Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes/Archive Two

message: I would suggest copyright images do not qualify as fair use when used in user boxes, and so there should be a policy against the use of such images in this way.  Hiding  talk 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, they don't. Rob Church Talk 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about templates? Someone recently removed :Image:CompassRose.gif from the Anglican portion of , on the grounds that it's a "non-free" image, but no one seems to mind it being on  and . (Or have I just violated WP:BEANS?) --Angr (tɔk) 15:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some images from User templates yesterday. Please note that User page content may not include "fair use" images. Templates made for user pages are subject to this Wikipedia policy. Templates that are made for Wikipedia encyclopedic content may contain fair use images. TCorp 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. my bad. you can't use fair use images in ANY tamplate. TCorp 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe so, but I think most would not agree with that analysis. Further, if it came down to it I'd rather have boxes with only PD/GFDL images than no boxes, that is, I'd give up fair use images gladly to keep the boxes themselves. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright images and user boxes 

message: Or at least not a seperate policy. What is allowed on a userpage should not be banned from userboxes (except for things like WP:AMT that apply to all templates for technical reasons) and conversely what is allowed in a userbox should not be something that would not be allowed on a userpages. Hence the logical thing to do is not to create a seperate policy just for userboxes, but to add a section on templates on userpages in general to WP:UP and promote it to policy if need be. WP:UP already says that if the comunity ask you to take down something you have on your userpage you should comply, so it's not like it is a complete free for all zone. WP:FU, WP:NPA, WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL all still apply and should be enforced regardles of wether the offending content is in a userbox or not. I would encourage the userbox project to try and make some checks on the creation of new templates though. Templates that only interest one or two people should be made by substring the userbox template rather than creating yet another template page to do the job. "One shot" templates should as aways be substed and deleted, or at least "userified".
On a slightly related issue I think Wikipedia:User categorisation and Wikipedia:Wikiproject userboxes should be merged or at least cooperate closesly to "police" the creation of new categories and templates for userpages. Much like Wikipedia:Wikiproject stub sorting works for stub templates and categories today. People who detest that kind of beurocracy could still be free to create and subst one shot boxes based on the "meta" userbox template, but creation of new categories and template pages should idealy go though some kind of aproval at the relevant project(s) first. --Sherool (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately Wikipedia:Fair use has that covered with "Fair use images ... should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages."  (that clause was there at least as far back as Nov 2005)  Templates are different from user pages, because 1) a violation of fair use in a template gets multiplied as it's placed on many different pages, and 2) as WP:FAIR indicates, use in templates may be by definition moving into a gray area of fair use law or an outright violation of fair use law.  --Interiot 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto.  Iamvered 05:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't rely think a policy is needed 

message: Proponents of this policy fear that userboxes will lead to Wikipedians with similar POVs networking and uniting for common agendas.
My primary problem with this argument is its verifiability.
Put it this way. Imagine things had happened the other way around. Imagine we had never had userboxes and were now debating whether they should be permitted for the first time. We would have to deal with speculative questions like this. If we have userboxes, will our NPOV and encyclopaedic nature be compromised?
But we have had userboxes for some time. We don't need to speculate; we need only look around. We have userboxes. Are our values compromised? They've been around for a while. Do we see rampant partisanship and POV? I submit that we do not.
Userboxes are more "Wiki" than "Pedia", to be sure. What I mean is that they do not serve our encyclopaedic function-this is perfectly true. However, I believe that they serve a community building purpose--a no less valid part of the Wikipedian experience. I have tonnes of userboxes on my page. They are an integral part of my userpage. Do I seek out others with similar views? Absolutely. Just yesterday, I was touched to see how much I have in common with (and how much I differ from) User:Canadianism. But does this mean that I am going to start forming caucuses of Anglican/autistic/pacifist/NDP/pro-life/queer users? I plead that I can make my views public without allowing them to seep inappropriately into the article namespace.
That is my tuppence worth. If I have made leaps, assumptions, or false conclusions then by all means bring them to my attention. Carolynparrishfan 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This "Networking" being blamed on userboxes is somewhat lame to say the least. There's a wikipedia NPOV policy already in place for encyclopedic content. User pages need not be NPOV. And even if someone wanted to find someone else with the same beliefs, or say administrative privileges, to gang up on for example the evolution page, or gang up on pages like these, there's IRC and a whole list of other resources that are far more effective than userboxes one could use. TCorp 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think the IRC, email, and off-Wikipedia-forum networking is a FAR greater threat than userboxes,   categories, and on-Wikipedia networking could ever be. At least on-Wikipedia methods are all transparent. I've been disturbed by the role that various IRC channels seem to have played in coordinating actions in the recent wheel wars and related RfC's. CarbonCopy (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree as well. It's shocking that the administrators present during the conversations in IRC don't respond to these coordinating actions. Gflores Talk 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I third this. The IRC is a useful tool at times, granted. However, due to the policy that publicly posting quotes from the chat is a bannable offense, Wikipedians cannot be held accountable for what they say in the channel, and any "coordinating actions" aren't readily apparant on Wikipedia. I understand some of the reasoning behind that rule, but I also cannot see such a lack of acountability being anything but problematic in an environment of massive collobaration. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fourthed. There's a policy on not quoting IRC?? Talk about your secret cabals... no, I don't believe in them here necessarily, being accused of being in several cabals in real life, but the appearance of impropriety is troublesome, to say the least. IRC/chat communications are anti-wiki, and the moreso if they are unrecordable/opaque. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the IRC channel really is a secret cabal, it must be the most wiki-esque secret cabal in the world, since anybody can log onto it. Don't get me wrong, I think the no-IRC quotes policy is stupid, but I think you're attaching a significance and dark quality to the channel that does not exist. And God only knows why we're talking about this here... Lord Bob 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was definitely organizing in favor of the contested deletions and in support of certain individuals occuring on IRC during the conflict - and that is just on the official channel.  Others exist.  Ironically, one of the reasons given justifying emergency deletion of userboxes and cited as excuses for extrajudicial blocks during the conflict was the "improper" use of userboxes to recuit participants into the conflict. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone who comes to Wikipedia.org has all of the tools at their disposal to edit the encyclopedia, take part in policy discussions, etc. A browser and (maybe) JavaScript) are the only requirements. IRC is an often-arcane, unreliable, confusing means of communication for non-techies. Also, IRC happens in real-time, without the chance to view it later (even in the history) as happens here and to a lesser extent on the mailing list. That's the difference, I think, and why I thought it was worth mentioning (since a large part of this discussion centers around the idea of Wikipedian categories being used for ballot stuffing). Plus I was just purely surprised to find out such a policy existed - buried on meta, apparently. The fact that you can be banned from #wikipedia for publishing private logs doesn't help, IMO. Sometimes the appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as the actual improper behavior itself would be, if not moreso. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy problem

message: Userboxes is plain fun. It is childish but truly human to wear labeled clothes. Still a cop will ask you to remove offensive/illegal terms or pictures showing on your shirt. No more policies needed IMhO.
--Harvestman 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This free speech is regulated. I thought swearing wasn't allowed on userboxes except to a certain extent. I am against Wikiswearing except when it's directed at oneself (such as the "This user speaks Bullshit" userboxes.) Plus, unregulated free speech doesn't nessisarily mean anarchy. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has this applied to userpages? The only thing i canthink of is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Circeus 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the existing policy and guideline stuff, I don't see userpages as being totally excempt from Wikipedia policy.  Indeed,  WP:UP is a guideline, not policy.  Userpages are allowed more latitude, for reasons noted, but they are not a general, personal web space.  They exist first and foremost to help the cause of writing an encyclopedia.  This is my take, obviously but I think it has objective merit, in that we should make sure that everything we do helps create a better encyclopedia.  If something isn't about that goal, it really doesn't belong here.  Yes, that means childish behavior does not belong here.  Sorry.  :)  --DragonHawk 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Childish but true

message: I created a new abbreviation for this policy - WP:UBP --God of War 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Redirect 

message: :Moved from main page to talk, as it is in dispute -- nae'blis (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about not regulating userboxes 

message: I have a question regarding userboxes, one that I don't think has been satisfactorily answered. How are userboxes of any kind helpful or relevant to the writing of an encyclopedia? From something as general as gender to something as specific as which Star Wars bounty hunter one would shoot first, what difference does it make? Soltak | Talk 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question from [[User:Soltak|Soltak]] 

message: OK, I am gleaming from what has been said on the fair use issue that people are afraid that a wholesale use of copyright images on user pages in the manner of a webpage could result.  I can see that argument.
So, I would suggest that policy be amended to permit the fair use of copyrighted images in userboxes only. Any other use of copyrighted images on user pages (unless the user actually holds the copyright) should result in the usual procedures requesting that such images be removed. --CJ Marsicano 16:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A stronger fair use image argument, with a compromise suggestion 

message: * Nominate Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense for deletion. It would be a WP:POINT violation for me to do this (as I briefly considered doing). But if you actually believe that silly and unencyclopedic material has no place in any namespace, you have no excuse.
* Provide a reasonable argument for how "silly" userboxes are worse for the encyclopedia than BJAODN.
(Yes, I realize this doesn't really apply to "POV" userboxes. I'm still working on that metaphor.) ~~ N (t/c) 04:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to gain support from at least myself, if not from a number of editors besides myself, for that view (and for that criteria) you are going to need to positively demonstrate that the mere fact that something COULD be used a certain way implies that it definitely (or highly probably) WILL be used that way. IMHO. Because IRC can be used that way and so can email and so can telephones and so can off wiki discussion groups. ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about WP:TfD#Template:User allboxes?  It is clearly designed with this purpose in mind and is well suited for it. --- Charles Stewart 02:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, I see where you made that assertion in the TfD, but I'm not clear on how you substantiated it, as I believe I pointed out there as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what kind of information would constitute substantiation for you.  To be honest, I think it is not possible for me to convince you that any use of userboxes could ever justify deletion. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Postscript Wrt to IRC, email, etc, if there were technologies that could be effectively used to subvert poll-syacking operations organised through these channels, I would probably support them. --- Charles Stewart 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just ban their use. Seems simple enough to me. You're going after the tool, not the user. Guns don't kill people, and userboxes don't stack votes. ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ban email?  How? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *And the case is (if possible) stronger than with guns, which may well  be the most dangerous tool for their purpose. Here, two other tools are available: the cat (which we could also ban, I suppose) and the vote on any poll on the issue, say at Project Userbox. Shall we delete them too? ;-? Septentrionalis 04:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *:I propose banning categories and distinctive images as well as templtes when they are well suited for poll-stacking.  For various reasons, I don't think polls work well for poll-stackers, mainly because past polling behaviour will not be a good guide to how they react to when it is suggested they particpate in a new poll. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you're really opposed to "silly" userboxes, then either: 

message: I'm pretty indifferent to the whole attack template thing: until userspace attacks are speediable, I don't see why templates that are only used in userspace should be treated any differently.  But templates, categories and images that can be used effectively for poll-stacking operations are a different matter: I endorse all uses of WP:IAR to delete these on sight until we have a speedy criterion to cover them. --- Charles Stewart 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to gain support from at least myself, if not from a number of editors besides myself, for that view (and for that criteria) you are going to need to positively demonstrate that the mere fact that something COULD be used a certain way implies that it definitely (or highly probably) WILL be used that way. IMHO. Because IRC can be used that way and so can email and so can telephones and so can off wiki discussion groups. ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about WP:TfD#Template:User allboxes?  It is clearly designed with this purpose in mind and is well suited for it. --- Charles Stewart 02:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, I see where you made that assertion in the TfD, but I'm not clear on how you substantiated it, as I believe I pointed out there as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what kind of information would constitute substantiation for you.  To be honest, I think it is not possible for me to convince you that any use of userboxes could ever justify deletion. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Postscript Wrt to IRC, email, etc, if there were technologies that could be effectively used to subvert poll-syacking operations organised through these channels, I would probably support them. --- Charles Stewart 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just ban their use. Seems simple enough to me. You're going after the tool, not the user. Guns don't kill people, and userboxes don't stack votes. ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ban email?  How? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *And the case is (if possible) stronger than with guns, which may well  be the most dangerous tool for their purpose. Here, two other tools are available: the cat (which we could also ban, I suppose) and the vote on any poll on the issue, say at Project Userbox. Shall we delete them too? ;-? Septentrionalis 04:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *:I propose banning categories and distinctive images as well as templtes when they are well suited for poll-stacking.  For various reasons, I don't think polls work well for poll-stackers, mainly because past polling behaviour will not be a good guide to how they react to when it is suggested they particpate in a new poll. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are poll-stackers ''silly''? 

message: For all of those that say POV and political userboxes are divise and promote factioning of the wikipedia community, I say this. In the last few days, 4 RfCs have been made (2 approved - with Kelly Martin's having to be reconducted because the 275KB of discussion became incivil), 2 RfAr (admin misconduct and wheel waring - both undecided rejected), and 2 series of mass out-of-process deletions. It has shown a much darker side to the community ("The community is not more important than the encyclopedia... Get on with what we're here for, or sod off"), and has forced 2 people to leave (Firebug and Joe Sewell) and has contributed to others, and lead to many leaving the WikiProject. But more than that, it has destroyed all sense of trust and support of those who are empowered. User are making backups of userboxes for fear that admins will delete them. Personal Attacks are rampant and more people are likely to quit if they get dragged down with this userbox things. Deleting people's userboxes is much more harmful to the community than letting them be. People feel they have been censored and that is not what wikipedia is all about. If wikipedia wants to restore a sense of community trust it should allow everyone to have their little box so that no one feels that they are being attacked or censored. Then they can get back to writing the encyclopedia rather than arguing on this message board here.--God of War 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thats from my userpage! (well, most of it!) Ian13ID:540053 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plea for Sanity 

message: Are there userboxes that are personal attacks on wikipedians currently? WP:NPA is not WP:CIVIL, and both apply within the community. Userboxes are by definition bound by these two policies.
*Yes.  used to more-or-less call anti-userbox users Stalinists, and the word "purge" still creates an implication of such.
**The actual image on the end of this link says 'This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.' Deleting this rather more suggests an absence of sense of humour and proportion than anything else. Sandpiper 20:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Preceding moved out of the proposed policy, since discussion belongs here on the talk page, not in the proposed policy itself.  Aumakua 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that "the word 'purge' still creates an implication of" Stalinist purges.  The word 'purge' is used in many applications without "Stalinist" association.  For example, this weekend I am running a "shop order purge" where I work.  This removes completed shop orders from our manufacturing data system, and updates master files consistent with what those orders accomplished.  This is a regular recurring process so as to make sure that only active shop orders are in the production data system.  I believe that "shop order purge" language is consistent with APICS standard terminology for Enterprise resource planning.  Other people may be able to cite other examples of "purge" that does not imply any "Stalinist" association.  What do you call "the removal of deleted and closed records" from a computer system? I believe that any word like "delete" or "wipe" or "purge" or "obliterate" or "remove" that means essentially the same thing, can be abused to be directed against doing it against people, instead of against computer records. User:AlMac|(talk) 22:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPA and CIVIL issues

message: I'm a moderate user of userboxes, about 40% of which are ones I created myself for my userpage (and thus do not exist except as arguments to a "blank cheque" template). My main concern here is the potential for server overload. This page says that over 250 userboxes were created in the first three days of January. I don't frickin' care what's going on, 500 userboxes a week, every week, is going to overload the servers unnecessarily, especially when transcluded (and often by a minority of users, since I presume most of these are specialty niche ones). I say we should just make substing all but the most critical ones mandatory and solve the damn issue. If people want to factionalise so badly, stick a damn category on your userpage. Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to see substing mandatory, becuase that, in my viewpoint, would be instruction creep. On the other hand, I think substing of the templates should be encouraged, as it does provide a number of benefits, including reduced server load and protection against template vandalism or deletion. All of the userboxes on my userpage have been substed. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see some of my comments above in Userboxes are just visible categories. I think part of the purpose for userboxes is to visibly categorize users in a uniform way. If people used subst:, and someone changed the template, not everyone's userbox would look the same. ~MDD4696 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point, but quite frankly, I don't really see the value in making the userboxes display exactly the same way verus having slight differences. They would still be more-or-less uniform, which to me, is quite sufficient.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read these posts I subst'd mine and I actually like it this way; now my userpage doesn't change if someone vadalises the templates. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not just subst the damn things? 

message: There's a proposal to add a speedy delete criterion dealing with attack pages in the template space at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A draft wording.  Consensus on the idea and the wording is being sought. Hiding  talk 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed speedy deletion clause

message: ===What userboxes are===
# Userboxes are a standardized way of stating your views, beliefs and convictions for all to see and read on your user page. The policy of NPOV does not apply to the content of userboxes.
# Userboxes are a method of networking with other wikipedians with similar views/beliefs for the purpose of writing/improving NPOV encyclopedic content, or for non-Wikipedia purposes.
# Userboxes are only to be used on User pages (or sub-pages in the user namespace).
===What userboxes are not===
# Userboxes are not to be used on Wikipedia articles, or on any other page that is directly associated with the encyclopedia its self.
# Userboxes are not a method of canvasing other Wikipedians in an attempt to sway general opinion, or bias discussions or articles.
# Userboxes are not a method of locating Wikipedians for the purpose of attack/ridicule/criticism based on the beliefs/views displayed on their userpage.
# Userboxes are not to be used to determine the validity of a Wikipedian's comments/nominations during a discussion, nor the validity of a Wikipedian's edits of an article. Please assume good faith, and assume that every user is capable of NPOV contributes despite their own beliefs/views. No action should be taken against a Wikipedian as a result, in whole or in part, of the userboxes displayed on the Wikipedian's User page.
----
Proposed clauses written by gorgan_almighty 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Very well, done. But note that canvasing of users and vote stacking were 2 of the main objections to userboxes. In my view it should definately be a blocking offense. —gorgan_almighty 12:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of proposed clauses - comments please 

message: # Userboxes are not to be used on Wikipedia articles, or on any other page that is directly associated with the encyclopedia its self.
# Userboxes are not a method of canvasing other Wikipedians in an attempt to sway general opinion, or bias discussions or articles.
# Userboxes are not a method of locating Wikipedians for the purpose of attack/ridicule/criticism based on the beliefs/views displayed on their userpage.
# Userboxes are not to be used to determine the validity of a Wikipedian's comments/nominations during a discussion, nor the validity of a Wikipedian's edits of an article. Please assume good faith, and assume that every user is capable of NPOV contributes despite their own beliefs/views. No action should be taken against a Wikipedian as a result, in whole or in part, of the userboxes displayed on the Wikipedian's User page.
----
Proposed clauses written by gorgan_almighty 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What userboxes are not

message: *I don't think there's much consensus for punishing those who rally others' votes and support with userboxes. It seems pretty clear that a determined canvaser would be able to do that pretty easily anyway, for example, by studying sympathetic edits to pertinent articles. There's no harm in simply discouraging the practice, but threats are way out of line. I would recommend merely striking "Any user caught doing this will be dealt with severely." --James S. 12:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Very well, done. But note that canvasing of users and vote stacking were 2 of the main objections to userboxes. In my view it should definately be a blocking offense. —gorgan_almighty 12:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments please

message: There appears to be a mountain of information on the general subject of user boxes here, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, and in the talk pages of dozens of templates. The only information of interest to me is, "How do user boxes help make a better encyclopedia?" If this section were dedicated to only proponents of user-boxes explaining the answer to that question, it would allow people like me to get the heart of the matter. --Peace Inside 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way any group of diverse editors can hope to achieve a NPOV is if they have a pretty good understanding of each others' points of view, biases, backgrounds, predilictions, etc.  Userboxes make that easy, by automatically serving up the most popular categories and inviting people to put an attractive colorful emblem on their self-description.  The only better way to make sure that editors understand each others' POV would be to give people a manditory survey (the results of which would probably end up looking a lot like userboxes, only with scales with floating-point values and therefore much more confusing) but that would discourage new editors.  The voluntary userbox system seems like the best of all possible situations along those lines. James S. 19:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes when I see that someone is a Democrat or Republican or whatever on their use page, I also look to see if that POV is reflected in their edits.  This helps me spot POV and NPOV editors.  Howard Zinn, in the introduction of his book A People's History of the United States states that every historian has a POV, it is just that most of them are not honest about what it is.  I have heard people complain about Wikipedia by saying that some articles are writen with a POV.  I say to them, Yes, that is exactly what makes Wikipedia better than any other encyclopedia.  It is possible to discern what  the POV of an article is.  Talk pages and edit histories are rich with this information, and Userboxes add another layer to this.  With other encyclopedias there is no easy mechanism to tell what the point of view of an article is.  I have learned as much or more from the debates on talk pages than I have from the articles that were being discussed because I was able to get an understanding of the different points of view of the editors and the conflicting opinions.  This is part of the beauty of Wikipedia.  We talk about NPOV as being some sort of absolute truth, as if the articles will be totally neutral.  I think this is the wrong interpretation of NPOV.  In my view, NPOV is a process of making POV apparent. -- Samuel Wantman 11:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add a bit to Lawyer2b's comment. I think nobody has considered here that userboxes can be a unifying factor in the community. Several times users have come to my talk page to ask me for information, (as an example) about firearms. Recently, I was wandering through userspace, and found that there are several users who are in fact for gun control (whereas I am not). One of the nice features of the wikipedia is I can collaborate on articles with other people who do not share the same viewpoint sa I do. I have run into this several times in the past, and feel that each time, the resolution has been amicable. While I am not in favor of wearing my politics on my sleeve, I appreciate that others are willing to do so. It means I know who to talk to when I have a question (such as somebody opposed to the "house of Saud"), or want a counterpoint to something I've written. I could speculate as to why people are so opposed to userboxes, but I think this fundamental truth has been missed (or ignored). Avriette 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely disagree with the notion that seeing someone's political or ideological stand is helpful in spotting a POV editor.  An article should stand on its own without knowledge of the writer's personal beliefs.  You should be able to understand whether an article is NPOV without knowing the author's beliefs. That's what multiple source documents and verification is for.  And, indeed, understanding the author's beliefs my actually skew your interpreation of the article and cause you to read a POV slant that does not otherwise exist. For example, you may read an article about, say, American involvement in Iraq, and wonder if it's NPOV. You read, one of the editor's User Page and see that he/she states, "This user is a supporter of George W. Bush."  Might that influence your view of the article?  Yes!  Should it?  No!   Let the article stand on its merit.  In my opinion, the editor was silly to state his personal opinion, as any journalist would be, but use the cited references and the writing itself to judge the POV/NPOV of the article, not the author's User Page. Crunch 19:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do user boxes help make a better encyclopedia? 

message: There seems to be little point in including a category on every user box. Templates have this nifty little "whatlinkshere" function that does exactly the same. Hence, the cats are redundant. Radiant_>|< 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point (and I'm not advocating for or against) is that it links all these users to higher level categories of Wikipedians.  This adds a little more visibility to userboxes and groups of likeminded editors.  What I find troubling is that these templates end up on other pages that then end up in the categories. --Samuel Wantman 10:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No point in categorizing 

message: If I may squeak up? I have absolutely no answers to any of the questions raised, yet. So you might want to skip this section if you are seeoking answers.
Anyway, I wish I had the certainty that so many have! I have mostly questions, and I'm still struggling to come up with even the right questions. But I don't feel able to address this issue until I do have more answers: 
* What does it mean to have a "public face" in in a virtual organization? What are the purposes of a "public face", the benefits, the price?
* What is the emotional cost of a given (userpage) policy?  Can this reduce or even negate the purely technical organizational benefit of the policy? How? In what circumstances? How can one know?
* What other organizations have faced some simulcrum of these challanges? What worked, what didn't, and why? Can any of these lessons be applied to Wikipedia? 
But even these questions exist in a larger framework:
*Why does the group "people who work on Wikipedia" even exist? It doesn't make sense, does it? There's no pay, and after all there is already a decent encyclopedia. Answering that question -- the answer to be multifaceted, I am sure -- might be the first step toward beginning to answer the question of what policies and structures (userpage and other) are most likely to be best.
*I haven't seen much discussion of it, but it seems that WP is under stress from an influx of new users, and that this issue is a manifestation of that stress. Is it necessary to fight out that issue on this line (userboxes)? And quickly? (I'm not saying it's not; I don't know. I'm not even in this fight; but I would hope that those who are do understand what the fight is partly about, in the larger sense.)
So why am I posting? Right. I am thinking of a place where people interested in these questions can share information, probably under the umbrella of Wikipedia:WikiProject Community. Anyone interested, message me. Herostratus 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  - - - (squeak) - - - 

message: Would it be an idea to run a disclaimer along the top of each user page, to the effect that any and all opinions expressed here are the opinions of the individuals in question and are not endorsed nor held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia itself?  That might be one move which could solve some concernss that people might have regarding the opinions expressed there-in. Hiding  talk 18:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me.  Is there any reason talk pages shouldn't have such a disclaimer? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better notice would be: "This is a talk page. Any and all opinions expressed here are the opinions of the individuals in question, and not necessarily the opinions of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia." I'm not a lawyer; suggestions welcome here, or preferably, my talk page. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 14:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User page disclaimer 

message: A recent addition to the "concerns about regulating userboxes" section says, "The userbox controversy has illuminated ideological splits between believers in "traditional" Wiki values, and volumes of editors much more active in talk space and projects, than in adding to the Encyclopaedia."  This statement is problematic.  First of all, it's not clear how this is a concern about regulating userboxes as much as a general (albeit relevant) observation about the userbox controversy and the Wikipedia community as a whole.  I'm not sure it belongs in that section (although I can't see a better place for it, unless it's "Background".)
Second, although the "ideological split" referred to is undeniable, the description of the two sides strikes me as terribly biased.  The reference to "traditional Wiki values" is unclear at best and incendiary at worst, and the characterization of the "volumes of editors" is unneccessarily pejorative.  Is there any evidence that supporters of userboxes as a whole are more active in talk space and projects than in article space?  (I'm sure there are a number of individual users to whom this characterization applies, but it seems inappropriately sweeping to me.)
It might be better to say, "The userbox controversy has illuminated an ideological split between editors (mostly, but not exclusively, new Wikipedians) who see talk space and projects as community-building exercises helpful to the encyclopedia project, and editors (mostly, but not exclusively, Wikipedians of long standing) who see them as distracting and disruptive to the overall health of the encyclopedia."  But then, perhaps that's too POV to the other side.  Is that wording neutral enough, or does someone have a better one? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional wiki values"? 

message: I've been looking through the December database dump to see how common the use of of these boxes are. Generally they only seem to be used by a small (less than 10) number of people. Those
which might raise an eyebrow include
     17 
     14 
     11 
     11 
in total there were 1642 full list.
In comparison the two big hits were
  34230 
   1208 
The use of these templates generally follows Zipf's law with most templates only used a few times. There were 18 with 10 links, 27 with 9, 29 with 8, 29 with 7, 57 with 5, 30 with 6, 57 with 5, 70 with 4, 102 with 3, 119 with 2 and 945 with only one link. 
Note these stats are from 14 Dec 05, just before the explosion/userbox debate. I'm eagerly awaiting the next dump for comparison. If the figures above are anything to go by it seems like
the penetration of userboxes is very small. --Salix alba 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Position? Someone, I presume in the interest of completeness, has created userboxes for Bureaucrats and ArbComs, and nominees for those positions. I don't see that anyone is using those. I wonder how many other userbox templates also have zero users? -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How big is the problem? 

message: Developer Jamesday has requested that images only be used for content, not decoration. The reason for this is that images cause a major server load problem; the actual size of the image is not really relevant. Hence, please remove images from userbox templates, and use formatted or colored text instead. Radiant_>|< 11:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense. There is a noticable delay when trying to load pages with lots of userboxes on them. We need to limit the number of images per page and currently lots of userboxes = lots of images. So we either need to have fewer boxes on user pages or remove the images from them. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This applies to other templates, as well. I'm not sure where is the best place to bring it up, but we may need to develop a policy or guideline on the use of images in all templates (instruction creep rears its ugly head again). -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Like Johnleemk is saying, deleting the user boxs doesn't going to make them dissapear.  That said any effort to get rid of the boxes is useless.  If you want to start a policy of banning pictures(JPEG) on user boxes, that is understandable, but trying to go and delete them all is a waste of time, and no I don't care what Jimbo says about this --T-rex 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting all images on userboxes is a terrible idea! I support the disallowing of copyrighted images on userboxes (because that is outside of fair use) but all images? An image in a box does not harm wikipedia. --Shell 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes#Don't use images. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but where is this so-called server load? Ever since I have joined, I have been on every day and never seen this. Hmm, maybe this is just another excuse to simplify userboxes and eventually get rid of them.... Hmm. I wonder. --Shell 14:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember that fairly recently (in the last month or two) images were very slow to load or not loading at all, until new servers were brought on line. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember the same incident as Dalbury, but I don't support removing images from userboxes either, unless the devs collectively agree it's a problem (which they appear to not have done, as per the discussion on the pump). Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm only for deleting the images because they supposivelly slow down the servers, otherwise I have no problem with them --T-rex 06:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm ambivalent about the use of images; on the one hand, server load problems are a concern, and userboxes are pretty low on the priority list.  On the other hand, the long-term solution is more and better hardware, and easy-to-customize user pages make WP more fun and indirectly contribute to the goal of encyclopedia creation.  Like Johnleemk, I have to say I'm against removing the images unless the devs as a group decide it needs to be done.--ragesoss 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I get from Brion is that, in his words, "this is not a policy issue." Being a software engineer, I don't feel that these sorts of things should be implemented by policy. If something is harmful to a process or asset (such as a server or disk), it is necessary to protect it with software -- not trust that the users will not violate policy. That having been said, if resizing the image is such a big deal, there are better ways of doing it than we are presently using (such as photon). I would first look at attempting to fix the software, rather than prevent a certain behavior from happening. If that were unsuccessful, we could then look at implementing a fix for the problem in software (as opposed to optimization, which is different). Avriette 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't use images 

message: :Like Johnleemk is saying, deleting the user boxs doesn't going to make them dissapear.  That said any effort to get rid of the boxes is useless.  If you want to start a policy of banning pictures(JPEG) on user boxes, that is understandable, but trying to go and delete them all is a waste of time, and no I don't care what Jimbo says about this --T-rex 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting all images on userboxes is a terrible idea! I support the disallowing of copyrighted images on userboxes (because that is outside of fair use) but all images? An image in a box does not harm wikipedia. --Shell 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes#Don't use images. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but where is this so-called server load? Ever since I have joined, I have been on every day and never seen this. Hmm, maybe this is just another excuse to simplify userboxes and eventually get rid of them.... Hmm. I wonder. --Shell 14:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember that fairly recently (in the last month or two) images were very slow to load or not loading at all, until new servers were brought on line. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the same incident as Dalbury, but I don't support removing images from userboxes either, unless the devs collectively agree it's a problem (which they appear to not have done, as per the discussion on the pump). Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm only for deleting the images because they supposivelly slow down the servers, otherwise I have no problem with them --T-rex 06:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm ambivalent about the use of images; on the one hand, server load problems are a concern, and userboxes are pretty low on the priority list.  On the other hand, the long-term solution is more and better hardware, and easy-to-customize user pages make WP more fun and indirectly contribute to the goal of encyclopedia creation.  Like Johnleemk, I have to say I'm against removing the images unless the devs as a group decide it needs to be done.--ragesoss 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I get from Brion is that, in his words, "this is not a policy issue." Being a software engineer, I don't feel that these sorts of things should be implemented by policy. If something is harmful to a process or asset (such as a server or disk), it is necessary to protect it with software -- not trust that the users will not violate policy. That having been said, if resizing the image is such a big deal, there are better ways of doing it than we are presently using (such as photon). I would first look at attempting to fix the software, rather than prevent a certain behavior from happening. If that were unsuccessful, we could then look at implementing a fix for the problem in software (as opposed to optimization, which is different). Avriette 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing pictures

message: : This is the second time I personally encounter a single person, in the best style of the stereotypical dictators ("benevolent" or not), deciding how WP is run. The first time was when Raul pretty frankly stated that he has the final word on how FAC's look, period.
: You may be the "owner" of Wikipeida (the final way of how things are decided is obviously how WP is run by the Wikimedia foundation), but your were-convincing ideals that WP is run by Consensus are being shattered one step at a time by your own action.
: I don't know about others, but I am seriously reconsidering my dedication to the project. - Elvarg 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Jimbo asking us to consider removing polemical userboxes from our user pages makes him a dictator? Funny, I don't it see it that way, although I am aware that he can act the dictator whenver he wants to, as he (and the Foundation) own Wikipedia. As for consensus, the majority of Wikipedians don't even bother to use userboxes, and judging from Tony Sidaway's statistics and my own much more limited look around, somewhere less than 10% of wikipedians use any userboxes of a political, religious, or other nature stating a belief potentially pertinent to the content of articles. A vocal minority does not equal consensus. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's such a tiny percentage of people using userboxes, why is all this uproar occuring? If it was half of all users, it would be understandable. But less than 10%? Thats such a minority, its hardly worth bothering going through all this hassle. I think that the whole idea of free information should allow people to display their own views on their own user pages. If people get offended that easily, theres something wrong. Frankly, im sick of admins and other high level users strutting around deleting countless numbers of userboxes, without even considering a concensus.
 • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • T | C 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Good Faith ends where mine begins? 

message: I just cannot believe the vitriolic response to Jimbo's perfectly reasonable request. I've been following this discussion for some time now, but I'm moving on. It has been a huge waste of time--I have seen very little progress in the past few weeks, and it's degraded little by little into an argument for argument's sake.
I don't have any polemical userboxes on my userpage, and I've subst'ed the ones I do have.
I'm a Wikipedian. I'm going to go improve Wikipedia. Anyone want to join me? ~MDD4696 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This discussion is stupid. I'm moving on. 

message: These two users have taken some rhetorical questions and turned them into a dialog.  This dialog could probably be held more productively on the talk page, and meanwhile if there is a problem with the rhetorical style of some of the project page, then this can be refactored to use less slanted forms of expression.  I have reverted both edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of edits by [[User:Jdforrester|Jdforrester]] and [[User:Angr|Angr]]

message: I think people have made a lot of excellent comments and I'm sure many people have changed their stance over the course of discussion (I know I hae). I think that one early issue that I see as having been address is the question "should we have a policy at all". Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that consensus seems to be yes on that questions.
Therefore I would like to propose that we move on to a next step? Please discuss.Herostratus 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to take the next step 

message: Please limit comments to one or two sentences, and indent with asterisk.
Typical comment might be "Yes, lets move on to discuss those three questions" or "No, we need more discussion, or those are the wrong questions"
*Yes move on to address these three questions seperately. Herostratus 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SHORT COMMENTS

message: If you have more than a sentence or two or three of comment on this proposal (only), or aspects of it.
Whatever we do, we have to make sure that it's compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to function as an encyclopedia. While it's good to have a community, that community exists solely to serve the encyclopedia.  I agree with Jimbo that this affair may ultimately have to be dealt with by mass deletions. It's our responsibility to try to formulate a sensible policy that will lessen the damaging effects of use of some of the templates, and thus obviate that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LONGER COMMENTS

message: * - personal attack
* - personal attack
* - personal attack
* - personal attack
* - personal attack
* - impersonal attack
* - impersonal attack
* - impersonal attack
* - impersonal attack
* - not attacking anything.
We need to either keep all of these or delete all of them. Saying that Jimbo is wrong because people should feel free to put their POV on user pages, while at the same time deleting POVs that you find offensive or consider an attack, is hypocritical and intolerable. Ashibaka tock 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is somebody dosn't trust Jimbo?  Why is it ok for user boxes to say that people trust Jimbo, but not ok for people to disagree?  You can't allow one but not the other.  Also dispite being a supporter of George Bush, I have no problem If people want to say that they don't like them.  It is perfetlly ok for somebody to be against something.  and I know this is about the user pages so it dosn't really apply, but wikipedia is NPOV, wikipedia is not politically correct. --T-rex 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you support keeping all of these, that is absolutely fine by me. What I am concerned by is that some of these are getting deleted and other ones are getting kept, at the discretion of a bunch of people who consider the stated POV "unacceptable", voting on Templates for Deletion. Do we not accept people with all points of view? Why do some of them deserve userboxes and others don't? Ashibaka tock 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a reason the personal attack qualification was restricted to articles rather than being a general speedy rule. Speedying something out of process will create chaos if another admin disagrees. Ashibaka tock 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *All of the templates above should be kept.  None are speedies, and I doubt that there is any reasonable rationale for deleting them at TfD.  Voting  is Evil, particularly when it turns TfD into a forum of censors.  Claiming that any of these are attack templates is a radical stretch of the imagination.  Those that have been deleted should be restored, and those that are under discussion should be kept.  Wikipedia is not censored, and user opinions should not be censored either.  I may or may not trust Jimbo, but I should be able to use a box to tell you so either way.  All that I see here is a bunch of deletion in violation of WP:POINT and WP:AGF.  --Dschor 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hamas and the KKK are evil, but they do exsist, and some deranged people may be proud members of one of these groups, and they should be allowed to do so on their user page.  The use of templetes just makes the code easier to put up and also saves space on wikipedia's servers.  Tony has it all wrong the templates are usefull (in that they make the code easy to implement) and need to be kept not en mass deleted, regardless of what they say(with an exception for copyright things).  Go back to what Jimbo actually did say, he said that if you want the boxes to be removed to get rid of them on your own page and hope that others will follow suit, not for the admins to go crazy deleting everything. --T-rex 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so blatantly false it's unbelievable.  Templates do not reduce server load.  They increase it, if only fractionally.  The space for storing information is only a tiny consideration, and storage space really, really isn't a problem at the moment. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, by using templates code is not repeted and server space is saved. You are correct when you say that Templates do not reduce server load, however, as that has to do with bandwith, as Templates are only usefull in saving server space(which are the GB on the hard drives). Sorry if I confused anyone --T-rex 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not true.  The majority of requests are served through the Squid caches.  Squids cache HTML, or at least the HTML of the content part of the page.  No space is saved on these by templates.  That isn't an argument against templates, but yours most certainly isn't an argument for them.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, so you would support deleting , , and so forth. Then you, too, have no problem with the statement I made at the top, that all of these need to either stay or go. I am looking for that rare breed who is picking and choosing from among the political userboxes to decide which ones aren't good enough. Ashibaka tock 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, they won't.  The templates might go, but the code will simply migrate to individual user pages.  If you want to eliminate them entirely, you'll have to permaban a very large chunk of the user base.  Rogue 9 14:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't take that to the bank, Tony Sidaway. WP will have to ban me when they ban userboxes. It's not that userboxes are that important. It's authoritarianism that is antithetical to wikis. --Fang Aili 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read before making comments such as this.  Tony did not suggest deleting all userboxes (at least, I really don't think he did, and from what he's said before I doubt he did), rather just the opinion-broadcasting ones.  And, FWIW, Wikipedia does lots of things that are antithetical to wikis.  That in itself is not an argument.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpreted "all" to mean "all userboxes", though maybe Tony only meant the ones listed above. From my reading of Tony's previous comments and actions, it appears that he would in fact like all userboxes eliminated from Wikipedia. I could be wrong, though. And even if he did mean that only so-called polemical or opinion-broadcasting userboxes will "go", then my opinion stands: that I'll either be banned or quit when that happens. --Fang Aili 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony has said elsewhere that he has userboxes on his user page. And I'm sorry to hear that the issue of banning polemical userboxes would drive you out of Wikipedia. I learned long ago not to make those kind of statements. I worked far too long for a boss who would greet any threats about quitting with wishes for good luck in whatever that person choose to do in the future. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately WP is not my boss, and I edit by my own volition. --Fang Aili 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of these things are not like the others...

message: There are some valid concerns... POV zerging and personal attacks and we have policies to deal with the personal attacks.
The categories on userboxes can be used to facilitate zerging the vote process, yes.  But, there are processes outside wikipedia that cannot be tracked to do the same (see free republic).  By allowing categories and not shuting the valve on userbox categories it makes it much easier to see if that is what is going on and take it into account as opposed to a process you can't see.  There is a benefit in leaving it, namely, you can quickly identity abusers.  It is my belief that these are the EXCEPTIONS and not the rules, and we need not make the rules based solely on exceptions.
People have interests and points have been made about languages and technical abilities.  But let's say you have a question on the factual validity of a claim made about Mormonism?  Check who are Mormons and get their input.  That's not POV pushing, that's rounding out an article.  The same is true about political, religious, or personal persuasions.  It identifies people who can be asked to contribute to round out an article.  For instance, the George Bush page is almost wholly negative when it isn't neutral and that's a known problem.  Why not ask some Republicans to contribute also.  That's not pushing a POV but presenting all sides.
The fact is, people have their interests and thinking that all the editors of wikipedia can be lumped into one harmonious lot and not form cliques of sorts (and to be fair they are there without userboxes).  Having groups is not a bad thing as long as civility can be maintained.  -- Jbamb 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A reasonable solution

message: If there is a list of userboxes that are "offensive", I will voluntarily remove any on such a list from my page, and discreetly mention it to others I know as well. Some of us will voluntarily comply with this. If I have missed an important chunk of discussion regarding the issue that makes this comment irrelevant or ill-informed, I apologize; It's hard to read everything. --DanielCD 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've removed the one userbox on my page that fell into this categery.  What we need now is a userbox to identify and promote the removal of religious, political and polemical userboxes (probably one exists already...) I think the voluntary approach is far preferrable to a mandatory policy. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's  and . Ashibaka tock 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voluntary removal

message: There must be order!
I believe that if Wikipedia is to succeed, compliance with all scribed protocol is necessary. The scope of an action, and the scope of its consequences, are irrelevant.
I use Babel. I haven't used userboxes yet, but I did a neat little screencapture and cut-and-paste job into a file (ubx.jpg which I can provide to anyone who wants to see it - talk to me) that describes me.
Said file is sort of like one of those very long lists of questions that circulates amongst my age group and the next one or two junior to us, but slightly less frivilous. It showed me that whether you comprehensively (or not even) describe yourself in words, userboxes, or pictures is irrelevant: a lot of info is still a lot of info.
Now I'm going to see if I can find, somewhere on this or (officially) related sites, the purpose of user pages. THE purpose. If I can't (homie it can't be done), then I suggest we find one.
Q: What's the purpose of Wikipedia?
A: Blah, blah, blah.
Q: Oh, good. Looks like it's on its way.
Q: What're user pages for?
A: Uh...
Q: You mean you don't know?
Q (louder): Eh, anyone know what a user page is actually *for*?
Ax, where x is various people: [...]
Ao, where o is official sources: "Wak wak wak wak wak."
Q (being a neophyte): "Absorb, absorb."
--Esseye 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Huh? ~MDD4696 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ummm...if u don't have anything to say, don't say it at all--God of War 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No one is above the law 

message: Consider Wikipedians (this includes yourself) a special operations force and Wikipedia their mission.
What differs SOF from regular troops? Primarily, their maturity. Wise up.
Something's gotta be done. What got me was what that Sarah person said - "something regulating self-expression something".
Sure, self-expression is good. Banter, cameraderie, ribbing - these are all good things, that help us feel united, contribute to morale and esprit de corps, etc etc.
However they are NOT central to (and may be counterproductive to) the MISSION. The mission is life.
They increase our capability to perform the mission. They do not positively affect the mission itself.
What is our engine for completing the mission? Wikipedia.
So. These things (that's a blanket term, encompassing ribbing, userboxes, and a whole lot else) belong off Wikipedia. They belong in emails. In phone calls. In text messages. In letters. In photographs. On non-Wikipedia pages.
User pages are user pages, yes, but they subscribe to the same xx.wikipedia.org URL as the informative parts of the site. They belong to this mission.
They are sacrificial to the mission - WE are sacrificial to the mission.
The priorities from high to low are Mission, Troops, Equipment, Self (officer). Those four things can't really be translated to Wikipediac, but you get my point. I hope.
When a Ranger says, "Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor", there's quite a lot that goes without saying. Not JUST though he be the lone survivor, but "though it means I give up a lot of things for myself".
Hit me on this one, 'kay?
--Esseye 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo, la politesse, etc etc 

message: Move to table
Let's wait three months for Jimbo Wales's suggestion to work.  Meanwhile, communicate with people politely and set a better community standard.  Here are some suggestions:
* Revise the introduction to the Wikipedia:Userboxes page.  It almost invites people to play with userboxes.  "Common uses for boxes include user interests, user skills, technical information, Wikipedia activities, or just for fun."  A more NPOV introduction would add the drawbacks that concern some editors. 
* Contribute an essay on the pros and cons of Userboxes to :Category:Wikipedia essays.
* Promote alternatives to Userboxes.  People who want self-expression could post lists of their travels instead.  That sort of information doesn't convey POV and may be relevant to editing. Durova 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nicely said. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Durova's motion to table this proposal. I also support his proposal to revise the Wikipedia:Userboxes page, although I guess that needs to be moved to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Organizations normally try lesser solutions before crafting new policy.  I don't mean to gag anyone - it's just that no consensus has emerged and the dialogue often turned bitter.  BTW my only participation in this discussion has been the move to table.   Durova 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then stop talking for now, and, by all means, suggest other do the same. But it is absurd to vote to stop a discussion. How are you going to enforce it? If a minority wants to keep talking they are at liberty to do it. I havn't contributed to this discussion since the beginign, because I think it is doomed, but let those who want to talk do so. --Doc ask? 22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would move the proposal to the inactive discussion list for three months.  People who still wish to communicate there would be welcome to do so. Durova 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: Table this discussion for three months.  Encourage moderation as an alternative to policy change.
====Support====
# Durova 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organizations normally try lesser solutions before crafting new policy.  I don't mean to gag anyone - it's just that no consensus has emerged and the dialogue often turned bitter.  BTW my only participation in this discussion has been the move to table.   Durova 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then stop talking for now, and, by all means, suggest other do the same. But it is absurd to vote to stop a discussion. How are you going to enforce it? If a minority wants to keep talking they are at liberty to do it. I havn't contributed to this discussion since the beginign, because I think it is doomed, but let those who want to talk do so. --Doc ask? 22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would move the proposal to the inactive discussion list for three months.  People who still wish to communicate there would be welcome to do so. Durova 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: # Durova 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Esseye 06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposed

message: # This poll question is too broad. I don't think that a new CSD to delete templates at will is really something we should "wait and see works" if we don't want rampant userbox deletion. Yes, we should table the proposal; but no, we should not wait and see if the current options will work; they are no good. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls are evil

message: This poll is invalid
If you want to 'table' it for 3 months, then just stop talking about if yourself. You can't pass a policy compelling others to silence - or preventing others proposing new ideas. What does this mean? --Doc ask? 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organizations normally try lesser solutions before crafting new policy.  I don't mean to gag anyone - it's just that no consensus has emerged and the dialogue often turned bitter.  BTW my only participation in this discussion has been the move to table.   Durova 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then stop talking for now, and, by all means, suggest other do the same. But it is absurd to vote to stop a discussion. How are you going to enforce it? If a minority wants to keep talking they are at liberty to do it. I havn't contributed to this discussion since the beginign, because I think it is doomed, but let those who want to talk do so. --Doc ask? 22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would move the proposal to the inactive discussion list for three months.  People who still wish to communicate there would be welcome to do so. Durova 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *Maybe it should be limited to imaged already uploaded to Wikipedia. Hohohob 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding images 

message: Although I beleive mass deletion to be a good idea, it may however aggrevate users. We would therefore need to but safegaurds in place as it is likely that vandalism would rise quickly.
I beleive deletion is good because:
*Userboxes split up our community into categories,
*Userboxes cost money, especially ones with images,
*Userboxes do not help to improve our encyclopedia.
I think we should delete the userboxes one by one, with the most controversial first. In that time we could also win over more users to our cause. The Neokid - Wikihalo Guiding Director talk 13:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for exposing the sheer sneakiness of the anti-userbox, pro-censorship side of this debate. --Daniel 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Deletion 

message: I urge people that dislike userboxes of some form or another to monitor Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.  There are many userboxes being nominated there, particularly such things as .  violet/riga (t) 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I urge people who have better sense to go there to combat this flagrant attempt at vote-stacking. --Daniel 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what I said again: "dislike userboxes of some form or another".  That means that some people from here will dislike such things as the pedophile template, but will vote keep for others.  violet/riga (t) 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monitor TfD 

message: Wikipedia:Use of userboxes has been mentioned on the Administrators' Noticeboard, and I think it needs a look from everyone who watches this talk page. It's not a total solution, but it's the best I've seen yet! Ashibaka tock 03:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete agreement. Does this mean we would migrate non-conforming templates out of template space into user space?--Chris 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in, political ones? Umm... bring that up on the proposal's talk page, I can't speak for everyone. Ashibaka tock 04:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, silly me.--Chris 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy that might actually get somewhere!

message: If I were determining the guidelines regarding userboxes:
# Userboxes must have a purpose. Userboxes are out there for people to easy access peoples talents and abilities. The language userboxes for example are usefull when one seeks someone speaking a language.
# Infuriating userboxes must be deleted on sight. Trolls are not welcome on wikipedia. If people are here to entertain themselves by angering otherwise good contributors not only their userboxes speedied but the people should also be blocked indefinately.
# Political userboxes, reflecting ones view on contraversial and/or political issues should be deleted on sight. 
#*I for one am less than willing to debate/discuss Israel-Palestine issue with people who experess their views via userboxes  (aka people campaigning for a cause). I picked this spesific incident at random. I personaly dont care what happens to Israel or Palestine before anyone asks. 
#*Contraversial and political issues are by nature sensative not just for you but for others. Please be sensative enough to purge your views so as not to cause a ruckus.
#*Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It is not a political simulator. For that get Superpower 2. 
# Humorous userboxes, in my view are fine. Although userboxes should not be used for every joke. It might be best to have these userboxes in usernamespace.
# Religion userboxes, are somewhat OK. I dont care about religion myself. In my view religion userboxes are bad taste because they practicaly cut you off of all religon articles aside from those of your own religion. Again this should be in userspace not template space.
:--Cool CatTalk|@ 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woh woh woh... before you in your infinite maturity teach everyone else how to "grow up" and "find out what the real world is like", do tell us which alternate universe you're from. Seriously, "we" fought in WW2? (I'm quite sure you didn't.) And the deliberate spelling reforms of Noah Webster are just "spelling errors mistaken as dialect"? Which reality did you get these from? But surprisingly, I sort of agree with your point above. There's no really clear line between political and religious beliefs, so it's best not to classify beliefs along these lines. Bi 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont remember saying anything about WW2, but ok...Thanx for your agreement on Religious and Political userboxes. You're right, there is no real clear line dividing the two types, so both should be treated the same (hopefully kept) -  • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • T | C 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Infuriating" is very POV-dependant. For example, an "anti-UN" userbox was deleted after some users found it incendiary. However, I find animal-rights statements to be pretty annoying myself and there's half a dozen userboxes for that. That example goes for almost all of your other points too. Rexmorgan 06:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool Cats view on userboxes

message: I now agree that the only content on a user page should be that which furthers the goal of the project.  Therefore any userbox which does not further the goal of the project should be deleted. Hiding  talk 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes only if they further the project's goal 

message: The magnitude of this (ridiculous) issue has unfortunately swelled to the point where only an extreme solution is going to solve this problem.  I propose threefour:
1.  Eliminate all user box templates.  Period.  If users wish to have them on their page, they can put in the sexy, sexy raw code:


	This user has a massive crush on Jimbo.

=
	This user has a massive crush on Jimbo.
Similarly, if they want the world to know about their polyglotic abilities, they can put in the English box and the Spanish box and the what have you box.
But there won't be a repository of user boxes!  They won't be standardized!  Userboxing (which, with a different definition, sounds like it could be fun sometimes) won't be nearly as easy!
... So what? We're not here to make little fortune-cookie-fortune-style boxes, people!!  We're here to build an encyclopedia!  Let's put this whole mess down, Old Yeller style, and move on with our lives!
2. Delete and enforce notability/non-notability.  We set up a massive operation to decide this user box good, this user box bad.  But then (as now), we start pouring hundreds of man hours into deciding whether a user box is notable/relevant/too inflammatory gaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh what a waste of wikipedia's resources!!!!
3. Ignore this entire issue.  Move on.  This is a surprisingly effective solution, except userboxcruft is just going to grow and grow and grow (which, incidentally, it will do under #2, as well), until, guess what!  We're going to have to kill off all the user boxes because there simply won't be any room for compromising anymore.
We need a clear policy.  And we need it to come down from on high, smiting all userboxes who wouldst stand in its way.  The only way, really, to deal with this issue, is to go tabula rasa and let people put in the code, old-school, if they OMG CANT LIVE WIHTOUT MY USEREBXO. JDoorjam     Talk 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm a huge defender of userboxes, and I would looooooove to have a central repository for all of them, unfortunatley, I must admit that your entire proposal makes entirely too much sense for me to disagree with it.  I actually had thought of this on my own but kept my mouth shut for fear that it might actually get adopted.  Damn you!  ;-) Lawyer2b 01:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you do when some user decides to make a "central repository" on one of their sub-userpages and it becomes known as the defacto "central repository"? Lawyer2b 01:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Kill
Subst them.  
Kill
Subst them all. 

message: Many userboxes are currently being listed for deletion right after their creation, with the argument they aren't massively used. I think a userbox policy should point out this argument is only valid when nominated userbox is less then say a week old. Larix 09:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give them some time

message: Would it be an idea to rename all templates meant for user space to something like usertemplate:(blah)? It would clarify the confusion on wether userboxes are user space or encyclopedia space. Larix 09:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, it wouldn't matter: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification_of_templates - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'UserTemplate:(blah)'

message: As I suggested on Jimbo's popular talk page, instead of being cheerleaders for sheer arbitrary subjectivity, that instead WP sit down and decide what POV it doesn't like and therefore won't allow in userboxen (or usercats and userspace for that matter).
For example, the box Jimbo smited, . That would then be, presumably, an official Bad POV for WP.
This wouldn't affect articlespace as much as it would affect userspace and other administrative spaces.
It seems people are much more interested in being arbiters of what is divisive and what is polemic instead of actually determining these things in a Wikian way.
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, we won't have any points of view expressed in userboxes.  They're of most use when expressing an interest or skill relevant to your work on Wikipedia, such as your knowledge of a foreign language, your professional skills, your education and whatnot.  Wikipedia isn't a user homepage provider, but it may sometimes be appropriate to put something a bit more personal on your userpage, but you can hardly do that by the use of prefabricated text inserted into boxes.  The way to describe yourself is to use the same skill you bring to editing the encyclopedia: writing in English. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I could do like US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart did ("I shall not today attempt to further define pornography...but I know it when I see it."), but instead I will note that many userboxes are like little propaganda posters, intended to manipulate the viewers emotions. I therefore would say that any POV is out of place in userboxes, and agree with Tony's comments on what is appropriate in userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userboxes for operating systems used are effectively POV. Babel boxes aren't.  If we are going down theat path the division seems to be (self assesed) capability - "this user is a carpenter" is OK, "this user likes carpenters" isn't.  The distinction becomes fine: "this user knows about Linux" is good "this user uses Linux" is bad. Rich   Farmbrough. 01:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define what are bad POV on WP. 

message: Wikipedia is a conspicuously open community.  It does not have nearly as many as rules, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms as large communities and societies usually have.  This is a tremendously important fact.
How can we all get along as editors, and successfully collaborate on this very interesting but very hard problem of creating a high-quality NPOV encyclopedia, without all the rules and regulations that groups of humans traditionally saddle themselves with?
We have not repudiated those rules and regulations because the other groups that do adopt them are wrong for doing so.  The groups that adopt them are, alas, right for doing so.  The larger a community gets, the more varied its population and the more distant its members, the more inevitable it becomes that serious and unresolvable conflict will arise.  That's why you need all the rules and regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
Whenever a community tries to do the egalitarian thing, to erect a more open structure without so many rules and regulations, to appeal to the best in everyone to do the right thing because they know it's best and not because of any rule forcing them to, the same thing always happens: sooner or later, big horrible conflicts arise because someone or other not only can't handle the freedom, but finds it actively necessary to challenge the system, to fling down various nonnegotiable gauntlets which defy resolution without violating one or more of the ideals which the community thought it was trying to uphold.
In the present case, we have a clash over offensive behavior, and more specifically, offensive behavior which, it can be plausibly claimed, ought to be protected free speech.  But in any large community that tries to operate by consensus and good feeling rather than picayune regulations, there are two important meta-rules which everyone has to follow:
# I must do what I can, within reason, not to annoy or offend my fellows.
# I must not go out of my way to be offended by my fellows.
Obviously these two rules have a belt-and-braces quality to them, much like the IETF Robustness Principle.  If no one ever offended, we wouldn't have to work at not being offended.  If everyone worked at not being offended, no one would have to worry about offending.  But, in fact, both rules are equally important.  It's a two-way street; we have to meet in the middle.
Now, it's unfortunately the case that not everyone is able to work amicably within informal rule structures like these.  Doing the right thing for the right reason, simply because it's the right thing and the right reason, is not something everyone can do.  That's why the larger and older a community is, the more rules and enforcement mechanisms it typically has, because it's bound to have the members that cause the problems that only the rules could solve.
When we're faced with horrendous conflict stemming from various parties' inability to voluntarily get along with each other under the informal rules we've got, we really have only two choices: (1) add more formal rules which would resolve the conflict, or (2) figure out some way to get along without the parties who can't get along.
We're open to everyone, we want to tell anyone and everyone they're welcome here, we don't want to drive anyone away, but the plain fact is that some people cannot and will never be able to function reasonably in an environment as open as this one.  We who remain must understand that, and must not feel too bad about seeing people leave for this reason, and must not feel too guilty about the occasional need to ask them to leave.  Furthermore, out of self-preservation, we may need a few new (hopefully informal) meta-rules to ensure that the message is sent to people who can't get along that they'll probably have to find another place to play, that we can't and won't afford the time and energy required by the disruptions they insist on causing.
This isn't just a userbox issue.  If we banned userboxes, certain editors would still want to find ways of making provocative personal statements, and other editors would still want to be offended by them.  But it's not just a provocation/take offense issue, either.  The inability to respect another person's position (which obviously prevails on both side of the provocation/offensensitivity divide) is also central to the internecine quarrels some editors can't avoid having when they grapple with POV issues in articles.  We can't always afford those proliferating disruptions, either.
Up above people were worried about freedom of speech.  This both is and isn't a free-speech issue.  For one thing, free speech is free only as long as everyone is free to ignore it.  For another thing, we obviously have no absolute right to free speech here, for I do not have the right to say "2 + 2 = 5" on the Mathematics page and insist that the statement be kept there. Finally, and most importantly, freedom of speech in a society as open as this one carries a responsibility to, well, speak responsibly.
Up above people were worried about democracy, communism, and fascism.  Someone called Wikipedia a benevolent dictatorship, but I think it would be even more appropriate to call it a benevolent anarchy.  We've got, collectively, more than enough freedom and power here to utterly destroy ourselves, and the reason that we do not is that we choose not to.
I encourage everyone to keep making that choice.
Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking today of the parallels of this conflict with the tragedy of the commons. Essentially, something held in common, such as Wikipedia, works only as long as everyone exercises self-restraint. A few unrestrained persons can ruin things for everyone. Our task is to find a way to prevent that without becoming bound up in rules. As Jimbo has said, we need to change the culture of Wikipedia, to get everyone to understand why self-restraint is vital to the success of Wikipedia, and to get those who will not accept that to leave us alone. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also this classic: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy by Clay Shirky. I am a student of community and I have seen this pattern or variants over and over. In some ways it is remarkable how successful Wikipedia is, how large it has grown, most communities don't get this far. Perhaps part of it is the deliberate repetition by participants of what WP is not... not a community (it may not be intended to be, but it is!), not an experiment in democracy, or anarchy, etc. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very interesting read! It gives me some things to think about. Thanks for posting that link. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've always thought that despite WP:NOT a social experiment, it's a pretty damn good resource for any student of sociology (and I'm not talking about the quality of our sociology articles). Anyway, WRT the link Lar posted, I think it's pretty good. I especially liked the conclusion that people are both groups and individuals (and the two can never be extricated). Some portions also appear possibly relevant -- for instance, because Wikipedia has no visible enemy except vandals (who aren't much of an enemy), most people within Wikipedia start to factionalise. People blame the people on AfD/the deletionists/the inclusionists/the userbox fanboys/the jackbooted fascist admins/Jimbo/people who don't heed Jimbo and argue endlessly about them because Wikipedia has no external enemy to rally against. Anyway, I'm rather lazy to talk sociology or bother about userboxen, so I guess I'll stop rambling...now. Johnleemk | Talk 09:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Some more discussion on this has happened at my talk page, I've half a mind to refactor it back here as some excellent points were raised. And ya, good observation about article authorship. I bet you'll see the same thing in wikipediaspace (even metapedians compartmentalise) ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A symptom of some bigger, harder issues 

message: *Check out WP:UUB.  IMO, that is the way forward... at least for now. 
: Deano (Talk) 12:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UUB]] 

message: Please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that would lead to endless debate over where the limit is, with editors testing the limits and trying to push them, so that you will end trying to justify why one userbox has to go while another almost identical one can stay. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Specifics not blankets 

message: Today I took the opportunity of an interview on IRC, organised by The Signpost, to ask Jimbo about userboxes:
: Feb 15 16:53:49 Ral315  Tony_Sidaway asks:  "In the past six weeks the number of userboxes on English Wikipedia has risen from 3500 to 6000 and, despite your appeals for restraint, the number pertaining to political beliefs has risen from 45 to 150.  Can the problem of unsuitable userboxes still be resolved by debate?"
: Feb 15 17:11:57 jwales  eh
: Feb 15 17:11:59 jwales  userboxes
: Feb 15 17:12:00 jwales  eh
: Feb 15 17:12:40 jwales  I'm looking at the political beliefs one now.
: Feb 15 17:13:50 jwales  My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.
I think that puts it pretty plainly. It's not just that he doesn't personally like userboxes, but speaking as the leader of the project he finds the current situation unacceptable.  Something must change, one way or the other. --Tony Sidaway 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I feel like he didn't say anything at all here.  In fact, this is far less of a statement than the establishment of T1 was in the first place.  He didn't even say what "the userbox situation" is; the things he finds "not acceptable" could, based on previous comments, also include the divisive debates and out-of-process deletions that have gone on.  This is precisely why there's an ongoing controversy, and why good editors are spending wasting time debating userboxes instead of writing an encyclopedia: Jimbo hasn't really given us any guidance at all.  The workable solutions, such as what's been crafted up in the "Quadell's proposal" section, will take top-down implementation, not top-down hope that we can fix it from the bottom up.  Because of a lack of guidance, T1 has been far more divisive than any userbox has ever been.JDoorjam     Talk 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a lot of merit in that view. Right now I think many of us would almost rather see a top down imposition of some policy (any policy) than multiple competing, and strife causing, interpretations of what in some cases are rather ambiguous statements. This one (which for whatever reason has been widely plastered) is extremely ambiguous because it states an obvious truth, but not why it's true, or what to do about it. So we are left with competing interpretations. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to keep in mind is that to some extent, there's been policy on this all along.  The problem of soapboxing and grandstanding and excessive opinionating on user pages (whether encapsulated in userboxes or otherwise) is one of the reasons that the user page guidelines at WP:USER have always said that your user page is not a "home page", that the information you put there about yourself is to be limited to that which helps in building an encyclopedia. Steve Summit (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Jimbo said about userboxes in the Signpost interview 

message: And here's what he said on the official English Wikipedia mailing list.  I don't know why, but a lot of otherwise clued up Wikipedians don't subscribe to that, which is a shame because they often end up wondering what's happening when a big change comes along.
(Excerpted)
: I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded.  I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.
: I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.
: As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
Full version at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/039853.html
--Tony Sidaway 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wishful thinking asside, I think it's pretty clear what Jimbo thinks about templates and categories that describe your POV and express your biases. He's agin' 'em. And he's against them because he thinks they harm our community. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still like Jimbo's origional suggestion that users who understand the need for change volentarally remove them from their own page and encourage others to do the same.  If people stopped trying to delete all bad userboxes and force this upon people, I believe that Jimbo's origional idea would work.  It's a shame the many editors believe that new policy has to be written to decide everything, and that people can't just get along, with out forever trying to prove that they are right.  I think for those editors who are activlly working to creaate wikipedia and making positive edits, that any POV on user pages will not carry over to writing articales.  And for those that are only looking to cause trouble, it dosn't matter what they have on their user page, as most honest wikipedians don't trust them to start with. --T-rex 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Jimbo said about userboxes on [[wikien-l]] 

message: Presuming we do enact some policy on "good" versus "bad" userboxes, it occurred to me that it will be important to give people lots of help in deciding which is which.  I think one way of focusing the distinction is to notice that the userboxes we're worried about, the divisive and polemical ones, all carry a second, not-so-hidden message:
*This user is ____ (as is any thinking person)
*This user is ____ (as opposed to all the heathen ____ who are not)
*This user is ____ (and I dare you to be offended by it)
*This user is ____ (and is therefore not one of those damn ____)
*This user is ____ (and you're an idiot if you're not)
*This user is ____ (and you're a censor if you deny my right to say so)
Ask yourself: are you actually stating a salient fact, or are you wearing something on your sleeve?
Ask yourself honestly: will anyone be offended by the statement in this userbox?
Ask yourself even more honestly: are you secretly hoping that they will?
If you expect that someone is likely to be offended, and if your excuse is "but it's their fault for being so closeminded", that might not be a good enough reason.  Perhaps they are closeminded, and perhaps it would be a good thing if they could be taught otherwise, but it's not clear that their minds will automatically open in response to statements which mostly seem to taunt their opposing beliefs.  In any case, it is clear that Wikipedia is not the place for this education to take place.  It would be much, much better not to put this potentially-offensive statement on your Wikipedia user page.  Put it on your personal home page, and put a link to your personal home page on your Wikipedia user page, and people who are interested enough in you to follow that link can then learn everything you want them to. Steve Summit (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litmus tests