Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes

message: It sounds like the major issues are: Respect for Others, Factionalism, Copyright, and Server Usage.
In terms of respect, I believe that so long as a userbox does not exhibit negativism nor contain offensive content that would not normally be allowed as part of a user page, the userbox should be allowed to stay. They are just a part of a userpage, and really do not need content regulation. For organization reasons, it is clearly quite difficult to maintain a directory of userbox templates, but the community seems to be handling it just like we handle other problems such as stub sorting, and infoboxes. So in terms of organization we need to maintian the directory of userboxes, but I don't think this requires an extensive policy.
In terms of factionalism: A userbox is just a template for inserting Wiki markup quickly and synonymously accross pages, it is no different then saying the same thing or writing the Wiki markup on your page itself. I do not believe that identifying yourself - your language, your passions, your beliefs - causes factionalism within a professional project. I do not read a person's user page before reading their edits, rather I read their edits and perhaps their user page. Even in disputes I do not think that we judge based upon who a user is. Understanding each other clearly, where we came from and what we believe, often makes it much easier to resolve disputes. Many conflicts both in our day to day lives and globally would be much easier to resolve if the parties truly understood each other.
As for the issue of copyright, there is concern, copyrighted items cannot be used on Wikipedia if the copyright owner does not release them. However this dispute has centered largely around political parties, which are not a good indicator, as these organization want positive press everywhere. The bottom line though is that copyrighted material cannot be a part of wikipedia outside of fair use. Whether logos of political organizations fall under fair use is a seperate issue and is irrelevant to the larger discussion of userboxes.
Finally, server usage: Some facts might be merited here that only admins and above have access to. Do the Mediawiki servers spend a lot of CPU time rendering user pages? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Regardless, userboxes themselves are not really the issue here, but rather the size of userpages in general. Again, this is a seperate isssue that relates more widely to user pages in general and should be discussed elsewhere.
I hope we can resolve this in a professional manner. --Matthew 03:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with factionalism is that userboxes make it easier for those who have a factionalized mindset to enage in factionalizing actions. For instance, they can recruit votes/comments/reverters simply by seeing who, for instance, has a relevant userbox. Michael Ralston 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by doing so, they render themselves ineligible to participate if it becomes controversial, for they have declared themselves to be non-neutral. Jamesday 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: User page resource consumption is not going to be significant. Those are not what people go searching for or finding. If it's not being looked at much it's unlikely to be a problem, ever. Please do take care not to write "copyrighted" when you really mean "copyright infringing". Jamesday 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Press vs Respect, Factionalism, Copyright, Servers 

message: I mean, Userpages should NOT be part of the NPOV policy so as long as these boxes are on USERPAGES, it should be perfectly okay. Drahcir  my talk  02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously 

message: ... is that I don't think userboxes should be in template space.  But instead of simply laying that down as a policy and giving people 30 days to scoot their boxes over onto their user pages, or finding some other solution to the issue, a vague policy is being used to slash and burn user boxes.  So here I find myself, arguing against the deletion of userbox templates, not because I think they should be in the article template space, but because there is no reason in the current policy, even with CSD T1 (under my interpretation of it, which, of course differs from the next guy's, and thet next guy's, and...), that many of these templates should be deleted.
If the problem is user templates in encyclopedia space, pass a policy that As of 15 March, all POV userboxes will be removed from template space.  But instead, userboxes are getting cut down for no amazingly good reason, causing strife and destroying good will toward the project and each other.  The worst part of this, more than the deletion of lines of code (which are easily replicated again, locally, on user pages) is finding myself bickering with good editors who have added excellent content to this encyclopedia.  But because we disagree about the application of this CSD, we squabble, and I have no doubt are tempted to abandon the assumption of good faith.
All of us, on every side of this issue, should demand better policy. JDoorjam     Talk 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. In the mean time, maybe the current borked policy will encourage everyone to put in code old-school and get on with their lives. Alternatively, if they're too lazy to do it themselves, we can try to do it for them... for a fee. :-) Bi 10:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I've been sitting on the fence on this one because I haven't seen anyone else taking the 'side' that I am on: there's nothing wrong with the content of userboxes on a user's own page, I fully support freedom of speech and freedom of expression.  But templates are tools to create articles, and categories are tools to make finding content in a very large encyclopedia easier.  I don't believe templates should be used as pigeonholes to describe users, nor should categories be used to categorize users.  Everyone is different from everyone else, and have the right to say so, but when they are lumped together with others of similar but not identical viewpoint, who then claim to speak for everyone in that category, their individual rights are eroded.  As I see it, deleting userboxes violates free speech rights, but using templates and categories to implement userboxes is just as bad, especially since it creates a lot of irrelevant cruft in the namespace intended to write articles (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). I guess I would be happiest if all userbox templates and the associated categories were first expanded as code into all the pages that use them, and then completely wiped from Wikipedia, with a policy against creating any new ones. Aumakua 03:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware of Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll? I think you will find that to your liking. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The thing that frustrates me the most 

message: I've removed the  tag as I don't think it's appropriate. Note I also didn't put the original proposed box back. I put in a very small note saying that it was a discussion. I think it's premature to say (unilaterally) that it is rejected (as it is premature for me to say that it is policy). No harm intended.  aa  v ^ 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added to the wording to point out the controversial nature of the proposal, and linked to the debate.  I agree that it hasn't been rejected (especially as Jimbo effectively duct-taped it in there), but with that said, if this policy were a donated kidney, with all of the anger and inflammation it's caused so far... I'd be worried that we're approaching the "R" word.  (I know, Cyde, you hate metaphors used as arguments; I hope you'll humor me.) JDoorjam     Talk 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been rejected by the community. There's a need for a UBX policy but it must be rewritten from scratch. Tempers are too high and feelings too strong for this to be accepted. Let it go, and let's move on. John Reid 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rejected 

message: It is of many people's opinions that userboxes should not contain categories, the reason being that it helps group Wikipedians into various factions.  Also, categories are in the main space, not user space, and shouldn't be used for silliness like, "Wikipedians who play clarinet at an expert level".  And finally, categories are just ugly ... when people have lots of userboxes the bottom rows of their userpage become an endless list of categories.  Is there consensus on this?  --Cyde Weys 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are in their own namespace, not the article namespace -- just as are templates.  Alai 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but the point is that the Category namespace was originally made to help categorize articles in the main articlespace, you know, helping the original purpose of building the encyclopedia.  The use of categories to group users by various attributes is silly, unencyclopedic, potential to abuse, self-referential, and it really does harm the quality of the Wiki.  Remember, the list of all the categories (from A to Z) is available directly on the main page.  A good portion of curious Wikipedia users just browse randomly through categories, looking for things that catch their interest.  Now when a lot of those categories are unencyclopedic user nonsense, that's a bad thing.  --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-namespace-specific use is pretty well-established, though, so the "main space" statement is both not technically correct, and confusing in practice.  Aside from the "good" userboxes, it's used endemically for the Wikipedia namespace.  The terminology of "self-references" being used outwith application to the article space is very strange, and I wish we'd get rid of all such Zondorisms clutterly up meta-pages, framing things in such terms.  Meta-content isn't inherently good or bad in itself, the question is whether it ultimately benefits the actual content.  That's a judgement call, and one that's not going to be straightforwardly framed in terms of namespace issues (though that might bring a certain amount of clarity to the remaining issues, that are currently being obscured by such considerations).  It's a further judgement call as to how much meta-meta-harm it's reasonable to incur in getting rid of actual and possible meta-harm.  Alai 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Categories are automatically generated and usable as red links, and go blue when someone describes what the category is for... but there's no amazingly good way, short of removing them one by one from people's pages of eliminating categories.  And I don't want to get into the aesthetics business; "ugliness" of a user page isn't hugely compelling to me.  The "faction" argument is the only one I think I agree with, and one that is often brought up for categories and template userboxes.  When have categories and userboxes been used to recruit people?  How often does that happen? JDoorjam     Talk 13:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia for one instance of userboxes/categories being used for recruiting POV-pushing. There are some links to earlier instances in that article. This is a relatively new phenomena, so it's not a question of how often it happens, but of stopping it before it becomes the norm. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Jason Gastrich also used Christian user categories and userbox templates to organize a massive vote on a series of twelve articles that were up for deletion.  It caused a huge mess and eventually ended up in an RFC and a currently ongoing RFAr.  --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know. "Wikipedians who play clarinet at an expert level" looks pretty benign to me, unless there's some holy war going on involving clarinets that I don't know about. But if there's a reasonable uniform policy that accidentally excludes these, then I won't exactly be complaining. Bi 10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, the eternal, bitter POV struggle between the brass and woodwind sections.  I think the uniformity is a very important point.  Ideally I'd like a policy that there's a genuine bottom-up consensus for (give or take some prodding), but at the least we should we end up with is a crisply-defined criterion, that doesn't depend on hopelessly subjective (and self-applicable) judgements like "divisiveness".  Thus if it happens to be something like "get this crap out of the category and template namespaces", that's nice and simple and easily applied.  (Leaving us with in theory no worse issues than we have at present with people voting to keep the guidelinewise unkeepable, and not rename the clearly NC-noncompliant (or vice versa in either case).)  If we instead end up with the top-down imposition of a policy, which in turns depends on a top-down case--by-case implementation, people will be antagonised far more thsn need be.  Alai 13:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policy should be "Get this crap out of the category and template namespaces."  That's a very reasonable policy, and reserves those two for what they were originally intended for anyway, categorizing and templatizing the main encyclopedia content.  --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with a separate Category namespace for users is that there really is no reason for users to be categorizing themselves in the first place.  And your argument about, "This can always be circumvented, so why bother", is flawed.  Let me offer an analogy: do you lock the doors to your home?  Why?  Thieves can always just break into your windows.  And there's no point in covering your window with iron bars because thieves can always just cut through them with a gas torch, right?  You see where I'm going with this?  You shouldn't give up security/prevention mechanisms because they aren't 100% effective, because none of them are 100% effective, and in the end you're left with no security rather than decent security.  If removing categories and userbox templates gets rid of most of the user factionalizing and recruiting, which it sounds like it will, it should be done.  --Cyde Weys 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessarily correct. The major difference is I can facilitate categorization with four lines of perl on wikipedia (again, beans). However, if you were to break into my home, I'd happily shoot you. So the comparison isn't valid. It's trivially easy for me to "break" wikipedia, and trivially easy for somebody to break into my home. However, the stakes are entirely different for the two. Removing all the userboxes will only result in users who hate those who removed them. Even if they're in the minority, they are in the vocal, activist minority. And no, nobody is holding wikipedia hostage, but we owe it to ourselves to come to a compromise. ... aa:talk 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no reason why someone can't just "happily shoot" the screaming minority. Bi 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No categories 

message: This reminds me of the tale of Thomas Becket.  After the King of England muttered his famous complaint about the Archbishop, perhaps accompanied by some gesture that was a little more abrupt than the King intended, a couple or so of his overzealous knights proceeded, without any further ado, to act upon his utterance, as if they had royal instruction to do so.  You know the rest of the story.  Of course the king was full of regret after it was too late.  70.105.23.197 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. —Nightstallion (?) 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes are the new [[Thomas a Becket]]? 

message: Please, end the censorship. If you axe the userboxes, i'll just type up a long essay of beliefs in place of it. Coolgamer 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that's permitted. Hell, I did it (although I should probably remove it because it doesn't achieve anything) when one of the userboxes I used was deleted. And I don't even like userboxes that much. Lord Bob 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please get rid of those userboxes and replace them with an essay. An essay expressing your opinions and POVs served Wikipedia quite well for a long time. This isn't about censorship. BrokenSegue 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a matter of principle. Having all my opinions summed up instead of having to type them out, and also being able to find others using the same userbox, thereby making more friends and connections, and you want to take all of that away. It's a social aspect. Coolgamer 03:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So, connecting socially is more important to you than keeping Wikipedia NPOV? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dalbury may have phrased it poorly, but... he's got a point. The ability to "find others using the same userbox" is at least part of the problem. It makes "vote stuffing" and other forms of POV-pushing far, far easier. Michael Ralston 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Google goes evil, now this... 

message: Just a heads up, the new policy is currently in action.  I don't particularly know if it's the policy on this page, as that's a pretty incoherent list of lists, but regardless, the new policy is going into effect.  --Cyde Weys 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What new policy? What are you talking about? JDoorjam     Talk 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check out the DRV userbox subpage.  It has the most information.  --Cyde Weys 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be a smart-ass, but the only policy I found there was "debates will be archived after 5 days." I'm feeling a little dense... what, exactly, are you talking about? JDoorjam     Talk 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The big boxes highlighted in red.  You really can't miss 'em.  --Cyde Weys 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are posts from Jimbo's talk page and the mailing list. I don't read this as policy. — brighterorange (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know who Jimbo is?  This is still his site, it's not a democracy.  He can set policy simply by speaking it.  He's kind of a god amoung mere mortals, or something like that.  --Cyde Weys 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F.  This is not Jimbo's site.  He is a great guy and he's done great things, but the site belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Jimbo is a Trustee and the Chair of the Board of Trustees.  This does not make the site "his".  --Nelson Ricardo 01:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah.  I hadn't considered those policies (they don't really provide any specific guidance), as much as quotations from El Jimbo about the subject at hand.  I'm still not clear what the "policy" is, having read the text you're referring to, as it seems like Jimbo's sentiments on the matter, and not an actual policy.  And I think this part is blatantly false: "That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that as a whole the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate."  But it's pretty obvious from the talk page that the community as a whole in fact doesn't feel that way.  And as I amended the front page to say, Jimbo hasn't actually made any policy statement.  In fact, that's the only thing he's on the record for: he hasn't said anything. JDoorjam     Talk 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not using the same definition of divisive then.  The fact that there is a big argument going on at the talk page means there are opposing sides, both of which would have to be foolish not to realize that userboxes are causing divisiveness over their very existence.  It's not so much an issue of the divisiveness of the individual userboxen.  --Cyde Weys 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C'moooooon, that's silly reasoning.  It's non-falsifiable.  It's loaded dice. "These userboxes are divisive!" "No, they're not...." "Ha-HA! You see!?!?"  By that logic, there's no way whatsoever to disprove the divisiveness of anything. JDoorjam     Talk 01:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I picked a bad way to explain it, but userboxen have been much more divisive to the community than practically ... anything.  Even "big" disputes, like Brian Peppers, Lolicon, or cartoon war, involved far less people.  --Cyde Weys 02:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has been divisive to the community isn't the userboxes, but the ram-rodding of the anti-userbox crowd.  Sure, a couple have been controversial, sure in one case there was POV pushing, but User:Tony Sidaway decided to make it a personal crusade to delete all userboxes, and tried to delete them in bulk before even bothering with a policy.  That is what divided the community, not some 100x20 pixel box on user pages. -- Jbamb 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about I turn your own argument around? Sure, it's a bad idea to delete stuff under a bad policy, but it happened only because some people are using userboxes to push their POV in article space, and because some userboxes are creating useless controversy. You're blindly biased against views other than your own, that's what. Bi 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The userbox issue has been very divisive, yes. But neither of these two statements make sense: (1) "The userbox issue is divisive to the community. Therefore we should settle on what (some unmeasured fraction) believe and delete all userboxes in order to remove this divisiveness." (2) "The userbox issue is divisive to the community. Therefore we should stop discussion about userboxes in order to remove this divisiveness."  I have seen both invoked here recently. They don't make sense because the division is not one that is contingent on userboxes—the disagreement runs deeper than that, and while I don't think either side really cares this much about actual userboxes, we do care strongly about the underlying debate. For my own part, I see the push for regulation (and the successful addition to CSD) as a legitimization of unilateral administrator action, which not only rubs me the wrong way, I think it is specifically against the spirit of the Wiki. Simply declaring victory for one side or another will never remove this underlying strife, though it might mean we have nothing specific to fight about for a while. — brighterorange (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously missed the "userboxes are divisive and disturb NPOV in article space, so let's just subst: those darn things and move on" part. :) To me, the real "underlying" issue is precisely that some people are seeing underlying stuff that simply isn't there. Hey, instead of dealing with specific issues like people using userboxes to bias an article or to diss others, and specific solutions like the one above, let's trot out some fluffy generic abstract rant about the evils of fascism and how we absolutely must win Earth's Final War of Good Against Evil, Because Good Must Triumph Over Evil, w00t w00t w00t! As far as I can see, those of us who actually bother to look at the specific issues are slowly reaching some sort of consensus, even if we may disagree at first. Bi 17:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But to repeat my earlier point:  templates and categories are in widespread and accepted use in several namespaces, "only" one of which (the one all the others are there simply to support, mind you...) is subject to NPOV as a policy.  So namespace-based arguments get fuzzy.  But yes, clarifying permitted use of the namespaces, substing, possibly creating some new namespaces if this facilitates matters, and moving on, would be an outcome devoutly to be wished.  Alai 05:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The policy is now in action 

message: Ladies and gentlemen, I am done arguing about userboxes.  I've realized that I used to help write an encyclopedia.  Perhaps you've heard of it.  I've met a lot of very spirited, passionate people while arguing here, and I truly hope I haven't pissed too many people off.  Especially you, Cyde, as we have prettymuch disagreed this entire time, but I still think you seem like a good guy.  Gal?  Wikipedian.
The fact is, I've thought long and hard about it, and I've come to realize two things:
#My userboxes are pretty vanilla, and I don't think anyone's gonna come for them.  (They're substed anyway.)
#I don't really care that much about my userboxes.  Am I going to delete them?  No.  They amuse me.  But that's not what I'm here for.
The current policy on userboxes is crap.  And I don't mean that it's unfair, although certainly its application has been less than uniform.  I mean it's simply badly written.  It's vague, and it opens the door to crusaders.  And if there's one thing I hate more than Hawaiian pizza, it's people on crusades.  But there are two things I hate more, and that's people on crusades and bad policy.  And this is both.
So, I'm going to go back to protecting Archimedes, which for some reason is vandalized ALL the freaking time.  And I'm gonna help the Vermont Wiki Project.  And if anyone wants help subst'ing their userboxes, ask me, and I'll give you a hand. But ask like this:
"JDoorjam, can you help me subst my userboxes?  I'm worried about them being deleted, and that concern is the thing that's keeping me from getting back to writing an encyclopedia."
And I will help you out.
I really, really do respect the passionate and well-meaning people on both sides of this argument.  But the plurality of my respect for y'all is because you're Wikipedians, and you've chosen to spend your time helping to write the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of the world.  Let's do it, people.
I'll see you around the Wiki. JDoorjam     Talk 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. I completely agree with everything JDoorjam said, and I'll be going back to working on the actual encyclopedia instead of going back and forth over a really poorly designed and implemented policy. --nihon 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha. See above. ~MDD4696 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm out

message: After discussion, I've copied Pathoschild's suggested policy to our project page for discussion and possible amendment.  This picked up quite a lot of support during workshopping as part of Pathoschild's personal userbox project, and I think it's time to see how it stands up to the light of day. Comments in the section below, please. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathoschild's policy proposal

message: *I added in a statement to the effect of "no userspace categories in category mainspace" because the problems of factionalism and vote stuffing are even worse with categories than with template userboxes.  --Cyde Weys 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: To avoid confusion, a formal poll has been opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll
===Support===
#Sure, whatever, let's just agree on something. Haukur 16:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Girolamo Savonarola. The bias or lack of bias of an article edit is all in the edit itself. If you decide whether an edit is biased or unbiased based on some bumper sticker on a user page, then you're engaging in ad hominem, which is wrong anyway. Bi 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh?  I doubt anyone will first look at a userbox and assume all edits by the person will be biased, but rather first notice a biased addition and then take the userbox as a sign that the user is acknowledging and working on his own bias and as permission to help bring each others' edits into POV. --AySz88^-^ 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The threat is that people who might WANT to find people who will make biased edits can, with "what links here" and similar features. I would wager that if I were to pick a specific POV I wanted pushed somewhere, I could find and request asisstance from quite a few people with a relevant userbox - at least some of whom would then go and do so. (Obviously I have no intention of doing so, and even mentioning the possibility may violate WP:BEANS, but I think it makes the issue clear.) Michael Ralston 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I mixed up sections/pages - I thought this was Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#POV_Userbox_Suggestion.  My mistake.  Maybe time to go to sleep. :p --AySz88^-^ 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AySz88: well, it sure doesn't look that way to me. The people who used userboxes to conduct vote-stuffing certainly weren't acknowledging that they are biased. It looks more like they think that they alone hold the unbiased truth, and people who disagree with them are simply plain wrong or trying to be "politically correct" or whatever. And besides, I don't think I need to ask someone's permission to neutralize a biased edit. Bi 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on new policy 

message: #Sure, whatever, let's just agree on something. Haukur 16:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #I would support it if the part about images hadn't been added. Outside of that one point, I support it. --日本穣 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #I have no clue what policy we are voting on.  The project page is just a list of pros and cons, but there is no actual policy --T-rex 18:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Girolamo Savonarola. The bias or lack of bias of an article edit is all in the edit itself. If you decide whether an edit is biased or unbiased based on some bumper sticker on a user page, then you're engaging in ad hominem, which is wrong anyway. Bi 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh?  I doubt anyone will first look at a userbox and assume all edits by the person will be biased, but rather first notice a biased addition and then take the userbox as a sign that the user is acknowledging and working on his own bias and as permission to help bring each others' edits into POV. --AySz88^-^ 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The threat is that people who might WANT to find people who will make biased edits can, with "what links here" and similar features. I would wager that if I were to pick a specific POV I wanted pushed somewhere, I could find and request asisstance from quite a few people with a relevant userbox - at least some of whom would then go and do so. (Obviously I have no intention of doing so, and even mentioning the possibility may violate WP:BEANS, but I think it makes the issue clear.) Michael Ralston 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I mixed up sections/pages - I thought this was Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#POV_Userbox_Suggestion.  My mistake.  Maybe time to go to sleep. :p --AySz88^-^ 03:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AySz88: well, it sure doesn't look that way to me. The people who used userboxes to conduct vote-stuffing certainly weren't acknowledging that they are biased. It looks more like they think that they alone hold the unbiased truth, and people who disagree with them are simply plain wrong or trying to be "politically correct" or whatever. And besides, I don't think I need to ask someone's permission to neutralize a biased edit. Bi 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstain

message: From the point of view of reducing redundancy, would it be unreasonable, or too open to abuse to allow userbox templates that indicate knowledge or interest to accept a free-form argument for succinctly disclosing POV? eg.  as opposed to both a userbox and text, or two userboxen. --Martin Rudat(T|@|C) 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy between templated userboxes and disclosure of POV 

message: The main problem these userbox deletionist seem to have is the whatlinkshere function and user categories. Would it be possible to disable whatlinkshere for POV userboxes on a technical level? 
This one single step this would allow userboxes to still be easily transcluded (keep pro-userbox  ppl happy) and stop any mass voting (keeping anti-userbox ppl happy).--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would POV boxen be specified as such? You'd also have to remove categories and images from userboxes. Johnleemk | Talk 20:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You still have whatlinkshere from the articles which are linked to, and Google as brighterorange said.  With all of that, it's not very elegant anymore, though it's not that inelegant either. --AySz88^-^ 21:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Google can be used on subst userboxes anyway so it's a moot point. Also, whatlinkshere script could be changed so that userboxes with the __NOWLH_ tag would not appear in the list of whatlinkshere for articles. It's not good to be paranoid trying to think of every way imaginable around this.--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 21:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * But this is exactly my point: there are so many ways to find out who has a particular userbox, whether subst'd or not, that there is no point in trying to restrict a straightforward and otherwise useful one. Wikis live by their links, and the internet lives on search. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If the technical details can be worked out, this looks like it would meet the point I decided was most important to me, and I could support it. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course. Now, I'll go back to my editing. -- 65.8.3.69 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Solution. 

message: Oppose any attempt to purge UBX from template space or rm cats from them. Why?
One important purpose of UBX is to allow Wikipedians to form subgroups. This is natural and proper, the way people work together: Large groups subdivide. To demand that members not form subgroups is at best a fantasy, at worst totalitarian excess. People are people; there is nothing we can do to alter human nature -- not so abruptly or violently. No matter how much we think it wise or good, we cannot simply stamp out factionalism; it is an essential method by which people get business done and nothing can replace it. 
Some fear UBX, especially UBX with cats, facilitate vote-packing. Good, I say. Truly, I would prefer a world, or even a wiki, in which there was no vote-packing -- but that's a fantasy world. There is vote-packing; there was vote-packing before anyone thought to create the first UBX; there will be vote-packing long after the last UBX has been ground into dust. Nothing is more natural than that partisans (of any point of view) should recruit fellow-thinkers to support their efforts. We cannot possibly eliminate such activity; so the next best thing is to level the playing field and make it equally easy for those on all sides of an issue to gather support. 
Elminating UBX will not eliminate factionalism, it will merely drive it underground. Nor would it be good to eliminate factionalism even if it were possible to do so. None of us are such able social engineers that we can conceive of a mechanism that can replace the time-tested, natural process by which large groups of people express themselves: by forming subgroups, factions, and parties from which articulate leaders emerge. 
Let's admit we are humans and do what people do. John Reid 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UBX cats are a must 

message: Please allow me to address specific points raised on the face of this page: 
* Are fair use/copyrighted images legally allowed in userboxes? → No. Fair use is an unsettled area of law but it's pretty clear that it cannot apply to UBX. Fair use might apply (for instance) if a copyrighted photo of Jimmy Page is used in an article about that worthy; it cannot be stretched to cover a hypothetical Template: User Jimmy Page Fan UBX. IANAL, but even a quick glance at case law makes it obvious. 
* Many userboxes cover topics/views/interests unrelated to the creating of an encyclopedia. → No. This is a comprehensive, general-interest encyclopedia; it is difficult to imagine any topic lying entirely without our purview. I welcome the example. 
* What types of templates ... should be allowed? → All UBX should appear in template space -- invariably as Template:User Foo. This is the correct use of template space, which is not privileged for article use alone. Note that any page at all may be transcluded and used as a template; template space is simply the dedicated namespace for such use. Attempting to userfy UBX is just an attempt to deprecate them superficially, an especially weak and poor move: If UBX were harmful, userfying would only drive the problem deeper. Terrible to try to address a social question by screwing up the technical machinery; template space is for templates -- all templates -- and that's that. Templates that appear on article pages must comply with all policies regarding article pages; those that do not, need not. 
* What ... types of categories should be allowed? → Any UBX may contain a cat; all such cats should be subcats of :Category:Wikipedians. I'm tempted to say all UBX must contain a cat. Stand up and be counted! 
* What is different from grouping Wikipedians by category ... and grouping Wikipedians by WikiProjects ...? → The answer ranges from much to nothing depending on the WikiProject singled out for comparison. Logically, every UBX should have a corresponding page within which members of that faction can marshal their forces and their arguments. And, also logically, every member of a WikiProject -- however neutral it may appear -- should display a corresponding UBX. But I would never compel anyone to do so. 
* ...userboxes may contain content not acceptable for userpages... → No, they may not. If content is so offensive that it cannot appear on a user page then it certainly cannot appear on a user page inside a UBX. 
* There is dispute among Wikipedians as to how far to take the ideals of NPOV → Yes. NPOV is a goal, a direction in which we strive -- it is not an achievable destination. Every article is biased -- every single word. Bias can never be eliminated entirely and in the case of controversial topics there is no middle ground. The best we can hope for is to represent significant points of view fairly. UBX aid us in this quest by allowing us to be honest about our biases instead of pretending foolishly that we have none. 
* If someone wishes to label themselves as holding some vehement or obnoxious opinion, this may be useful... → Yes. If you're a Fooist and you're willing to call yourself a Fooist and say so openly, I can only thank you for making it plain to me and everyone else. The more outrageous your opinion the happier I am to see you wearing a badge declaring it. 
* Labeling someone else ... is defamatory vandalism. → Yes. Nobody should be posting UBX (or anything else) on other people's user pages (unless the user has declared his page "open"). This should be obvious. Don't blame the tool; blame the fool who wields it as a weapon. 
* Many are redundant/pointless... → Doubtful. Three examples are given; each expresses a personal opinion. When I see one of these on a user page I form an impression of the user -- which is the intent. These impressions may or may not be exactly as the user in question would have it; but that's a weakness in all symbols. I can explain my interpretation of each example on demand. Besides, the most blatantly irreverent and foolish UBX makes a statement about the user who displays it -- a statement perhaps unflattering but one I am quite willing to notice. 
* There should be a system for inclusion ... where new userboxes are debated → No. Display of a UBX may be the easiest and most straightforward way for an unpopular minority to declare itself. We don't need more groupthink. Indeed, the more unpopular the sentiment, the more valuable the UBX. 
* Wikipedia shouldn't be used to organize campaigns to push a particular viewpoint. → "Wikipedia" isn't so used -- not in this sense. Wikipedia is the product of a community of people; the community is built in and by a large, diverse group of people and a large group of computer servers operating the MediaWiki engine. Together we blunder our way toward our final product -- and along the way we do all the dirty human things that humans do everywhere else when they work together in large groups. (Also all the loony things computers do in large groups.) Part of that includes organizing into political pressure groups. This activity cannot be eliminated and attempts to suppress it can only drive it underground and make it stealthy, secretive, and vicious. 
* Excessive userboxes may be seen as a wasteful use of Wikipedia's computing power... → Silly. It could be seen that way; and so could nearly anything else that you or I did not like. Better beings than us -- highly evolved beings indeed -- might simply write the encyclopedia, one page after another, and never indulge in discussion of any kind; is it not all superfluous? If every self-serving or personal word were deleted from the servers I suggest the database would be halved. But talk pages are essential -- and UBX serve an essential need, too. 
* Userbox numbers are rising very rapidly. Numbers ... suggest an exponential growth curve. ...it may be too late to deal with them later.... There are a virtually unlimited number of potential userboxes → Not really. Exponential growth curves are unsustainable; they invariably flatten into a logistics curve or collapse entirely. Some resource will eventually run out -- probably, in this case, human interest. I dare to forecast that the total number of UBX will never exceed the total number of registered users; and I suggest that the knee is not far off even now. 
* What is needed is a clear set of guidelines for deleting userboxes... → Yes; already in place. If it's acceptable on a user page it's acceptable in a UBX; if not, not. Done.
* Customarily, it is mandatory to declare ones interests before entering a debate. → Yes. It annoys me when someone who disagrees with me attempts to claim the moral high ground by saying, "You are biased; I am neutral." This is transparent foolishness and an insult. It annoys me even more when he says, "Neither of us are biased; I can't see how you can possibly disagree with me." I have no difficulty whatever with someone who opens a debate by saying, "I believe this and you seem to disagree; I think you're wrong." Maybe he's right. 
* Will Wikipedia be used as a campaigning tool by political groups uninterested in building an encyclopedia? → Yes and oh well. News flash: Only a minority of Wikipedians have the building of an encyclopedia as their primary goal; most are otherwise motivated. Some edit for fun, some to push a point of view, some in hopes of making money, some to practice their writing skills, some to act out their obsessive-compulsive disorders, some to make friends, some to gain power, some simply to tear away at what they find offensive. I venture that many edit simply for the pleasure of seeing their words up on the big screen. Fine. Wikipedia does not and will not pay editors so much as a penny for all their hard hours of work. If we want people to work at all we must take them as they are and allow them to gratify the urges that drive them to contribute -- so long as these are not in direct conflict with the ultimate goal, and sometimes even when they are. It is part of the magic of collaborative editing that we gather all these disparate drives and harness them together to produce a work of value. It is not in our interest to suppress them. 
I'd like to remind fellow editors, once again, that UBX are an inevitable expression of a basic human process. They may at times, like other expressions, be offensive or counterproductive; even occasionally to the point at which they demand elimination. Often they will seem to serve a trivial purpose or none -- like shaking hands or closing the bathroom door. But these human needs which are hardest to articulate and defend are the most compelling and enduring. If UBX are eliminated, the human needs which bred them will surface in another way; these basic drives cannot be eliminated. 
Let's just leave UBX alone; their side effects are trivial and innocuous. And let's get back to work. John Reid 08:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, John Reid, but you don't represent the whole human race. I don't feel such a great urge to espouse my opinions on every darn thing that I have to scribble "JAVA S4X0RZ W00T W00T W00T!!!!111111" or "JAVA R0X0RZ W00T W00T W00T!!11111111" on Wikipedia. If you do have such an urge, just say that you have such an urge, don't claim that it's a "basic human need" or whatever. Because you're not the whole human race. Bi 10:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh sorry... for a moment I thought you were a supporter of free speech. My bad. Bi 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns, point-by-point 

message: Maybe this has been proposed elsewhere - I'm having trouble slogging through the raft of posts, pages, etc. on this subject and would like to get back to work on the encyclopedia - What about changing the format of the userbox to an image? For example, what is now a series of wiki codes that produce either a template or a subst: entity, let them be .jpgs or .svgs for whatever, literally an image-format bumper sticker. The categorization, linking and image use issues remain, but the issue of format would be addressed. Her Pegship 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UBX as images? 

message: Do we really need to have NPOV in userboxes? They won't be used in articles and users should have a right to express themsevles. I'm sure the guys a Wikipedians against Censorship would agree. The Republican 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I propose the following.  Userboxes are deleted and all the sysops that pushed for this policy have their sysop powers revoked.  This compromise I believe is in the best interest of wikipedia to remove those in power who have so divided the community over so small an issue.  Despite the fact that their complains can be addressed any number of ways, they suggest because in one case userboxes were misused (or more appropriately categories), that all userboxes be banned.  I think a fair way to appease and unit both sides of the community is to give something to both sides.  Userboxes go away, and the admins that started this no longer are admins.  Everyone is happy.  Vote below. Jbamb 17:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Policy

message: I asked this question in other places, but I was told this one is the most relevant. I've read about the userboxes policy. There was voting (unfortunately it has finished). I understand no consensus was reached, so strict NPoV has not been imposed on userpages. Thus it is surprising to me that some userboxes disappeared. They include: independent Chechnya, independent Kosovo, independent Montenegro and some others. I might agree that these issues can cause conflicts on Wiki and this should be avoided. Why then "oppose independent Kosovo" or "independent Srpska Kraina" or "reunification of Yugoslavia" was left? Doesn't it cause conflicts? I have a request to admins either to restore all the regional policy boxes or to remove all of them. Regards, Jasra 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: There doesn't seem to be anything in the proposed policy covering this. It seems to me that once a user box is established and lots of people have it on their pages, significant textual changes should be banned, since these lead to potentially incorrect information about people being displayed on their user pages. I seem to have become embroiled in a rather silly debate over this issue at  where people wanted to change the meaning of the box 2 months after its inception (and to something different from all other { { User country } } boxes too I might add). — SteveRwanda 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good argument for not using transcluded userboxes. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. I would certainly support a policy that says all users must copy the code needed for their userboxes directly from a central repository rather than using templates. This issue would go right out of the window then. Not sure that will gain much support though. SteveRwanda 13:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost certainly what's going to happen -- a repository of code snippets to copy to your userpage instead of a catalog of transcludable templates. (Which is incredibly unWiki, but no one cares.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony has the best way to solve this problem --T-rex 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the text of a userbox be changed months after it's created? 

message: Honestly, folks.  Userboxes are kinda like gay marriage, and my feeling about them is the same: "Don't like it?  Don't have one."  The biggest debate seems to be the templates, and which "space" to put them in, which, again, for Pete's sake, we're talking about cyber-vapor.  What difference in the world does it make which virtual directory on which server the templates live in?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China (which is the real issue)?  Couldn't we just establish some separate space (and call it something like "personalia") that is independent, and just let all this crap live there?   Iamvered 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly Agree as per  "Userboxes are kinda like gay marriage, and my feeling about them is the same: 'Don't like it?  Don't have one.'"--Shawn 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Bad analogies are like feathers on a snake.--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *-1 Offtopic Cyde Weys 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are we, Slashdot? Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 10:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most pointless debate ever 

message: Principle B makes it sound like vast amounts of resources are being wasted on userboxes: "As such, the main template and category space and the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim."
I mean, what the heck? Userboxes are tiny- they are a sentence or two, a few snippets of HTML and wikiformatting. They hardly ever change (costing little in terms of page history and template updates), and they aren't that widely used, and there aren't that many of'em. I would be surprised to find that any userbox was used by more than a few hundred pages, and even more surprised to learn that there were more than a modest number of userboxes (perhaps a thousand max?).  
I'd bet that I've wasted more server resources editting Palpatine or Musashi Miyamoto and idly checking my edit count or refreshing my watchlist than I've cost the servers for all the templates on my user page. If principle b wants to talk about costs, do it about a real problem, like scarce editor-attention or -time, not bogus "server resources" --maru   (talk)  contribs 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with principle B 

message: If the userboxes have to go, then all types of userboxes covering any sort of belief/conviction have to go in order to keep it content neutral, and in the spirit of Wikipedia.  It would not be fair to let a user have a userbox demonstrating his belief in democracy whilst communist ones don't get a look in.  All or nothing, I reckon. --Knucmo2 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note 

message: For individuals speaking for themselves to be prevented from expressing points of view, would make Wikipedia worse off. Expression of personal points of view on userpages helps others better appreciate your perspective on your edits; more importantly, it helps Wikipedians get to know one another and fosters a sense of community, rather than faceless anonymity. Besides, no one is fooled by the supposedly NPOV-ized replacement userboxes indicating that "this user is 'interested in' atheism", "this user is 'interested in' Christianity", etc.; we all understand the expressions of personal points of view inherent in those milquetoasted userboxes, though we must do so with the annoying mental step of de-Orwellianizing them. Wikipedia is privately owned and so can offer whatever services or prohibit whatever expression it feels like on its servers. However, expression of personal points of view is inherent anyway in any userpages, messages to other users, or discussion pages. I don't think efforts to prevent Wikipedia servers from being used to convey individuals' personal points of view in userboxes are meaningful unless they also do away with userpages, user talk pages, and article talk pages.
Also posted at User:Reaverdrop/Userboxes - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventing personal POV in userboxes is neither feasible nor conducive to community 

message: I believe that we should keep them as it helps people find users that could help with sections of their articles.  I am currently working on the Sports Section of Minnesota, and it helped the main editor of this article find someon like me with extensive knowledge in this area due to my userboxes.  They help people find out who they are dealing with and if they know something about a subject important to an article you are editing. False Prophet 01:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we should keep userboxes

message: I'm sorry, but you guys arguing that there is a such thing as a NPOV are just plain wrong. Every person is influenced by his own experience - every scientist, historian, doctor, or any other professional has biases, even if inately so. Philosophically, we can never really see things or feel things from another person's perspective, anyway. This is why userboxes are so important - they help us understand the conclusions the wikipedian has reached through their own experiences. By simply browsing through userboxes we can get a good idea about the person without readig a mile long biography - this will help us understand the persons editing and aid in compensating when the person seems to be favoring certain POVs. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are partly right. A person can't have a NPOV, but an encyclopedia can. Wikipedia can't have full NPOV but it is very close. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no such thing as a NPOV