Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:31, 25 February 2006

Latest revision as of 04:33, 19 February 2023

(579 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Historical}}

==Two points for clarification==

{{tmbox

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

| image = [[Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg|40x40px]]

| text =

This is an '''[[Help:Archiving a talk page|archive]]''' of past discussions. '''Do not edit the contents of this page.'''<!-- Template:Talkarchive -->

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 75K

|counter = 4

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(28d)

|archive = Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{archives|search=yes}}

== Call for cancellation of vote ==

Secondly, would templates hosted in userspace be subject to deletion under this policy? --- '''Charles Stewart'''<small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*We wouldn't need a new criterion to speedy personal attacks, we've already got that one. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">^{T}</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

**Currently the only attack CSD is CSD A6 covering [[Wikipedia:Attack page]]s in the article space. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 02:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUserbox_policy_poll&diff=41971608&oldid=41969291 here] show that the stated policy is capable of completely incompatible interpretations. Clarifying would probably change a number of votes, so this poll should be considered strongly suspect, and should only be considered "consensus" with a much higher percentage of support votes. I think 85% might be adequate, but I'd need to be convinced. The "traditional" 75-80% should not be adequate. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

#'''Support''' - I've already shown on the talk page evidence of users not fully understanding what the proposal would actually accomplish. Also I think it's apparent that the policy is written in a confusing way, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll&oldid=41514082 addition] of the "Clarification" section when the poll was already at (88/25/11) means that alot of users voted on rather unclear text. [[User:SeraphimXI|<span style="color:#FF3399;">Seraphim</span>]] 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

== My own proposals ==

:I think the proposed '''policy''' has changed significantly, not just voters' understanding, during the vote. Under the circumstances, that, if this were a poll, it would be fair to drop the '''Support''' percentage by 10% before applying the 75-80% guideline for "consensus". &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

# T1 should be rewritten to be objective. Current version is so subjective that anyone can read anything they want into it. Speedy should only be for blatant trolling and/or attacks.

::You can't go and try to cancel the vote just because you don't like how it is going! I voted oppose, but have accepted that it is going to pass, so I'll support the communities decision. It seems everyone knows exactlly what they are voting for --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

# Clarify "valid" wikigroupings. Valid to some may not be to others so this needs defined up front.

::: Actually, it's less than 70% support right now, so it looks like it won't pass (though the margin is very close). --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<span style="color:#FF9966;">^</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<span style="color:#FF6633;">-</span>]][[User talk:AySz88|<span style="color:#FF3300;">^</span>]] 21:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

::Well it was around 74% when I agreewrote "valid"that and looked like a done deal at that time. So is toothere an alternative policy being proposed anywhere? vague --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 2320:3024, 2213 FebruaryMarch 2006 (UTC)

:::There are at least two alternative policy proposals, but the 2 or 3 RfAr's show that there's no point in making a proposal unless Jimbo formally states he's not opposed to it, as some Admins will [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|boldly]] delete userboxes which state a point of view, regardless of policy. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Proposed policies include [[Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material]], [[Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes]], and [[Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy]], and a proposed meta-poll presently at [[User:Arthur Rubin/UPP]]. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 21:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - This policy has changed so much that a re-vote would be healthy with a new revised policy. Also I have a solution at the bottom the page that could make everyone happy so there is no need to force through this divisive policy.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <span style="font-family:Symbol;">Ω</span> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

:As the author of that phrase, I can only say what I meant. I meant - existing wiki-projects, Esparanza, CVU, and stuff like that, and any other that the community considered valid in the future. Actual groups of wikipedians who do things together - rather than artificial groupings by POV. I was trying to make sure the polict didn't ban categories and userbox templates for useful associations. I rather support that type of userbox. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 00:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::Yeah - but as we have seen with T1 (what exactly is 'polemical or inflammatory'?) ambiguous statements cause no end of grief, even when they are made in good faith. I realise what you mean - we don't want to have people circumventing it with WikiGroup:Bush Haters or whatever POV you care to pick, but using a term as imprecise as 'valid' is just an open invitation to abuse. [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::What is so goddamned "artificial" about a grouping by POV? It comes as naturally as anything around Wikipedia, I'll have you know. On the other hand, I am agreed on the approach: it ''would'' be better to clarify T1 to be based on an objective criterion. And by objective meaning we define ''particular'' areas where userboxes may not be used, not such large swaths of topics. That is, we don't punish all political userboxes because some dumbass creates an "I like Hitler / I hate Jews" userbox - we say that explicit promotion of fascism and racism is completely unacceptable and punish the perpetrators. --[[User:Dtasripin|Daniel]] 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

::Actually, any criteria hich said 'you can have polictical userboxes, but you can't express the the following political ideas....' would have huge problems. OK, 'I love hitler' would be easily our, but what about the KKK? And if we disallow the KKK, what about extreme racist parties or Al Queda? Hezbollah? Can somone say he thinks David Irvine was right? Any such rules are going to be arbitrary and smack of censorship. In the end we need common sense to tell the difference between trolling (eg. the pedeophile box) and just extreme views. Actually, if this policy passes, we can abolish T1 altogether. Since, no POV boxes will be allowed as templates - we evenhandedly remove all from the template space. But pretty much all can exist in the userspace. That again is evenhanded and fairly clear. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

== Outsource userspace to '''community.wikimedia.org'''? ==

== Point 2C ==

::While we're talking of grand technical solutions, I have an even grander castele in the sky: Outsource the userspace to a shared project like the Commons (think users.wikimedia.org). Leave only encyclopedic content only on en.wikiepdia.org. This "only" depends on a good single sign-on solution. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

::#'''Agreed'''. Sure, I'd prefer a Christian republic, but this '''''separation of church and state''''' idea you have seems like the best solution we could hope for. &nbsp;<span style="background: lightblue; color:#000000;">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>[[User:Guðsþegn|U]][[User talk:Guðsþegn|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Guðsþegn|E]][[WP:X|X]]</small>&nbsp;&ndash; 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::#'''Strongly Agreed'''. The userspace being separate and independent from the many Wikis seems like a great idea in itself. I have three (03) separate user-pages: one for Wiki-PT (my main userpage); one for the Commons; and yet another for my contributions here. It would be great to have, instead, a single page for all Wikis. - - - In addition, this hypothetical '''users.wikimedia.org''' would be much better if it accepts that no individual ''possesses'' something like a "neutral" point of view. I honestly believe that providing to all users good tools to declare their POVs and the ability to organize themselves around these POVs in an ''honest'' and ''open'' fashion is the best way to achieve the goal of NPOV in the ''encyclopedia''. (PS.: Each user's duty to edit all the articles with the goal of a ''neutral point of view'' would be kept, of course! A user well aware of his own POV is better equipped to '''not''' let this bias get in the way of his objectivity.) --[[User:Leinad-Z|Leinad]] ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] ^{[[User talk:Leinad-Z|pois não?]]} 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::#'''Conditionally agreed'''. Hmmm, the entire userspace, including talk pages, with no userpages on the individual projects? I could be persuaded, provided the means of ''declaration'', ''association'' and ''negotiation'' were not interfered with, i.e., we do not refight this whole matter on '''users.wikimedia.org'''. This is appealing, as the community would not be dissolved and scattered, only to commute back to sanitized, sterile userpages. BTW, neither of our proposals are that problematic technically, and both may be done (my functionality to be added to '''users.wikimedia.org''' instead of Wikipedia, et al). Finally, as a friendly amendment, could I suggest '''community.wikimedia.org'''? [[User:StrangerInParadise|StrangerInParadise]] 22:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::#'''Strong Agree'''. The fact that we have User pages at all seems to be promoting a bias. However, it is important to have declared POV's so that people can understand the reasons for some things, even though we are still required to adopt the optimal NPOV strategy when editing official Wikipedia Articles. Moving things out of the en.wikipedia.org ___domain would enable people to have a clear distinction between what is designated for NPOV and what is designated for declaring their POV's. Of course, the united login feature is essential for this to proceed. [[User:Ansell|Ansell]] 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::#'''Strong Agree'''. I don't like having to maintain 6 diferent user pages. [[User:Gmcfoley|Gerard Foley]] 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::#'''Strong Agree'''. Is this page the only one with discussion about this proposal, or has it been brought up in other places? [[User:Iamthejabberwock|TheJabberwock]] 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::#'''Weak oppose''' I agree a common userspace between projects would be nice, but there would also be difficulties. What language would the common user space be in? Everything added to userspace from wikispace would add extra complexity as a result, eg adding a vandalism warning template would also have to specify what language you are warning the user with. Links to wikispace would always require explict project prefixes. Talk pages for people who contribute to multiple projects would have intermingled languages. And if the rules on what users could post on their userpages is unchanged, it would result in added complexity for the majority of users with no great benefit. I'm assuming that most contributers contribute on one main language (no source for this, but I would be surprised if that wasn't the case) Regards, [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 19:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Operating some userpage site is outside of the charter of the foundation, I opposed that notion strongly. If any of you want to run some personals wiki, I'd be glad to help you setup mediawiki... Or it could probably go on [[Wikicities]]. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== Advocacy ==

:: So why is it that User: space is inside the charter but not a separate ___domain. It would have the content that is inside wikipedia now. [[User:Ansell|Ansell]] 04:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If we also disallow images in user boxes (a I believe that the developers have suggested) than it makes it more difficult to use in this manner. A substituted image-free bit of code on a user page can't use media-wiki features like "what links here" for vote stacking. (Please don't [[WP:BEANS|suggest ways that this could be done]] ok?) <br/>[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">^{T}</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

::: The User space now on Wikipedia is intended to be used by editors and writers of the encyclopedia to keep notes, plans, and otherwise help them to do the writing and editing they are doing. The proposed namespace would not be organized for that purpose, that's why it would not be under the charter. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:Right now we need an agreement. Any demands like 'no images in userboxes' will be deal-breakers for many people. Let's get the agreement, if significant problems continue we can work outt how to refine it later. No doubt many people will think 'this policy could be improved, it doesn't give me all I want' - but if other suggestions start to run we will have a split vote, and no consensus. And that will probably mean a Jimbo-imposed rule. It may surprise folk to know that I don't favour that. It is best if the community can find a consensus that Jimbo too can live with. Frankly, at the momment, this is the only show in town, the best deal that's likely to succeed. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Right. I understand the confusion here, it is because so many of our (esp new) users have no clue what the user namespace is for. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::JesseW, I don't believe the idea is to exclude the '''community.wikimedia.org''' from the charter. To answer Gmaxwell, this is not about fragmenting the community into a thousand shards, this is about recognizing that the community itself is not under an NPOV obligation, only it's products are. As to the idea that this proposal is somehow negated by the notion that ''operating some userpage site is outside of the charter of the foundation'': Wikipedia is a project with a community, not vis versa, however to undertake this and other large-scale projects authorized by the Foundation '''requires a community'''. To deny that community- an assemblage of a million intelligent, passionate, motivated human beings- modes of ''declaration, association ''and'' notification'' is neither realistic nor desireable. Scattering them to various new wikis is far more divisive than simply allowing them to be human in community and governing actual contributions to various projects. Again, the likelihood is that people will be far more self-policing, taking admins largely out of the NPOV policing/userbox censoring/category depopulating business. It is imperative that administrative and editorial powers be separate.[[User:StrangerInParadise|StrangerInParadise]] 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't see at all where it's been demonstrated that a '''community''', in any strong sense of the word, is actually required. There are plenty of large volunteer organizations where their is no more 'community' than in a fairly typical for-profit company. You are confused, just because we don't pay people to edit doesn't mean we should accept them acting unprofessionally. Wikipedia has a serious mission, it's not a [[MMORPG]]. There is no reason to believe that we couldn't continue, or wouldn't benefit, from imposing a little more direction on things. If you were to go volunteer for the red-cross they wouldn't permit you to plaster your workspace with rants and screeds and offensive content... especially not if your workspace was visible to the public... if you did they'd ask you to stop, and if you refused they'd show you the door. Our behavior should be no different in that regard. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::(Sidenote: regardless of the recent milestone, don't fool yourself into thinking there are anywhere near a million Wikipedians. I suspect about 900,000 of the registered usernames are Willy on Wheels sockpuppets. [[User:Angr|Angr]]/<small>''[[User talk:Angr|talk]]''</small> 08:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

::::Actually according to the statistics page, only 20,000 users are "active" meaning they edit more than 5 times per week.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <span style="font-family:Symbol;">Ω</span> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I guess it was a mistake to bring the idea up in this discussion. It was originally intended to serve a different purpose, namely that of licensing terms for userpage images (a userspace wiki could allow cc-nc, for example). It would also remove the need for multiple user pages across projects, and keep the category namespace of the Wikipedias cleaner. It was ''not'' intended as some kind of myspace lite where anythig goes. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 09:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Our goal is to produce [[free content]], why the heck would we be interested in hosting content that was cc-nc or cc-nd or other such nonsense? --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::To keep it from being a new MySpace, there could be a requirement that if the user has no ''Wikipedia-space'' edits in the last 90 days his user page is deleted, and user name will require rebooting by an admin to get started again. &nbsp;<span style="background: lightblue; color:#000000;">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>[[User:Guðsþegn|U]][[User talk:Guðsþegn|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Guðsþegn|E]][[WP:X|X]]</small>&nbsp;&ndash; 13:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Even better, the IP address would also need rebooting by an admin to get started again. This would have the additional benefit of stopping some sockpuppeteers. If someone creates a sockpuppet, goes off and forgets about it, in 90 days his main username is also blocked, because of having the same IP address. &nbsp;<span style="background: lightblue; color:#000000;">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>[[User:Guðsþegn|U]][[User talk:Guðsþegn|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Guðsþegn|E]][[WP:X|X]]</small>&nbsp;&ndash; 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Oppose''' for people who work in several languages this is absolutely horrible idea. [[User:Grue|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier; color:#FFFFFF;">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</span>]] 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Strong Oppose''' I don't see why this problem, for those to whom it is one, can't be solved by ''installing redirects'' to [[:en:User:Username]] (or whatever language you prefer) and the associated talk pages. Those who prefer separate user pages can have that too. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I thought the ''MAIN point'' of this idea was to solve the userbox issue. That it does, and well (IMHO). &nbsp;<span style="background: lightblue; color:#000000;">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>[[User:Guðsþegn|U]][[User talk:Guðsþegn|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Guðsþegn|E]][[WP:X|X]]</small>&nbsp;&ndash; 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::How does it do that? It just changes the URL, I don't see how that matters at all in the context of solving the issue. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well, because ''user-space'' would no longer have anything to do with ''Wikipedia-space'', no more userbox templates on Wikipedia at all (they would all be at community.wikimedia.org). I called it ''separation of church and state'' before. That's what it would be: the NPOV article site would be institutionally unrelated to POV community site. Do you not believe that POV church members can be NPOV bureaucrats in the government? Same idea. &nbsp;<span style="background: lightblue; color:#000000;">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>[[User:Guðsþegn|U]][[User talk:Guðsþegn|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Guðsþegn|E]][[WP:X|X]]</small>&nbsp;&ndash; 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::*See [[Dubya]]. <small>(Sorry, I just had to)</small>--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <span style="font-family:Symbol;">Ω</span> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 17:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Oppose''' - What if two users share the same username on different projects - who would get a userpage? [[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

==My Space already exists==

::I second the Doc's statements above. Lets just get some consensus for now - refining can come later. [[User:Djr xi|'''DJR''']] <small>([[User talk:Djr_xi|Talk]])</small> 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:::Ok, yeah, all true. But I don't want to be afraid to ''talk'' about possibilities for fear of spooking the herd. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">^{T}</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

=== Proposal: Outsourcing to ''somesubdomain''.wikicities.com ===

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

:::Yes! Let's go with what we have. My watchlist has gotten so heavy I haven't started a new article for two days, now. I want to get back to helping write an encyclopedia. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User:Dalbury|Donald Albury (Dalbury)]]</font>^{<font color="green">([[User talk:Dalbury|<font color="green">Talk]])</font></font>}''' 01:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

# User are allowed to ''redirect'' their userpage on Wikipedia to the user Wikicity using special syntax. This would be the only technical change to Wikipedia itself. If we don't do this, it's not really an attractive alternative.

== Perceived problems with "current situation" ==

# Wikipedia adopts a strict policy on usage of templates and categories in user space, like the one Cyde peoposed above.

Following from above, if we could get down in photons what we think the current problems are to see if we think this fixes them? My knee-jerk reaction is "it's all good" but I'd like a more careful analysis. I've thrown a few in to start. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">^{T}</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

# Account creation on the user Wikicity is limited to users requesting it on Wikipedia (so that the usernames stay synchronized). A bit like the requests for permission on meta, maybe with a bit more automation. It's reasonable to request some effort to get more functionality.

# The user Wikicity automatically creates backlinks to all relevant pages on Wikipedia (the user's watchlist, preferences, contributions, talk page, whatlinkshere, etc.). All namespaces apart from the User namespace redirect to their Wikipedia equivalent; So do non-existant user namespace pages.

This has a few benefits:

#'''Perceived problems with boxen themselves'''

* Minimal changes to Wikipedia itself

##Can be used for vote stacking.

* Compatible software - Any markup learned on the user wikicity is helpful to Wikipedia

##Can appear to promote POV or factionalism between editors

* Wikicities is GFDL, so any sandboxes or similar on the user Wikicity are Wikipedia-compatible.

##(?) Consume server resources

* Wikicities is tangentially related to Wikimedia, so we don't use some site totally outside our community.

##(?) Consume editors' time

* Wikicities, however, allows some restrictions on image use (cc-nc, cc-nd), making some people more comfortable with contributing personal pictures.

#'''Perceived problems with actions around boxen'''

* Wikicities is not bound by NPOV and the foundation charter, though.

##Inconsistent and/or aggressive deletions.

* Wikicities has advertising, making the effort worthwhile for the host.

##"Freedom fighter mentality".

* Anyone not interested in this project is, of course, free to keep a basic userpage here.

##Vague wording / lack of definitions

* Other Wikimedia projects can adopt this approach too, making the Wikicity a shared user space.

##Unknown status of / no consensus

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

=== Commentary ===

#Boxes

## As in section above, just substituting all boxes won't stop "contact all users who are anti-pope" funny business. I think we'll notice when it happens and take appropiate steps, so I'm unfussed. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">^{T}</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

##:I agree. It is more important to block people for vote stacking then it is to make policy on userboxes --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 00:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

##:I don't see the point in attempting to prevent transclusion, as it seems to be a lot of work for very little return. (I also added some more points) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

##:A tremendous amount of work? Nah, it's just an [[WP:AWB|AWB]] run per userbox [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 18:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

--<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 14:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

== transclusion used for organization within userspace ==

*'''Bold Oppose'''. Sorry - I just don't understand what this would help. It would make everything all rather confusing, and if people want a homepage/myspace, they can do that themselves - it's not for Wikia/Wikimedia Foundation to supply it. Athough I do see the possible advantages of the groupness and relation, I can't see it as worthwhile, for a start, which talk page would I use, and would they notice it there? [[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see excerpt below:

*'''Oppose''': This proposal is merely deflecting the problem onto another project. [[User:SeraphimXI|<span style="color:#FF3399;">Seraphim</span>]] 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

**Yes, but to a project where it wouldn't ''be'' a problem. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

# First a user box is just fancy html, there really is no such thing as a 'userbox' Besides that I will have to oppose until I can get some clarification on 2C. I have a [[User:T-rex/pirate|userbox on a subpage]], and I would want to be able to keep it there to keep the code on my userpage clean. At the same time this page isn't meant to be used by anyone else, but theoretically it could be. I suggest that 2C be changed to ''Users are not allowed to use other users subpages as templates'', so you could use your own, but not somebody elses. This would allow them to stay, and remove all possible abuse of "what links here" --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

***If people are simply redirecting their user/talk pages to a page on another wiki it's still a Wikipedia problem. This seems to be basically "we don't want to deal with it so lets just dump the problem elsewhere" which is not a good path to go down. [[User:SeraphimXI|<span style="color:#FF3399;">Seraphim</span>]] 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

#:Hi, ''T''. I asked [[User:Quadell]] this same question, and his [[User_talk:Avriette#proposal_on_userbox_policy|response]] was good. Although it isn't part of this policy. Perhaps this helps. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">[[user:avriette|aa]]:[[user talk:avriette|talk]]</span> 01:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*Part of the reason that [[Wikipedia:Words of Wisdom|there is no POV-pushing cabal]] in everyday encyclopedia dealings is that there is no feasible [[vector (biology)|vector]] for it. Something like this doesn't seem to make it any better for those who dislike userboxes and their possible detrimental effects, but quite a bit worse, since Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Jimbo would simply lose any possible jurisdiction over the pages in case something undesirable happens. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<span style="color:#FF9966;">^</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<span style="color:#FF6633;">-</span>]][[User talk:AySz88|<span style="color:#FF3300;">^</span>]] 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

#:: I agree with [[User:Quadell|Quadell]]'s answer; if you're only using it on your own page, then it's not being used in the spirit of templates. // [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (_{''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Pathoschild admin]''} / ^{''[[en:User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]''}) 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't think this concern is enough to hold up something like this page becoming policy. But like another user said, we need to get this implemented, and then tweak as necessary. Let's not discuss just yet whether this is an appropriate use of the encyclopedia, but rather the best way to deal with this sort of thing. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">[[user:avriette|aa]]:[[user talk:avriette|talk]]</span> 06:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:Well, if I saw something like what you said above, my first step would be to subst the bit onto whatever other user's pages were using it, and leave it transcluded on the original user's page. And warn the other transcluding users that they should not do that. I don't see how that would be a harm to anyone... [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::''You may '''copy''' my markup, but not '''borrow''' it.'' I like that. :) Sounds like a fair enough answer to me. This is precisely what I was talking about, above. Getting the policy accomplished in a compromising manner is great in that the ''little'' details, like the above, can be worked out without [[duress]]. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">[[user:avriette|aa]]:[[user talk:avriette|talk]]</span> 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:::The last two comments pretty much sum up, what I think would be the ideal solution for this problem. If the policy is changed to include this, then my vote changes to '''support''' thanks --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::::The policy as it stands would define all pages intended for transclusion as templates. Personally, if someone has a subpage or two that they transclude onto their own userpage, I've no big problem with that. But what we don't want is someone moving masses of polemical boxes to userspace with the intention of encouraging general tranclusion - that would clearly be gaming the system to defeat the intent of the policy. And is likely to lead to 'Userbox War III'. If someone wants to use a userbox (or any graphic) that is on annother's page - then copy the hard code - it isn't difficult. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Yet the policy page is still not clear on this, but again I agree with you --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

== Wording Change Proposal ==

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

:"Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded."

be changed to:

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

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

*'''Support''', makes it better (though, alone, isn't enough to change my overall vote). --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. I would vote yes on the overall proposal if this change were made. --[[User:TreyHarris|TreyHarris]] 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. The proposed wording is more accurate. --[[User:Ytrottier|Yannick]] 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' -- yeah, well spotted -- [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

*'''Lukewarm support''' - I honestly can't see any difference, and it's not the sort of thing that will get to change my overall vote. It seems to me that "advocacy" is very broad anyway. But if this is going change of wording is going to make some people happier without changing the interpretation that Doc offers below, then by all means make it. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:Can sommone clarify what difference this would make, and what 'grey areas' it would clarify? Perhaps cite an example or two? --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 11:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'' - prevents flamewars over interpretation/abuse by over-zealous people on both sides as we have had with T1 [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

== Clarification ==

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

*'''Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression'''. Means that '''almost all userboxes can be displayed on userpages'''. To be specific, you can display: political and belief userboxes. You can say you dislike George Bush, love the Spaghetti monster, and shop in Asda. You can declare your sexuality, nationality, sports allegiance, or furriness. You can ''even'' be 'polemical' (as long as it's not trollish). You can record your school, county and shoe size, and boast of your undying love of Michael Jackson, Jimbo, or strawberry jam. You can be an atheist, an anarchist, or an accountant - and proclaim it to the world. You can tell us which Bible verse, wiccan spell, or Spice Girl you prefer. All you can't do is breach ''no personal attacks, civility, copyright, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost.'' Which, in short, means; do what you want in your userspace, just don't be a [[WP:DICK|dick]]. This is a ''very'' permissive userpage policy.

*'''Templates''', however, are only to be used for general things that provide direct '''benefit to creating an encyclopaedia'''. That means ''userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded.''. This is intended to allow boxes that say something useful about what you can do to help Wikipedia. Let me give some examples:

:* Language skills (Babel templates) are allowed - because they may be helpful in translating articles

:* Geographical interest - that's not 'hey I live here' or 'my ancestors came from there' or 'I'm proud to be a...' - but 'I've got an interest/knowledge in editing [Scottish] articles' (regardless of whether I'm an ex-pat, or a Frenchman living in there). (Of course, more personal descriptions can be in hard-coded boxes, just not in templates).

:* There can be a template to indicate those interested in editing 'sexuality issues', but not one to declare an editor's sexuality (although you can do that in a hard-coded box)

:* I can have a template saying that I'm interested in editing theology, but not one saying I believe this or that (but belief-boxes can again be hard-coded)

:* You can have a template saying you are knowledgeable about articles on a certain sport, but there will be no template {{tl|user: Celtic F.C.}} (but you can create a box on your userpage).

:* A template should tell us what kind of articles the user likes to edit, but not indicate any hidden biases she might exhibit as she does so.

:* 'I am a physician' should probably not be a template (it speaks of the user rather than of the editing interest), but 'this user is interested in medical articles' could certainly be a template.

:* 'Valid wikigroupsing' could have templates (that's projects, CVU, Esparanza etc), but there would not be templates that divide wikipedians by political, religious, or wiki-beliefs (but these can still be hard-coded userboxes).

:* Wiki-tasking would allow 'user admin' 'user new page patrol' 'user welcome' templates etc.

OK that's my take on the wording - I hope it helps. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:One problem I have with that is that [[:Category: Wikipedians by ___location]] (and its accompanying userboxes) is generally considered useful to the project [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

: '''not bringing wikipedia into disrepute''' makes sense to me... but it could be subjective, depending on whose repute it really counts with in the final analysis, man... I would submit that many of the very things you gave as examples DO and WILL bring wikipedia into "disrepute" where it really matters on that Day... [[User:172.139.30.143|172.139.30.143]]

:Good clarifications, thanks. So is a userbox (an actual template) showing that one is a [[m:metawikipedian]] in or out? In, I think? How about [[m:inclusionist]]? Out, I think... thanks for further clarification there.<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification on this. It makes sense to me. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

== Discussion from main page ==

''Copied from voting page:''

# I think that moving advocate userboxes to userpages solves nothing about the real problem, advocacy in userboxes (and user pages) in the first place. I also think that use of the generic {{tl|userbox}} should be allowed as not-a-template (since using that template doesn't reveal its contents through WhatLinksHere or anything). (This may also be somewhat of a selfish vote because I want some time for [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#POV_Userbox_Suggestion|my own idea]], which I think is how (non-advocate) POV userboxes can be utilized in an encyclopedia-helping way.) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

#:Advocacy in userboxes can't be done away with without silly (you can write what you want but not in user boxes) or onerous (you can't write what you want) restrictions on speech on user pages. [[User:BrokenSegue|''B''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|''S''egue]] 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#:: Restricting userboxes is not a silly restriction. Userboxes can make the POV advocacy seem accepted in the community and can cause some to think that POV-vs-counter-POV fighting is okay (instead of pushing people towards NPOV). If the language of userboxes is restricted a bit to avoid advocacy, the userbox turns into a NPOV-promotion device, instead of an advocating pro-POV device, by making oneself and others aware of biases. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#:::Why is someones's opinion in a box any worse that someone's opinion as raw text? My problem with the boxes was that they were in the template space. Using you standard, the defintion of a userbox would be critical. Is a userbox any text in a box? Any text in a small box? Hardcoded userboxes are rather poorly defined (especially if they don't use the user box creation template). If I was god-king I would banish all userboxes because I think they are ugly and unprofessional, but this is a fair compromise. [[User:BrokenSegue|''B''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|''S''egue]] 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

''New comments''

:I thought your first post was referring to my idea, but maybe I was mistaken - if you haven't seen it, it's [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#POV_Userbox_Suggestion|here]] again, so you know what I meant by a "restricted" userbox. The advantage of providing a tame version of a POV box in template space is a decrease in POV declarations which are worded in an advocating way (or inflammatory, personal attacks, etc.). In the context of this proposal, for what I would be asking is the allowance of tame Wikified POV boxes in Template space, instead of the "POV userboxes are specifically excluded" currently in place.

:I don't quite understand what you mean by "the definition of a userbox would be critical"; maybe I clarified what I meant above. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

::Yes that does clear it up somewhat. I didn't quite understand your point. Your solution is workable and would calm much of the disputes, but its not worth having all of these templates and the overhead managing them (monitoring them, organizing them). How many people are really using userboxes to express their POV? Very few. Most people display them because they think they are funny or they want to make a point. Anyways I think text is better than userboxes for expressing POV. [[User:BrokenSegue|''B''roken]][[User talk:BrokenSegue|''S''egue]] 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::: I acknowledge that my suggestion would be a shift in how POV userboxes are used, but that's part of the purpose (to shift how POV boxes are used). You're right that it probably wouldn't change the fate of the existing userboxes in the context of this proposal. But my problem is that my idea is not compatible with this policy, since "POV" or "bias declarations" (depending on the wording finally adopted) are "specifically excluded" from Template space. So I feel like this is <s>throwing out the baby with the bathwater</s> taking away a great possibility for userboxes. As to the logistics, there is already a semi-formal body monitoring and managing userboxes (WikiProject Userboxes), as well as people watching from the "other side" (for lack of a better term), so I don't think manpower will be an issue for a while. And as far as I can tell, userboxes don't discourage textual elaborations of one's views. :) Do I have anyone's support? :p --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

== Amendment rule ==

''A note on changes to the policy requested on this page:'' We cannot simply change the proposed policy after fifty plus votes have been cast. Instead, a list of proposed changes needs to be made. If the UBP is ratified, such changes can be individually discussed/voted upon. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">[[user:avriette|aa]]:[[user talk:avriette|talk]]</span> 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:I've never heard of such a rule before. Votes are a means of establishing consensus, not a substitute for it. The idea that the policy as proposed is frozen while voting goes on is a divisive one. If we could edit the policy to get ''everyone'' to support it (not likely to happen in this case, granted) what on earth is the purpose of forcing a minority to oppose it after that consensus was reached? If this is how we're going to run this proposal, I have to change my vote to oppose, when I am on the cusp of supporting it. --[[User:TreyHarris|TreyHarris]] 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with TreyHarris; this is not "ratified", we discuss until it reaches consensus. Changing it is part of this. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 06:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:I also agree. I'd rather take the time and get a policy that addresses people's concerns. I'd be delighted if my current '''oppose''' vote could be turned into a '''support''' vote without pissing off the people who voted to support in the first place. From what I've seen, any tweaking that would now bring me on side is unlikely to piss off those people. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

: I'm a little bothered with something: it feels like there seem to be quite a few votes that support via attrition or because they're "tired" or something, with comments like "Sure, whatever" or "just make this stupid argument go away" or "I don't care". There are also things like "support, but x needs to be changed". Couldn't this end up creating a policy that nobody's happy with during the "tweaking" stage? Admittedly, I really don't know what they're thinking, especially as I only started participating more in the past week or so. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

==Record of discussion on project page==

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

#'''I'm going to change my vote on this, given the circumstances we're faced with and what I've said on the talk page ... where I'll now move this material.''' From now on, I'll make comments in the comments section [well, actually on the talk page], but my opposition stands until I'm persuaded that this policy can be implemented without unnecessarily upsetting more people [okay I'm now reasonably persuaded on that]. My previous statement/dialogue follows...

#:What a waste of time this whole initiative to restrict userboxes has been. Userboxes that express your beliefs do no harm and a certain amount of good. They are convenient, moderately fun, and encourage personal connection with the project. I for one currently feel alienated by the disappearance of those little bright boxes that I had selected for my userpage. Yes, it's really going to help the encyclopedia that I've been prevented from having a little box on my userpage supporting spaghetti-monsterism. Not. All it's done is made me feel pissed off and less inclined to participate here. I'm sure there'll be lots of others who currently feel like this. Why go to so much trouble to lose our good will? [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#:"Userboxes that express your beliefs" would '''still be allowed''' under this proposal. I don't know how this can be made clearer: the proposal specifically supports "free expression <nowiki>[by users]</nowiki> on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." I certainly agree with you that the content you mentioned as being on your user page is not harming the encyclopedia, or anybody; that's why '''this proposal doesn't stop you from keeping it'''. Please clarify what exactly about this proposal you object to. Thanks, [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#::Not so. I've already had a few userboxes silently removed from my userpage over the past few days (presumably they were disenabled and disappeared for everyone who was using them). From memory, these were the [[bright (movement)]] userbox, a userbox supporting evolutionary theory, and a version of the satirical spaghetti monster userbox. As far as I can see, this proposed policy would not enable me to put them back because they express philosophical viewpoints and don't specifically contribute to the encyclopedia except by amusing me. Admittedly, I could custom design something of my own, or get someone with better computer skills to do so, but that doesn't change the (admittedly minor; I don't want to sound hysterical) violation I felt when they just disappeared without my knowledge. Nor does it give me the convenience of finding ready-made templates that I can use. This action and the proposed policy which would justify it just provide a level of pettiness and inconvenience that surprised me and that I could do without. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#::If it's still unclear I object to the following part of the policy, particularly the bit I've put in bold, and the fact that something like it is already being implemented: "Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. Userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. '''Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded.'''" [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#::: That applies only to templates; you're free to do so on your own user page. Regarding the userboxes you've lost, that is an unfortunate result of the many conflicting solutions users have attempted. If you'd like to recover the code for the templates you've lost, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I'll restore them on your page (as part of [[User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes]]). // [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (_{''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Pathoschild admin]''} / ^{''[[en:User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]''}) 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#:::: That's nice of you and I'll take you up on it, but this policy won't prevent such things from happening. It'll actually lead to more of the same, since it will give official support to wiping out a whole lot of ''other'' userbox templates. Also, I won't have a convenient way of adding new userboxes if I have a whim. I don't understand what is the real problem to which this policy or the deletion of userboxes that is going on is a solution. I, for one, had no problem at all - I was just a happy, fairly new wikipedian editing real articles - until my userboxes disappeared and I had to track through and discover this whole mess. I've been dragged into something that I didn't know existed. I have certainly not been organising mass votes of spaghetti-monster-worshipping wikipedians. If some people have been acting like that, I can see it is annoying for administrators, but it seems to me that it's an annoyance that you just have to put up with (perhaps finding some way to discipline the individuals concerned if you think it's illegitimate, as opposed to just annoying) rather than creating difficulties for users like me who were perfectly content. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

#:::: I am very sympathetic to what you are saying; one of the single biggest shames of this whole mess has been that good faith new users like yourself have been misled and forced into being involved in this sort of foolishness. As for this policy not preventing such things from happening, I would point you to these quotes from the proposal: "Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease" and "Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should '''not''' be immediately deleted."(my bold) As for why, IMO, people have been reacting as they have been, if you are interested, see [[User_talk:Lefty#To_subst.2C_or_not_to_subst|here]]. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' For the moment, my opposition stands. I'm a bit mollified that it's been conceded that I have a point, and that I've been given an offer of help. I see that some other people are also getting help.

:But the proposed policy will still result in people getting upset when, like me, they see userboxes disappear from their userpages with no prior warnings, consultation with them personally, or offers of assistance. I don't how the policy stops that from happening, even if there is some process going on behind the scenes to decide which userboxes get deleted. Upsetting good faith users for the sake of a principle about the use of template space seems like a very bad idea. I didn't have to look far to see that I'm not the only person who was upset by what has been happening, which this policy would make official. To implement a policy like this sympathetically would take a helluva lot of work for someone. It would mean that every time a template is abolished, someone would have to identify each user who was using that template, contact them all one by one and tell them how to preserve it on their own pages, wait for some time, then delete it. If that had happened with the deleted userboxes on my userpage, I doubtless would have responded cooperatively (assuming that I was convinced it was being done systematically as part of an official policy and not just someone arbitrarily wiping out userboxes they don't like ... if that's what actually happened). If someone here is prepared to do all that work, then fine, but it hasn't been happening so far when userboxes are deleted, and it seems like a waste of energy to me. It also seems to me that the people voting to support the policy are doing so from a viewpoint of having been well aware of the so-called problem, involved in previous debates about it, and even fed up with those debates (see their reasons for giving support). When the first you hear of the "problem", or any of those debates (which seem more like storms in a teacup from where I sit), is when your userpage suddenly changes, things look very different. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 02:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::The reason for this proposal is precisly to stop the semi organized, unfriendly, hasty, and otherwise troublesome way that things have been handled so far. According to this proposal - '''no''' userboxes would vanish from people's pages. In the case of existing userboxes, they would be subst'ed; users with them on the page would see no visible difference. In the case of newly created userbox '''templates''', there is not a requirement to subst them, but I at least will be happy to subst any templates that are deleted before their users can copy them, and I imagine many other users will feel similarly. These are certainly storms in a teapot; that's why wer're trying to calm them down, and get back to real work. It's really important to distinguish what has been going on (a massive, nasty, vitrolic [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ForestFire ForestFire] biting and upsetting both new users and old hands), and what we are trying to achieve with this proposal. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Okay, I want to think about this. It's starting to seem that the most important part of the policy is actually the detail of the Implementation part. I'm trying to understand, in the light of your comments and the other explanations provided, how it would work in practice. I can see that it might be okay if enough resources were put in. I still think this is all a waste of time - something should simply have been done to stop people stuffing up others by deleting templates without warning. But I could be '''neutral''' on this policy or even give it '''reluctant support''' if there was a way of making absolutely clear in the policy itself just how it means what you just said it means. At the moment, some of it is worded in such a passive/vague way that I find it hard to give it an operational meaning at all, but I can see now how it ''could'' mean what you've just said. I'm not opposed in principle to the idea that template space be reserved for stuff that genuinely contributes to the encycopoedia. If it had always been like that, I don't see how anyone could complain. It's the sudden effect on people who have taken the whole project as they've found it, acted in good faith, then been confronted with changes, seemingly out of nowehere that worries me. If the policy stamps that out, and everyone is looked after - and the policy ''clearly'' says they will be - without them having to work out what is going on and shout for help, then my grounds for objection will obviously vanish. :) As you can see, it is what has happened so far that has annoyed me. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 05:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::::This is not meant to excuse what has happened so far (we both agree that it was wrong and counter-productive), but IMO, it was done due to the belief that no guideline as to what should be a template and what should not could be formed. This proposal is precisly such a guideline. In truth, the issue of the offensive deletions is a seperate one from this proposal; this sets out what should be a template, and what should not; preventing people from making changes out of nowhere is really a seperate issue. (although I strongly hope that this proposal will help calm everyone down so that such hasty actions will not occur.) I'd appreciate it if you could specify (on this talk page), exactly what parts of the proposal you find unclear, and suggest some better wording. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 06:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== Starting to put this into practice? ==

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

*Subst'ing already deleted templates with [[User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes]] project.

*Adding non-deleted templates that should not be templates according to this guideline to Pathoschild's list.

*Deleting the templates '''after''' they all have been subst'ed, and replacing them with the following message: ''<nowiki>This template has been deleted, after all the uses have been fixed, per [[Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll]].</nowiki>''.

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

:: Putting this into practice is a huge project. I would try to get everything into the userpages, before going back to delete the old stuff, but if your willing to take care of the tons of edits that this will take to get going, I'm glad you've got some time on your hands --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Er, is 81% enough for policy? (Also, to nitpick: I count 76.8% support as of JesseW's post, even not including the two abstains.) --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 02:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I counted only supports and opposes, not neutrals or abstains; 76.8% is also a reasonable number. I felt that 81% (or 76.8%) is enough to begin to put this into practice; AFAIK, specific percentages are generally de-empathized, in favor of general tendencies. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: "General tendency" sounds like majority, not supermajority, though. What have been the accepted levels needed to show consensus support of a policy? I think care should be taken, especially as something like this likely can't be reversed. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't know; go look at the history of various guidelines and policies and find out. I view this more as a guideline than a policy, in any case... Which of the steps I laid out above can't be reversed? [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 02:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::: It involves undeleting the template, and un-substing the template from seperate pages.... It's a bit more difficult, at least. I guess it's more like it's ''less'' reversible, especially if there are already concerns about difficulties of doing it in one direction in the first place. --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 02:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

: My post [[#Amendment rule|two sections up]] might be better posted here, where I'm worried about an illusion of consensus. :/ --[[User:AySz88|AySz88]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF9966">^</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AySz88|<font color="#FF6633">-</font>]][[User talk:AySz88|<font color="#FF3300">^</font>]] 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

==User page directory==

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

:Er, User:Boxes has not made any edits to the encyclopedia, have they? Why don't you put such a list under ''your'' name if you find it useful. That's the first step, in any case. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 08:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Such a directory is indeed suggested by the policy; whether it would be on a Wikipedia page (such as the current [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]]) or elsewhere is a matter for community discussion. // [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (_{''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Pathoschild admin]''} / ^{''[[en:User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]''}) 09:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:::My own take is that a directory would be OK. The userbox templates that are permitted under the policy (those useful to building an encyclopedia - babel, skills, etc) could and should have an 'official' directory in project space. The rest (POV, beliefs and jokes) can have a directory, providing it is a list of hard codes to copy and not templates. But that directory must clearly unofficial. I'd prefer it in someone's usespace - that way its unofficial status is obvious. If there was a consensus for it to be in project space (and I think I'm opposed to that - but I'm open to persuasion), it would have to clearly say that the use of these was 'contraversial' and indeed 'discouraged by the the foundation's leader'. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

==Speaking of directories...==

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

: I don't see a problem with using project space to house directories of items in template space. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

::Agree with Tony, except I'm not sure that Mike has understood the policy. There would be no ''templates'' for user 'life status or situation' nor 'tastes' - and 'interests' only in so far as they were ''editing interests''. All the rest could continuue to exist - but not as templates. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)