.

  1. Septentrionalis 03:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. That's what my "Conditional Support" clarification is/was about. Implementation clause 1.4. seems to imply it. Hopefully that is how it will be read.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. It's fairly clear that this policy bans userbox templates, nothing else. The whole 'would ban lists' thing has been a misconception from the start. Cynical 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. It was clear to me that this policy bans only userbox templates, but this being in effect is a condition for my voting for any of the other provisions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. I don't think that the policy as written would forbid such a list. Some may argue that a list would be against the spirit of the policy, but it is not against its letter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible conditionally

Such a list would be acceptable only if it, or at least the subpages with actual bozes, are in user-space.

[edit] Unacceptable

No such list should exist anywhere

[edit] Other

[edit] I don't care

I'm against the proposal anyway.

[edit] Discussion

  • In this proposal, it (possibly intentionally) doesn't seem to say anything, but apparently some think it forbids it (based on some comments) - but the proposal doesn't seem to acknowledge the issue, which is a minus of the whole proposal. It seems to me that the proposal doesn't prohibit it (which isn't quite the same as allowing it). Also, I'm not sure why there's a vote right now, and I don't really think it should be only 17 hours' worth. --AySz88^-^ 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree it is a minus; in fact so serious a minus that it should be cleared up before the proposal is enacted. I had hoped that this would be done more directly, and would have left more time if I could; but this subpoll will be automatically extended if the main poll is. Septentrionalis 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll closure

User:God of War, a major opponent of the poll, has taken it on himself to "close" the poll (and to declare the policy failed, an action that does not follow) immediately after the polling deadline. I consider this a transparently bad faith action, and reccomend that everyone wait for an uninvolved third party (like I was before I stepped in here - I in fact, came to the page to start the process of closing the poll) to vet the various voters and reach a decision. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Just because I disagree with the poll does not mean that I acted in bad faith. I have followed all the rules exactly. The poll was closed at the time it should be closed. Some people think that 2/3 = consensus, others think 80% equals consensus. Regardless, the support for the poll did not meet either standard. If it had been closer to being accepted I would be more hesitant to close it. However, as it is, the support for this poll is so far from consensus that there should be no dispute about the closure of this poll.--God Ω War 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Did you check for sockpuppets?
  2. Did you disregard solicited votes?
  3. Did you make notes of which votes you accepted and rejected?
  4. Did you evaluate the discussion?
  5. Did you make notes of your evaluations somewhere so they can be reviewed?
Alternatively, did you just determine that you had "won" and thus declared the policy rejected (out of process, by the way - the failure of the poll to find consensus was not a rejection of the proposal.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you give us a list of your other poll closing experience? What other policy decisions have you taken part in? Provide diffs, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If he were to disregard "solicited" votes, he should also disregard Admin votes, because those requested on the Admin boards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Alerting people via a neutral message in an incredibly widely read place is far, far different than alerting people via a misleading and biased message sent only to people who you believe would support your position. One is notification, the other is soliciation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Not true, a certain demographic of people read the WP:ANB and are more likely to vote a certain way. Posting a message there will swing the voting patterns in a paticular direction.--God Ω War 21:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. However, "Alerting people via a neutral message in an incredibly widely read place is far, far different than alerting people via a misleading and biased message sent only to people who you believe would support your position." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, Go ahead and evaluate the poll yourself. It's not a BIG DEAL to revert the closing of the poll. So if you look through all the votes and come to a different conclusion than NO Consensus, which it obviously is, then please post your conclusion here. For the time being, the poll is most certainly closed.--God Ω War 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not see consensus here, as much as I'd like to. However, God of War might not have been the best person to close that poll. In fact, I think that this poll is of such a scale that no single admin should close it. What that means in practice I'm unsure of - we certainly can't make another poll to get consensus on whether this poll has consensus or not. I'm stumped. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK there is no Wikipedia policy against, or even definition of, "solicited votes". Nowhere does it say a vote is to be discounted merely because the voter was informed about the poll by someone else. Votes by sockpuppets, by anons, and by newbies may be discounted. Votes by people who voted after being informed that a poll was going on are just as valid as anyone else's. Angr/talk 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You are not correct. In either case, my marking of votes as "solicited" does not in any way do anything to remove them. I will stop removing them from the count, and will instead put them in a seperate section below, with a seperate total. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If I am not correct, please point me to the Wikipedia policy in which solicited votes are defined and it is stated that they may be removed from consideration. Angr/talk 21:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
<This comment has been self-censored to remove excess levels of sarcasm and/or cynicism.> // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What will be the next step? A separate list for people who happens to enjoy classical music? This procedure regarding "solicited" votes strikes me as nonsensical - and as repugnant if it implies that these votes are in any way less valid. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You should certainly consider that strongly implied. It is repugnant indeed that someone would disrupt the operation of Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn’t this discrimination between "solicited" and "unsolicited" votes (putting them arbitrarily in separate lists in the vote page) precisely an example of "disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point"? --Leinad ¬ pois não? 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't blame the ones solicited for that. By the way, be aware that there is a person who actually voted suport after being solicited: User:Sumthingweird. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course I do not blame the solicited, and I will mark Sumthingweird's vote as solicited now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Solicited votes??? Any user that is informed that the vote is taking place and doesn't stumble on it themselves is technically a solicited vote. Any user that found the link to this page on AN/I, Policy Pump, Surveys, Irc, whatever is a solicited vote. Informing users that will be affected by the vote that the vote is taking place is completly valid, the idea of not counting votes simply because someone informed them that the vote was taking place would require you to throw out every single vote on this poll outside of the original creator of this page, since everyone else had to be informed this page existed. For example I found out about this vote on the IRC channel, I wouldn't have found out about it any other way, am I a solicited vote? Absolutely. The idea that a single user can invalidate a survey by informing other legal voting users that the poll is taking place shows that the poll's consensus is limited to a small section of users and does not accurately show the opinion of the vast majority of wikipedians. A secret poll does not generate or test for consensus beyond the group that is aware of the poll. Seraphim 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Simply being informed, or even being informed with a degree of bias by the informer, doesn't necessitate that the voter's interpretation and opinion of the issue is at all influenced. Smeggysmeg 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not appropriate. This is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony's notice, which Hipocrite thinks is appropriate, deserves an NPOV tag. (If I'd seen it there, I would have attached one.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
H your example of an appropriate post is a great example of what your claiming it isn't. Read what tony said "Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll. An attempt to end the userbox wars. --Tony Sidaway 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)". An attempt to end the userbox wars??? This poll was no such thing. All it would accomplish is moving userboxes out of template space. Plus posting it on the Current_Surveys's page targets specifically the users that go to the current survey's page, which is a biased group, a group that enjoys voting on all polls. Simply informing users of the poll by any other method then a broadcast message(which is impossible) is solicitation since you are going after a targeted subset of users. Seraphim 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone re-close the poll for me? Tony has removed the notice but as you can see here Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Poll, the closure time has been listed for days. Even if the result is disputed no additional votes should be added at this time.--God Ω War 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

God of War was probably acting in good faith, but we don't do things this way on Wikipedia. The poll is open to anyone who wants to contribute. There is no time limit--it is an informal straw poll. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah tony's right there is no reason to close it, however after 2 weeks it's extremely obvious that there is a large group that opposes it. So obviously the proposed policy cannot be put into place claiming that it represents consensus. Seraphim 22:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony's wrong. There is a reason to close the poll, as it's clear that a positive consensus will never be obtained except by keeping it open until all opposed have forgotten about it and then stuffing the "ballot box". That's the only plausible benefit to leaving the poll open as a poll. This discussion page still may serve a purpose. (And, yes, I am WP:AGF.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to closing this poll. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The title of the page is "Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll", so it most certainly is a poll. I don't know of any relevant semantic distinction between "poll" and "vote". As for Kelly's objection, I don't understand it. The poll has been going on for two weeks now, 268 people have voted and 18 have abstained. What good will come of keeping it open indefinitely? It has been clear for over two months now that there will never be consensus on any issue relating to userboxes. Angr/talk 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to Kelly. Ashibaka tock 22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the decision to close the poll today at 20:05 was proposed a week ago at #Lets Close This Vote by User:Pathoschild and endorsed by User:Locke Cole, both supporters of the proposed policy. There were no objections to the suggestion at the time. Angr/talk 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I say close the poll as no consensus, and start working on a new policy as we usually do, until something passing as what we usually define as consensus is established. If it's Not A Poll and Only Discussion Matters, it's also irrelevant if said discussion happens in this poll or in the discussion towards an alternative proposal. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed the poll-- the arguments above are persuasive. Ashibaka tock 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind closing this poll provided that it is understood that doing so does not cause the underlying policy to be either rejected or accepted. It remains a policy under discussion. For it to be rejected, or accepted, would require a consensus, and while it appears to me that there is consensus amongst experienced Wikipedians to follow this policy, I understand that there are many people, many of whom lack experience with Wikipedia, who object to this proposed policy. Out of respect for these people, discussion should continue until either they understand the error of their ways, or some other consensus is reached. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Kelly, could you rephrase that? I don't think is was quite patronizing enough. =) StrangerInParadise 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was about to mark it "rejected" but I had similar thoughts. I'll change the proposal tag just to reflect that the poll is over. Ashibaka tock 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do now

First of all, I don't see a clear consensus on this poll. I do think, if you discounted votes that were based on errors or misunderstandings of the fundamental mission of Wikipedia, that it would be close to consensus, but I do not think anyone but Jimbo himself has the clout to judge so subtle consensus in a closely-contested poll of this magnitude—and even Jimbo's decision might be bitterly disputed.

That being the case, no consensus does not mean no policy. It is not likely even to mean that the eventual policy will not be subtantively similar to this one. It means that we keep talking about what we can agree on. -- SCZenz 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is then: what amendments would add more support than they would lose? I suspect that affirming the present clarifications in unmistakable bold letters at the top of the next proposal would be a start. It would lose some of those who want a hard line, but it should gain most of the present dissentients and all of the conditional approvers (that's four, but every little bit helps).Septentrionalis 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I might be a good idea to see what we do have consensus on. I've got a draft poll at User:Arthur Rubin/UPP. (We should specify that this poll does have a time limit in advance, as we should assume that those who voted are watching the discussion, whether or not it's accurate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't suggest getting rid of user categories. Propose getting rid of only the most offensive userboxes, while protecting the political userboxes, whether you consider them "divisive" or not. I don't expect this to happen, so I'll keep voting no until someone gets some sense. --Revolución hablar ver 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Much as I, personally, would like to keep the user categories, the affiliation categories must be removed if vote stuffing is a problem. (Did that statement of principle come from Jimbo?) I haven't look at the Catholic fiasco in detail, but I'm willing to WP:AGF that there was a problem with Catholics being solicited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not vote stuffing, it is voting. I don't mean this in the sense of voting is evil, but rather that process for deciding certain types of questions is too immature, and banning user categories only masks this symptom. Consider someting more jury-based (jury-pool, advocates and voire dire). The whole problem with those who stridently call to ban userboxes and user categories, Arthur, is that they're so lacking in imagination that banning modes of association and declaration is the best they can propose- so much so that more reasonable people are willing to consider it just to placate them. They are the new fundamentalists, who, like most fundamentalists, demonstrate through their beliefs their poor grasp of the fundamentals. StrangerInParadise 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And you complain about my tone? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not complaining, I was making an observation (omitting the smiley was an error on my part). And, yes, I am laying it on a bit thick here, but it needs to be said. The difference is that you were characterizing everyone who voted against the proposal as "deserving respect until they see the error of their ways (because so many were inexperienced)". I characterized just above only those who stridently call to ban userboxen, fair(er) game, in my view. A further observation: I have been taken to task repeatedly for the supposed bias in my note to 43 UN Wikipedians and other statements, but the point is that most of the announcements, (meta)analysis, and even arguments in official fora (not to mention my AN/I alert) have been highly-biased statements passing themselves off as neutral. The difference is that I am honest in my partisanship, and do not resent the partisanship of others, except where it pretends to neutrality. One statement of mine whose neutrality I strongly allege- that burning userboxes and sabotaging categories is vandalism- seems to draw ire for some reason. StrangerInParadise 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Make sure to talk to some of the 100 people who voted no to make sure their concerns are answered in the new draft. Ashibaka tock 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that, perhaps, we could break things down Arbcom-like to see what the support is for certain principles, and then certain proposed solutions. I'm just not sure if people have enough patience for such a time-consuming procedure.
Also, the policy should probably eventually spell out why xyz is needed and what logic it's based on, so people not so familiar with the debate can understand where it's coming from. --AySz88^-^ 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The poll proposed by Arthur Rubin looks worth a try to me. I suggest that we give it until the end of the month, and meanwhile restore any of the old political or religious userboxes that have not yet been restored. Also speedily delete any new ones that are created while voting is going on. This will restore and sustain the status quo ante while a policy is developed and provide us with a basis to get consensus on something like the policy proposal that was voted on here ... or some reasonable variation of it that takes people's concerns into account. All it needs is a show of goodwill on both sides. Metamagician3000 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrutineering

Since we're treating this as a vote **shudder** can someone with a browser faster than mine copy all the participants into a subpage with just their names and sorted main-space edit count descending, perhaps broken up per AySz88 above? I'm queasy just saying that out load. - brenneman{T}{L} 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by breaking up participants per my post? I was talking about new polls entirely, not analysis of this one. --AySz88^-^ 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you want to rank voters? The amount of edits someone has does not change their opinion. Seraphim 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Especially since there was no established suffrage for this poll. ... aa:talk 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who's seen me around knows I'm frequently the defending very new users, but let's be pragmatic: someone with (say) ten namespace edits simply hasn't been around long enough to understand fully the implications. We've had some campaigning attatched to "welcome" messages. It's not "elitism" or "screw the n00bs" to suggest that iff it turns out that placing the cut-off at some adsurdly low number makes a difference, that we do so retroactivly. I note that there were one ot two notes about users with very low edit counts already, but didn't see if this had been done systematically, so the point may well be moot.
brenneman{T}{L} 05:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it is that if the user has found this page and decided to post on it his opinion is more valid then the other 999,800 users that didn't vote on this. Also the idea that people with very low edit counts don't grasp the situation is alittle silly, when some people with high edit counts apparently didn't fully understand what they were voting on before they voted (just going by some of the posts). Seraphim 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Like I said, it's probably moot, but I've run my "strip names" script and the results are at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll/Bare list. Doing edit counts takes me ages so I probably won't do that, but if someone with nifty pop-ups wanted to, at the very least it could allay concerns anyone might have about this being "n00b-jacked".
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
BrokenSegue went through and found 1 user with 50 edits, and 1 user with less then that. 2 users does not a noob-jacking make :) Seraphim 06:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL! - noob-jacking - thats hilarious. We should use this term more often. Oh n0es teh poll has been noob-jacked!--God Ω War 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Given the highly uncivil comments especially towards opposers, using a secondary account is no vice, provided there is no double-voting. Although I am interested in GMaxwell's analysis, it would be risky to draw hard conclusions from the ultra-low edit-count. I edited anon for years and hundreds of edits. That said, noob-jacking is hilarious. StrangerInParadise 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
"We've been noob-jacked!" ..<ROFL> that's a riot.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this raises some questions about the results. I minimum of 100 edits is very reasonable for a poll like this. -- SCZenz 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a novel poll, period. It was an attempt by the old guard to impose a new regime on new users after a period of outright provoking them, and they rightly fought back. StrangerInParadise 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It was an attempt by Wikipedians to maintain Wikipedia's focus as an encyclopedia. We will succeed in some fashion, I promise. If your position is that new users have the right to come here and make the site into something else, then you're just wrong. -- SCZenz 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't. The policy did 3 things, one move userboxes into user space (which is still wikipedia), 2 protect all non-offencive userboxes from deletion, and 3 get rid of alot of user categories. Nothing it did was to maintain wp's focus as an encyclopedia, it changes none of the visible content, just moves stuff around. The Policy failed to reach consensus because it wasn't so much a policy, but an injunction. Seraphim 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I know my IP shows atleast 200 edits or so before I registered, also like I said before, there are 999,800 users that didn't vote on this, the fact that they managed to find this poll says they are paying attention and interested. Also I haven't found the part on WP:CON that says the opinion of new users don't count. Also if your going to toss out all new users's you should also toss out the comments of the supporters that don't completly support the policy, they just voted support for the sake of getting something about userboxes passed, or posted comments that show they don't actually understand the proposal. (just a quick list #2,#4,#9,#10,#11,#13,#14,#18,#20,#26,#32,#34,#37,#43,#46,47,48,51,60,65,66,67,69,73,76,78,80,81,91,94,99,100,101,102,105,106,113,114,117,128,131,133,144,151,155 all either thought the proposal did something else or they didn't completly agree with the proposal as it currently is expecting to change it later) Seraphim 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, then we'd also have to throw out all the oppose votes that look like they thought the proposal did something else (and yes, I'm inclined to assume that all opposers saying "don't ban userboxes" did not understand it). But then, we might just scrap the poll altogether and just outright guess what the consensus on userboxes is... Anyway, I am highly doubtful that all these voter evaluating will change anything since it is perfectly clear just from having a look at the poll without any counting that there is, in fact, no consensus since large sections of both camps, including established users and newbies, have rather good reasoning. In cases like this, I'd rather put the blame on the poll and/or the proposal instead of the voters. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe people, such as I, are using their "userboxes" to express themselves so they can be better understood. Ignorance of a persons background only causes mistrust. The use of templates is a clear way to tell people what you think in a well articulated manner. making people learn HTML in order to be able to express themselves is like making them jump back into the dark ages before broadband internet. Shock Horror! Ansell 12:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's quite possible to say "I'm a moron" with plain text. User boxes aren't required.--Gmaxwell 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ultra-low edit-count voters

These are article edit counts for users with under 60 article edits as of a day ago when I last updated the metastats. --Gmaxwell 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this just include the Oppose voters, or did you check the Support as well? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
He has both in there, the bottom user is a supporter. Seraphim 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving On

Since this failed I have come up with a solution that should make everyone happy. See Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.. I will draw this up in a policy proposal tomorrow--God Ω War 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother it won't get anywhere. I've already shown a proof of concept that shows that you can use images to achieve the same effect. Seraphim 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading, I thought about that too.--God Ω War 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, but it would be impossible to actually do. Number 1 it's a coding change, not policy ,which always takes forever, number 2 it's trivial to just edit off the flag do your thing then edit it back on, and number 3 for images there is no "what links here" button for you to disable, it just shows all the links automatically. Seraphim 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stranger's proposal

But, hey, what about my proposal?

  • Give up on preventing association, declaration and notification, instead enable it
  • Create new namespace which has shared user templates and userlist functionality built-in (less than two weeks to do, accomplishes NPOV-ification of category and template namespaces)
  • Develop real process to deal with decision-making, based on juries, notifications, et cetera
  • Lead by example on NPOV, not by decree

Unlike the efforts of UPP proponents, this preserves Wikipedia's culture, rather than destroys it, in part by recognizing that it continues to evolve. Wikipedia is a project with a community, but that community deserves the proper tools.

StrangerInParadise 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly asking this: Is not association, declaration and notification already available, supported and encouraged through the WikiProject system? If that system isn't sufficient, what differences are you proposing? I think this may be helpful in clarifying your proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it a sad sign of the times that an honest question must be preceded onto the field with a big white flag? Yes, it is an honest question, and a very good one. I wanted to think about it a bit. One way to think about it is that if the WikiProject system were sufficient, WP:Userboxes could remain unchanged. WikiProject should be about neutrality: Gun control issues, rather than Pro-gun control. The userbox and usercategory phenomena is both declared-bias and casual, two essential elements not supported by WikiProject. "...and I'll giv'em up when they pry my cold dead fingers from'em!" =) StrangerInParadise 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly is, and a shame without a doubt. The differences you mention are quite helpful. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "if the WikiProject system were sufficient, WP:Userboxes could remain unchanged", but since I think we agree that the WikiProject system is not sufficient for what many people want to do, it's probably not a critical point. Regarding the casual aspect - that's a Really Good Point, and somthing that really ought to (and can be) be fixed in regards to the WikiProject system; your thoughts on the details of what makes Userboxes more casual than WikiProjects would be greatly appreciated. Regarding "declared-bias" - this is one (maybe even, the central) disputed point with regards to userboxes vs other systems. I'll have to think and read some before I can really lay out the various arguments that have been made on that subject; help finding them (mailing list archives, VP history, etc, are places to look) would be appreciated also. Thanks for the response. 134.10.12.23 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)

[edit] Where do we go from here

How goes the next draft? I think one of the problems of this poll was that it was too ambiguously worded. I have an idea for a much simpler version two:

The Template: and Category: namespaces are for encyclopedia-related content only. This includes encyclopedic content (e.g. infoboxes), encyclopedia maintenance (e.g. {{blocked}}), and encyclopedic collaboration (e.g. WikiProjects). All other uses of Template: and Category: are prohibited.

--Cyde Weys 15:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A common comment seemed to revolve around having hard-coded userboxes in a list at Wikipedia:Userboxes, do you want to make any reference to this?
Also I have noticed Categories being used for user purposes such as sockpuppets, the current wording would exclude this kind of use.
Otherwise it seems nice and simple, but I'm sure there'll be some opposition. |→ Spaully°τ 15:58, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
I like it. It's a pretty tough, but at least it's simple, fair and unambiguous. However, this only has the slightest chance to fly if the tradeoff is being much more lenient in userspace than the no-consensus policy proposed. By the way, sockpuppet categories are a maintenance categories. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If it's implemented, it will mean moving all the Babel boxes to some other namespace, since they are currently in Template space but don't meet your criteria. I suppose a bot could do it relatively quickly, but the question remains where to move them to. Angr/talk 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Babel would fall under encyclopedic collaboration. Actually, Cyde's proposal strikes me as not much different from Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes. —Andux␅ 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, maybe, certainly not in all. In my own case, my level of German might fall under encyclopedic collaboration since I can work on translating articles out of German into English, but my level of Lower Sorbian and Welsh have nothing to do with encyclopedic collaboration, and putting those Babel boxes on my page really is no more helpful to the encyclopedia than saying "This user likes carrots", and considerably less helpful than saying "This user is an Anglican" (which was speedy-deleted under T1 for some unfathomable reason). So where do we draw the line? For any language xx, User xx-3 and higher fall under encyclopedic collaboration, while User xx-2 and lower don't? Or what? Angr/talk 08:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The only difficulty I see with it is that the community has moved a significant part of itself— a part it finds useful and is willing to fight for— into Template/Category space, and Cyde's proposal, like the others, offers them no safe, functional place within the project to go. In A technical proposal which would make sense, Two issues confused and Stranger's proposal, I outline an alternative.
The goal should be establishing the same NPOV standard for Main, Category, Template, and Help. The result would be that one could take just those namespaces and have a functional, expandable, NPOV encyclopedia. This would protect the product, rather than try to change the collaborative culture of the community attached to the project by fiat. This would simplify the administrative model, and take administrators out of the hair-splitting business of determining what is useful for the project, what is NPOV— the vast majority would gladly self-police. Culture war here is— demonstrably— the wrong answer.
StrangerInParadise 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that this proposal really has nothing to do specifically with userboxes or userspace. It solely addresses the issue of what Template: and Category: space are for. A better name for it might be "Template and Category Policy". And I don't support the various technical "solutions" that protect userboxes in these spaces because that's just making exceptions for userboxes, making it seem like an endorsement, which is the opposite of what we should be doing. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I still want to know what your proposal has in store for the Babel boxes (the original userboxes dealing specifically with language skills, which gave rise to all the other userboxes). I don't think they meet your suggested criteria for Template and Category space, so does that mean they should be deleted, or moved to a different namespace (and if so, which), or what? Angr/talk 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Babel boxes would qualify under templates that help build the encyclopedia, so they could stay. I'd like to point out that this "helps the encyclopedia" thing is rather strict, and wouldn't allow userboxes like, "This user is XXXXXX" where XXXXXX is something POV that may tangentially be related to writing the encyclopedia because it may mean that user knows more on that topic. --Cyde Weys 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd only support this if it would not distinguish between babel templates/categories and other templates/categories. Only if the rule is is very narrowly defined do we gain anything from it. No exceptions, or we just continue fighting over the definition of "help building the encyclopedia". -- grm_wnr Esc 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As I said above, while my knowledge of German might help build the encyclopedia, my knowledge of Lower Sorbian certainly doesn't. Yet both are expressed through Babel boxes. Where do we draw the line? Angr/talk 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So you guys just think all userspace-intended templates and categories should be deleted to prevent any sort of loophole? --Cyde Weys 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement on Wikipedia is generally via humans, not bots.. thus there is no risk of loopholes. :) --Gmaxwell 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. I don't think we need to be so careful about closing possible fringe cases as to outlaw even Babel cases. We can just name them as a specific exception and be strict on all other uses of templates. Anything trying to pretend to be like a Babel box to squeak by (e.g. "This user likes English") would be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 22:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you will meet a lot of resistance if you write a policy in such a way as to treat Babel boxes as a special case. Don't forget it was the presence of Babel boxes that started the whole userbox trend in the first place. Once the Babel boxes appeared for "standard" ISO-recognized languages, it wasn't long before userboxes for various accents and dialects appeared (e.g. {{Chowdah}}, which has been around in code since August and in Template space since October. And once people started noticing the humorous language-related userboxes, they started writing other humorous userboxes for other skills, and interests, and beliefs, and soon there were hundreds of Babel boxes describing everything anyone could ever want to say about themselves. My point is, there is no clear line between what does and does not "help the encyclopedia". I am not advocating deleting the Babel boxes, but then I'm against deleting userboxes that state a person's religious or political beliefs, too. All I'm saying is the proposal you made above seems to suggest Babel boxes do not belong in Template space, but if you rewrite it in such a way as to include them but no other userboxes, (1) you will be accused of arbitrariness and/or hypocrisy, or (2) it will leave the door open for people to interpret the exception made for Babel boxes in such a way that all the userboxes you hate so much will come back, or (most likely) (3) both. Angr/talk 23:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the proposed rule is a bit on shaky ground. I can't think of any (obvious) argument about how {{user infobox}} or {{userpage}} are part of the encyclopedia or its building efforts (they are probably more part of the community), but I don't see why prohibiting them would be productive towards building an encyclopedia either. I also think the original logic would also have to apply to the Image namespace, where there are also plenty of images which aren't in the encyclopedia but don't exactly harm the project. If something is no harm to the encyclopedia but helps the community building it, it shouldn't be discouraged and there's no harm in allowing it. There wouldn't be any place to put such things if they were moved out of those namespaces.
In terms of keeping encyclopedia material and community material seperate, splitting Template/Image/Category space makes more sense, since it maintains a similar functionality and doesn't seem to discourage the aforementioned things (neutral to the encyclopedia but helpful to the community). --AySz88^-^ 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsource userspace to community.wikimedia.org?

While we're talking of grand technical solutions, I have an even grander castele in the sky: Outsource the userspace to a shared project like the Commons (think users.wikimedia.org). Leave only encyclopedic content only on en.wikiepdia.org. This "only" depends on a good single sign-on solution. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Agreed. Sure, I'd prefer a Christian republic, but this separation of church and state idea you have seems like the best solution we could hope for.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strongly Agreed. The userspace being separate and independent from the many Wikis seems like a great idea in itself. I have three (03) separate user-pages: one for Wiki-PT (my main userpage); one for the Commons; and yet another for my contributions here. It would be great to have, instead, a single page for all Wikis. - - - In addition, this hypothetical users.wikimedia.org would be much better if it accepts that no individual possesses something like a "neutral" point of view. I honestly believe that providing to all users good tools to declare their POVs and the ability to organize themselves around these POVs in an honest and open fashion is the best way to achieve the goal of NPOV in the encyclopedia. (PS.: Each user's duty to edit all the articles with the goal of a neutral point of view would be kept, of course! A user well aware of his own POV is better equipped to not let this bias get in the way of his objectivity.) --Leinad ¬ pois não? 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Conditionally agreed. Hmmm, the entire userspace, including talk pages, with no userpages on the individual projects? I could be persuaded, provided the means of declaration, association and negotiation were not interfered with, i.e., we do not refight this whole matter on users.wikimedia.org. This is appealing, as the community would not be dissolved and scattered, only to commute back to sanitized, sterile userpages. BTW, neither of our proposals are that problematic technically, and both may be done (my functionality to be added to users.wikimedia.org instead of Wikipedia, et al). Finally, as a friendly amendment, could I suggest community.wikimedia.org? StrangerInParadise 22:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Agree. The fact that we have User pages at all seems to be promoting a bias. However, it is important to have declared POV's so that people can understand the reasons for some things, even though we are still required to adopt the optimal NPOV strategy when editing official Wikipedia Articles. Moving things out of the en.wikipedia.org domain would enable people to have a clear distinction between what is designated for NPOV and what is designated for declaring their POV's. Of course, the united login feature is essential for this to proceed. Ansell 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Agree. I don't like having to maintain 6 diferent user pages. Gerard Foley 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Agree. Is this page the only one with discussion about this proposal, or has it been brought up in other places? TheJabberwock 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose I agree a common userspace between projects would be nice, but there would also be difficulties. What language would the common user space be in? Everything added to userspace from wikispace would add extra complexity as a result, eg adding a vandalism warning template would also have to specify what language you are warning the user with. Links to wikispace would always require explict project prefixes. Talk pages for people who contribute to multiple projects would have intermingled languages. And if the rules on what users could post on their userpages is unchanged, it would result in added complexity for the majority of users with no great benefit. I'm assuming that most contributers contribute on one main language (no source for this, but I would be surprised if that wasn't the case) Regards, MartinRe 19:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Operating some userpage site is outside of the charter of the foundation, I opposed that notion strongly. If any of you want to run some personals wiki, I'd be glad to help you setup mediawiki... Or it could probably go on Wikicities. --Gmaxwell 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So why is it that User: space is inside the charter but not a separate domain. It would have the content that is inside wikipedia now. Ansell 04:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The User space now on Wikipedia is intended to be used by editors and writers of the encyclopedia to keep notes, plans, and otherwise help them to do the writing and editing they are doing. The proposed namespace would not be organized for that purpose, that's why it would not be under the charter. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Right. I understand the confusion here, it is because so many of our (esp new) users have no clue what the user namespace is for. --Gmaxwell 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
JesseW, I don't believe the idea is to exclude the community.wikimedia.org from the charter. To answer Gmaxwell, this is not about fragmenting the community into a thousand shards, this is about recognizing that the community itself is not under an NPOV obligation, only it's products are. As to the idea that this proposal is somehow negated by the notion that operating some userpage site is outside of the charter of the foundation: Wikipedia is a project with a community, not vis versa, however to undertake this and other large-scale projects authorized by the Foundation requires a community. To deny that community- an assemblage of a million intelligent, passionate, motivated human beings- modes of declaration, association and notification is neither realistic nor desireable. Scattering them to various new wikis is far more divisive than simply allowing them to be human in community and governing actual contributions to various projects. Again, the likelihood is that people will be far more self-policing, taking admins largely out of the NPOV policing/userbox censoring/category depopulating business. It is imperative that administrative and editorial powers be separate.StrangerInParadise 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see at all where it's been demonstrated that a community, in any strong sense of the word, is actually required. There are plenty of large volunteer organizations where their is no more 'community' than in a fairly typical for-profit company. You are confused, just because we don't pay people to edit doesn't mean we should accept them acting unprofessionally. Wikipedia has a serious mission, it's not a MMORPG. There is no reason to believe that we couldn't continue, or wouldn't benefit, from imposing a little more direction on things. If you were to go volunteer for the red-cross they wouldn't permit you to plaster your workspace with rants and screeds and offensive content... especially not if your workspace was visible to the public... if you did they'd ask you to stop, and if you refused they'd show you the door. Our behavior should be no different in that regard. --Gmaxwell 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
(Sidenote: regardless of the recent milestone, don't fool yourself into thinking there are anywhere near a million Wikipedians. I suspect about 900,000 of the registered usernames are Willy on Wheels sockpuppets. Angr/talk 08:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
Actually according to the statistics page, only 20,000 users are "active" meaning they edit more than 5 times per week.--God Ω War 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess it was a mistake to bring the idea up in this discussion. It was originally intended to serve a different purpose, namely that of licensing terms for userpage images (a userspace wiki could allow cc-nc, for example). It would also remove the need for multiple user pages across projects, and keep the category namespace of the Wikipedias cleaner. It was not intended as some kind of myspace lite where anythig goes. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Our goal is to produce free content, why the heck would we be interested in hosting content that was cc-nc or cc-nd or other such nonsense? --Gmaxwell 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To keep it from being a new MySpace, there could be a requirement that if the user has no Wikipedia-space edits in the last 90 days his user page is deleted, and user name will require rebooting by an admin to get started again.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 13:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Even better, the IP address would also need rebooting by an admin to get started again. This would have the additional benefit of stopping some sockpuppeteers. If someone creates a sockpuppet, goes off and forgets about it, in 90 days his main username is also blocked, because of having the same IP address.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for people who work in several languages this is absolutely horrible idea.  Grue  20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I don't see why this problem, for those to whom it is one, can't be solved by installing redirects to en:User:Username (or whatever language you prefer) and the associated talk pages. Those who prefer separate user pages can have that too. Septentrionalis 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought the MAIN point of this idea was to solve the userbox issue. That it does, and well (IMHO).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
How does it do that? It just changes the URL, I don't see how that matters at all in the context of solving the issue. --Gmaxwell 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, because user-space would no longer have anything to do with Wikipedia-space, no more userbox templates on Wikipedia at all (they would all be at community.wikimedia.org). I called it separation of church and state before. That's what it would be: the NPOV article site would be institutionally unrelated to POV community site. Do you not believe that POV church members can be NPOV bureaucrats in the government? Same idea.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Dubya. (Sorry, I just had to)--God Ω War 17:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What if two users share the same username on different projects - who would get a userpage? Ian13/talk 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Space already exists

My Space already exists. Why can't people who are complaining here simply open a free account there (and other places) and provide a link to that on their Wikipedia user page? Just as the userbox caught on, so too could a simple link at the top of your user page catch on, and at another site you can make any association (friend list) you want. Go for it. Get all your friends to join the movement! Link to where you are in control. World > Internets > The Internet > WWWeb > Wikipedia > Wikipedia User Space. WAS 4.250 04:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Outsourcing to somesubdomain.wikicities.com

Why not make a Wikicity for all users wishing to express themselves more than wikipedia allows? This would have to be a bit of a privileged Wikicity however - for near-seamless integration, I think of the following:

  1. User are allowed to redirect their userpage on Wikipedia to the user Wikicity using special syntax. This would be the only technical change to Wikipedia itself. If we don't do this, it's not really an attractive alternative.
  2. Wikipedia adopts a strict policy on usage of templates and categories in user space, like the one Cyde peoposed above.
  3. Account creation on the user Wikicity is limited to users requesting it on Wikipedia (so that the usernames stay synchronized). A bit like the requests for permission on meta, maybe with a bit more automation. It's reasonable to request some effort to get more functionality.
  4. The user Wikicity automatically creates backlinks to all relevant pages on Wikipedia (the user's watchlist, preferences, contributions, talk page, whatlinkshere, etc.). All namespaces apart from the User namespace redirect to their Wikipedia equivalent; So do non-existant user namespace pages.

This has a few benefits:

  • Minimal changes to Wikipedia itself
  • Compatible software - Any markup learned on the user wikicity is helpful to Wikipedia
  • Wikicities is GFDL, so any sandboxes or similar on the user Wikicity are Wikipedia-compatible.
  • Wikicities is tangentially related to Wikimedia, so we don't use some site totally outside our community.
  • Wikicities, however, allows some restrictions on image use (cc-nc, cc-nd), making some people more comfortable with contributing personal pictures.
  • Wikicities is not bound by NPOV and the foundation charter, though.
  • Wikicities has advertising, making the effort worthwhile for the host.
  • Anyone not interested in this project is, of course, free to keep a basic userpage here.
  • Other Wikimedia projects can adopt this approach too, making the Wikicity a shared user space.

Any comments for or against this? This is just I wild idea I had just now, it may be half-baked, but I think it seems reasonable to me.

-- grm_wnr Esc 14:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Bold Oppose. Sorry - I just don't understand what this would help. It would make everything all rather confusing, and if people want a homepage/myspace, they can do that themselves - it's not for Wikia/Wikimedia Foundation to supply it. Athough I do see the possible advantages of the groupness and relation, I can't see it as worthwhile, for a start, which talk page would I use, and would they notice it there? Ian13/talk 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This proposal is merely deflecting the problem onto another project. Seraphim 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but to a project where it wouldn't be a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If people are simply redirecting their user/talk pages to a page on another wiki it's still a Wikipedia problem. This seems to be basically "we don't want to deal with it so lets just dump the problem elsewhere" which is not a good path to go down. Seraphim 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Part of the reason that there is no POV-pushing cabal in everyday encyclopedia dealings is that there is no feasible vector for it. Something like this doesn't seem to make it any better for those who dislike userboxes and their possible detrimental effects, but quite a bit worse, since Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Jimbo would simply lose any possible jurisdiction over the pages in case something undesirable happens. --AySz88^-^ 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)