Misplaced Pages

talk:Proposed policy on userboxes: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:00, 4 January 2006 editMistress Selina Kyle (talk | contribs)5,617 editsm →Please be careful in refactoring← Previous edit Revision as of 08:30, 4 January 2006 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Some concrete examples of belief and conviction-based userboxes being abusedNext edit →
Line 311: Line 311:


::Ya, it does (read like a personal view) at that, even after you AGFed it... See if Tony's willing to move it out of the policies list and into the appropriate pros/cons section would be my suggestion. (the pro/cons sections still don't quite seem to have the right titles either but they're clearer than they were, the reason there are two sections are to separate userboxes from stating preferences/viewpoints, it's possible there are things about a box that is completely preference statement free that are good or bad) ++]: ]/] 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) ::Ya, it does (read like a personal view) at that, even after you AGFed it... See if Tony's willing to move it out of the policies list and into the appropriate pros/cons section would be my suggestion. (the pro/cons sections still don't quite seem to have the right titles either but they're clearer than they were, the reason there are two sections are to separate userboxes from stating preferences/viewpoints, it's possible there are things about a box that is completely preference statement free that are good or bad) ++]: ]/] 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

==Some concrete examples of belief and conviction-based userboxes being abused==
I've mentioned how I think that belief and conviction-based userboxes will be abused and I've given one good example where 9 out of 11 keep voters on an article up for deletion voted after their talk page was spammed.

Perhaps people are saying this was a one-off, a fluke, just one user who overstepped that mark. Not a bit of it. Only the previous week, the following two incidents took place and again involved (to some greater of lesser extent) someone looking in a user category planted on a page by a user box and then spamming the talk pages.

Of course we don't know how many times someone has abused these categories in a savvy way, contacting people by email instead.

I'm sorry that my examples are all based around similar issues. It's not that I have a thing about Catholics (I was raised as a Catholic myself), but that (including the example that I gave before) these are the three examples that come most readily to hand. I remembered the Pitchka one from last month, and found the Chooserrr one while Looking for it.

* {{user|Pitchka}} (aka Dwain) between 2336 on 15 December, 2005 and 0254 the following morning contacts the following editors:
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** The wording: '''Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!'''. Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. ] The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life. ]
* {{user|Chooserr}} contacts the following people listed as "Pro-life" between 0700 and 0702 on 20 December, 2005:
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
** The wording: ''] has removed an informative section from the ] article describing a law suit which is currently taking place and some of the risks involved in using such barbaric devices. Since you are listed as Pro-Life I was wondering if you might restore the original version, for I don't personally want to get baited into a 3rvt ban. Thank you, ]''

--]|] 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:30, 4 January 2006

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Opening comments

I have no dog in this fight (other than an inordinate love of my own userboxes), but I want to drop in my two cents: if the templates were just done away with altogether and replaced (easily done, via subst: before deletion) with a listing of the code that creates the box on the Userbox project page, this would be a dead issue. What users decide to put on thier userpages, within reason, is thier business and nobody elses (obviously a userbox stating a desire to behead Jimbo would be blockable, but not an "I'm a Republican" box individually coded (i.e., not a template, but the actual code inserted on the page)). There is absoultely no need to have a thousand templates created when it is just as easy to list the code on the Userbox project's list pages and let people who want to use it, add it. I have at least a dozen boxes on my page, I'm responsible for creating a number of popular boxes, and I've never created a template for any of them, nor is there a single userbox template (other than the generic {{userbox}} template that creates the box format) on my page.

As for the categorization, that's a completely different issue. -- Essjay · Talk 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There's one big flaw in that theory. A lot of people are probably going to want to use a similar userbox. I don't see anything wrong with having some default userboxes for common interests - I thought that was one of the purposes of Misplaced Pages:Userboxes in the first place. one generic userbox just ain't gonna do the job. --Cjmarsicano 05:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. What I'm saying is, instead of having the pages as they are now, with links to the templates, have the very same pages, but with the code to insert the box showing.

As it is now, if you want to add the admin template, you type something like {{admin userbox}}. What I'm proposing is, delete that template, and replace its listing on the Userbox WikiProject's page with the actual code that you would enter, {{userbox||#FFFFFF|]|This user is an ''']'''.}}. There would no longer be any templates to argue over, but everybody who pasted that code, which would be listed where the template is now, would have the exact same userbox, just as if they had inserted a template. -- Essjay · Talk 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start -- it'd certainly cut down on the server overhead. Of course people trying to put images labeled as "fair use" onto their talk pages would stll be violating policy (and the law, but a few people are in denial about that, so I will stick with policy) DreamGuy 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it would not change a thing on the bandwidth cost, but it would actually make the database even larger since you're created multiple instances of the same string. TCorp 14:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
But some userboxes are useful for actual encylopedia-writing-related purposes, precisely because you can go to the template and click "What links here" and find a list of people who might know something about the topic with which the userbox is affiliated. See my statements about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Userboxes. (diff) So I do think template status is justified for some userboxes, specifically and especially those related to user knowledge/editing interests (for example, Template:User religion interest and Template:User LGBT interest). Also, if we want to limit the use of fair-use images on userpages, this will probably be a lot easier if we keep userboxes templatized, since all we have to do then is make sure the templates don't use fair-use images... I'm just sayin'. I'm not necessarily against encouraging people to use code rather than templates, I just think there are some issues that need to be addressed. - AdelaMae 06:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Images in Userboxes ARE Fair Use!

According to this link from The US Copyright Office's website, Fair use entails any of the following:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It also says:

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

With all that mind, all that says to me is that the use of images in userboxes IS INDEED COVERED IN FAIR USE. --Cjmarsicano 05:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is allowable under US law does not mean that Misplaced Pages has to accept it. Our main goal is to make a 💕 that everyone and anyone can use. Not only that we do this by making it free to read and edit, but we also try to contribute materials released in the public domain or under free licensese like GNU or Creative Commons. And, the only time we should have to use fair use is when it is a dire need to illustrate an article (part of test number one). If the image is purely for decoration on a userbox template that serves no purpose except to decorate a user page, then I do not see it passing the first test at all. Plus, many userboxes have icons that are under free-licenses: it is mostly the ones that deal with political parties or sports teams that seem to be the hardest. But, frankly, we should keep fair use images to a minimun so we can make the goal of a freely licensed encyclopedia possible. And, in order to do that, we have to be strict about our image licensing guidelines and, thus, not have fair use icons decorate userboxes. Zach 06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And it is NOT alllowable under US law, because user pages do not meet Fair Use criteria in any way, shape or form. And we already have policy saying that even if they did (remember, they don't) that we STILL wouldn't use them. So give it all a rest. DreamGuy 06:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
User pages and userboxes are social commentary and/or satire, depending on the box. Both are covered under fair use. Conclusion: Your bucket has a hole in it. --Cjmarsicano 06:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually studied copyright law back in the days when I was a law student. Rest assured that your conclusions are incorrect. Your user page probably does not qualify as either "social commentary" or "satire" under the terms of 17 USC 107. In any case, the use of unlicensed image content on Misplaced Pages for any purpose other than to illustrate an article (and not any other sort of page) about the subject of image in question is flatly prohibited by our "fair use" policy. The use of nonfree images on user pages is flatly prohibited -- even in those cases where it is not prohibited by copyright law itself. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I should further point out that the 1961 report you quote is based on old law and is quite possibly less than valid today. The entire copyright law of the United States was completely rewritten in 1976. Citations to a treatise on the state of the law prior to 1976 must be accompanied by a clear explanation of why the holding presented are still valid despite the changes adopted in 1976 and implemented in 1978. (As it happens, the courts have interpreted 17 USC 107 to be substantially continuous in doctrine with the prior common law principles of "fair use", but there have been cases since 1978 that have touched on the boundaries of fair use -- such as Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music -- and so relying on a 1961 statement of the law from a nonauthoritative source is, at its best, folly.) Kelly Martin (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
So in other words, Misplaced Pages guidelines overrule US Copyright Law, 17 USC 107 included? I don't think so. Yet another defective bucket litters the floor. --Cjmarsicano 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages policy, in this case, goes beyond the bare requirements of United States copyright law, yes. This does not mean that it overrides the law, merely that we have elected to impose a stricter policy. Fair use is a complicated doctrine with no clear lines. We have therefore decided to scribe a boundary that is well clear of the gray areas in the doctrine. If you want to play with the boundaries of the fair use doctrine, I suggest you do it on your own website. Misplaced Pages is not a free speech forum, nor is it a place to test the boundaries of copyright law. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages is not a free speech forum..."... another red herring. Must have fallen out of your defective bucket. At the rate things are going, ma'am (and I use the term very loosely), Misplaced Pages could very well end up being a place to test the boundaries of copyright law. And no, I am not threatening legal action (don't even flatter yourself — you seem to have done enough of that today), but I am asking the opinions of someone who's been through their own hell concerning free speech issues. --Cjmarsicano 07:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages already has a guideline on fair use; why not follow it? If it is more stringent than required by US law, well, so are pretty much all Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. US law doesn't require us to use NPOV, or avoid original research, but we still do. In this case, why can't we just say, "Better safe than sorry", and replace the images that need replacing? - AdelaMae 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Who is to say that the images should be changed? Who wants to enforce such a ridiculous double standard? Well, maybe — although long before the week is out, that could change to definitely — some of these policies need to be rethoughtout or shitcanned entirely, depending on the case. Less is more. --CJ Marsicano07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer your second question: I will. I been doing this for the past few days and I will keep on continuing to replace the FU icons with either free photos or just plain ol' text. Zach 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't you have some ARTICLES that you could be fixing, rather than messing with items that are going on individual Wikipedian's talk pages?!? --07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I do: got two peer reviews going and started up two forks from one of those peer review articles. Plus, you would not believe how easy it is to change half of these icons. All I had to do was a brief search on the Commons to find an image, or I just made it myself. Zach 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion would be better held at WP:FU's talk page. For now, I suggest using language in the userbox policy which defers (and indeed points the reader) to WP:FU. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of what is or is not fair use there is also the issue that in some other nations, than the USA, there is no such legal reality as fair use. If we want Misplaced Pages to be available to the child in Africa, or wherever, then the content of Misplaced Pages needs to meet a standard that is acceptalbe world wide. We want to avoid creating content that is legal in USA but illegal in Japan, for example. This is why Misplaced Pages has to have a stricter standard than what we might see in one nation's laws. People have gone to jail for posting stuff on the Internet that was legal where they live, but not legal where other people located, who were able to access it. User:AlMac| 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed the big freaking template at the top of the WP:FU page that states that it is a guideline and not policy? And call me ignorant or whatever name you choose, but how many people are actually going to take Misplaced Pages to court over an image smaller than a postage stamp picturing a hammer and sickle or the republican elephant on it? Not I. But perhaps I'm just a rebellious little sophomore who looks too deep into the logic of something. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we put aside the POV and make this work?

Far be it for me to dictate how to address other personas here.. So here goes; This proposed policy should satisfy the complaints put forth in the god-forsaken RfC against Kelly Martin, which among many, many things resulted in the creation of this proposed policy. Anyone that has been upset by those actions brought up in that RfC should keep in mind that this is the right way to do it.. Right here. This talk page, this proposed policy. So perhaps we can all strap on a NPOV smile and calmly debate the topic at hand, and skip the bucket and ma'am comments? Mceder 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's debate!

Enough of discussing the related Kelly Martin RfC - it's got enough to work with (over 100kb at present). So, I'd like to propose that there be some guidelines as to what areas should be covered by userboxes. I look at this list of areas covered by userboxes, and ask, Why can't we just completely delete all entries under Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Colours, or why we encourage people to waste server space with Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Funny? I'm all for Misplaced Pages:User page's guidelines, but wonder why someone can't simply write in prose (we're Misplaced Pages, we love prose, remember?) that they live in Australia and their timezone is GMT+11 (I think)? Currently, they can do this through Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Timezones and Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Location, and I just don't see the point.

I'd like the community to seriously consider why we need to use up the server space with so many userboxes, when a majority don't need a userbox. I quote myself from the world's biggest RfC debate: "People wonder why Misplaced Pages always want more money from donations; well, using up server space with boxes declaring you like chocolate and support an obscure sub-branch of a political ideology probably aren't the best use of that space." Am I right, or am I right? Let's get down to business and make ourselves a policy. Harro5 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The amount of database space userboxes take up is highly overrated and not the current issue. TCorp 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree wholly with TCorp. The userboxes take up very little space comparted to your average Misplaced Pages article, so the argument that the userboxes are taking up "valuable service space" is either a red herring or something brown and lumpy, depending on how one with a true NPOV looks at it. --CJ Marsicano 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree lots of the userboxes are pretty stupid, but a)they really don't take up much space, especially once they have been "subst"'d, and b) they enable users to enhance their contributions, starting with their user page. My knowledge of HTML has increased 100fold since I started using userboxes. Furthermore, they enable other users to view someone's views (and see what a joker they are) quickly and easily without having to trawl through text. That's the basis of my proposed policy anyway (I would link it... but it's too long. It's the "liberal" one). Deano (Talk) 16:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The userboxes take up virtually no space; they look cooler than text; and it's fun to be able to find other people who live near you, or share your interests, opinions etc. I know we're writing an encyclopedia, but as long as that isn't harmed, what's wrong with having fun in our userspaces on the side? Yeltensic42.618 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No policy.

Userboxes aren't important enough to make a policy about. No policy is needed. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, let's build the encyclopedia already instead of wasting our time with instruction creep. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and besides, if you make rules against userboxes saying someone loves Pepsi or Coca-Cola, you'll just end up having people flat out saying it on their userpages (and ditto for people wishing to state their religious or political affiliations). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! They won't be using up Misplaced Pages pages making templates to say what they could with a few words in a bio on their userpage. It's not about censorship, it's about common sense and making it a bit easier to build an encyclopedia without the servers being down for hours every few months. Harro5 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, this will probably be easier on everyone, since Harro is right, it takes less effort on the servers to spit out text than metatemplates. And, plus, we do not have to worry about FU icons since the templates will not longer exist. Why I am still baffled by what caused the recent fap-fest over userboxes, but eventually, people will take it too far and sooner or later, userboxes will just be another relic of Misplaced Pages faddom. Zach 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Somehow using up Misplaced Pages pages making anti-template policy proposals is better? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
One page of hearty discussion, or hundreds filled with images and code serving little real purpose? Isn't this more fun? Harro5 09:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Right - if we removed all templates, then the fair-use is still a problem, just unmanageable, since I know of no-one who wants to go to every userpage and remove their fair-use images (policy applies to userpages direct insertation as well as templates), it just creates more hastle. IanID:540053 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as we have a clear manadate and admin support, i'll see what I and others can do. Zach 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with Phil Welch - this is instruction creep of the worst kind. People who want to provide information on their user pages will just do it anyway; this helps it to look nicer. Stifle 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with Philwelch: we should have a policy so people can stop arguing / to avoid edit/delete wars. I think the concerns stated on the project page are valid ones to consider. But I think we should be clear: Any discussion of "policy" is about templates / categories, not the use of the userbox template itself. I don't think anyone has a problem with the userbox template, other than concerns that it's less effective than making templates for each box -- everyone seems to agree that using the userbox template on a user page is OK as long as it doesn't violate established policies on fair use, civility, etc. So the range of policy we might formulate here is the templates and categories themselves. As discussed in the section How do we define userbox?, I think it's wise to try to establish some guidelines now to try to avoid such contention over user namespace content in the future. --Tetraminoe 14:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
We already have policies regarding POV edit wars, and for many discussions, the userboxes/cats are a useful way of informing editors of it (eg, for this discussion, it makes sense to tell the people on the threatened cats. Yeltensic42.618 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN

This is never going to go anywhere. Might as well send it to mfd or bjoadn now. karmafist 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Why should userboxes, a small part of a userpage, have a policy. Next it will be Small side tags to be listed at the bottom of user talk pages for the purpose of making that user smile proposed policy. I say let the work 60 people are trying to do at the WikiProject continue (was more, but people pulled out over "mass-deletions"), since there is huge effort to prevent Misplaced Pages policy on fair-use images and meta templates in progress, and then just nominate what specific users don't like for deletion. Is this really all nessary? IanID:540053 12:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I proposed this policy at the village pump, but this isn't exactly what I had in mind. I wanted to establish some guidelines for templates and categories intended for the user namespace in order to create concensus on what should be kept and what should be deleted, providing both sides—keepers and deleters (and others, for that matter)—a policy to cite when voting on TfD and CfD. I ensisioned something like a WP:NOT or a WP:UP for the user templates and categories. Unfortunately for userbox enthusiasts, a number of userbox deletionists have jumped on the bandwagon to try to implement restrictions on the user namespace. Instead, this discussion ought to remain focused on collaborative discussion and the template and category namespaces. User pages should remain free (as long as they're legal, of course); we just need to draw some lines for templpates and categories. --TantalumTelluride 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouls support a templates and catagories policy for userpage space. Having a seperate policy for userboxes is stupid (anyway, where is the definition of a userbox?). IanID:540053 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping the gun and creating it before you had a chance, Tantalum but I started it out using your words. I am not a fan of using (x)fD as a way to find out what the policy on x ought to be, it's too random and can lead to contentious out of band actions. What I thought I'd try to do was put up some things (levels, for example, one dimension is userbox images: none, PD only, PD and GFDL, any) that people could voice support. But if its really felt that this is a waste then maybe I should not bother? ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, creating policy for little boxes seems instruction creepy, but given recent events that I don't think I have to link here, it is clear that opinions on what is and what is not common sense regarding userboxes vary wildly and the whole sad affair has to be settled somehow. We might as well make a guideline. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If we approved the first plan, it would set a horrible precedent for our project: basically the only way to do anything is to act unilaterally against anyone or anything you dislike until others agree to meet you half way. Unfortunately, that's the way it is unofficially already. We shouldn't encourage it. karmafist 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's either this or the Kelly Martin thing drags on into an arbitration thing and no one's happy. I'd be willing to leave userboxes alone, but couldn't we consider the ones I mentioned above under "Let's Debate!" for deletion? Too many userboxes are being created all with the same non-purpose (see User:Mistress Selina Kyle's contributions for examples) and that should be at least slowed down. But the categoristaion part should be discussed and decided upon. Harro5 21:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Snide personal attacks really reflect badly on you as an admin you know. But in a way it's nice to see you proving yourself unworthy. --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Poweful words from a solid contributor. If only the rest of us could be as calm and composed as her. It isnt too late for us to follow her vision of goodwill. 69.49.99.16 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I only watch about a few pages of userboxes to see if any new ones come up, and I roughly see about 10 new boxes a day, but those are the ones that are listed at the WikiProject. But, there are userboxes that are not even included there that are floating around or people are using hard code to type everything. And, as mentioned before, that leads to redundancy, and that is not really a good thing to have on here. Zach 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This now serves as a way to stop the polluting flood caused by the WP:RFC/KM debate. Maybe if we get back to consensus we can avoid an arbitration case involving possibly over 100 editors who voted on the RfC. Harro5 08:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Given the amount of interest this topic has generated, I think it is clear this is more then just a joke. --DragonHawk 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we define userbox?/Move page to Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userpage templates?

I personally feel a policy for userboxes is too specific, and that it should be userpage templates, where all of the discussed would apply just as much. If it is to say here, can I ask for a definition of userbox, otherwise can we move to 'Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userpage templates'?. IanID:540053 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I seconded your proposal on the project page, and also offered the alternative locations Misplaced Pages:User page (templates) or Misplaced Pages:User page/Templates. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I third it. Deano (Talk) 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
File:Crystal kcmpartitions.png This user supports everyone's right to userboxes and will vote to stop rampant deletionism

--God_of War 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I second what God of War said :) --CJ Marsicano 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Should be make the page move? Harro5 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Larix 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the issue is not userboxes per se but templates (and, to an extent, categories) designed only for userpages, and the accompanying server load / unencyclopedicness / social value they add or detract. But there seems like plenty of difference between e.g. Template:user Pizza and Template:Userpage. So maybe it makes more sense to first conduct the discussion on userboxes specifically, but afterwards it would be wise to lay some guidelines on userpage templates overall. Otherwise, this debate will just arise in another form later on. We should seek to avoid frustration and wasted editors' time with broader guidelines than only userboxes. --Tetraminoe 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing from this debate

I am withdrawing from the discussion of this "proposed policy"; it is premature to hold a vote on it at this point, and what I see going on is an attempt by a vocal and organized faction of the community to ramrod its view of "policy" through without bothering to see how the broader community -- not to mention that portion of the community that is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia -- feels about it. I do not believe that this discussion will lead to community consensus, nor will it lead to a policy that benefits the encyclopedia, and I will not feel bound by any "policy" it creates if that policy does not reflect our core values. Cheers. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes feel that it would be much easier to accomplish things of partisans from both sides didn't constantly feel the need to storm off and vow to ignore whatever (if any) consensus ultimately emerges. Not to single you out, Ms. Martin: there were a number of people who opposed your proposal who were saying essentially the same thing. It makes the whole process of trying to reach consensus a little meaningless. – Seancdaug 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
We're making progress with what looks like a compromise between proposals #1 and #4, so let's not give up quite yet. If people don't want to be involved in the debate, and a policy is eventually formed, then they'll have to live with and abide by that. I've been glad to see you Seancdaug "crossing the floor" as it were to try to get a result from this debate, and applaud you for that. John McCain would like you to join the Gang of 14. Harro5 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it was ridiculous that y'all went to voting after less than 12 hours when there were at least four active proposals and nothing even remotely resembling consensus support for any of them, and the discussion so marred with incivility (admittedly by a small number of editors) that I want nothing to do with it. As to being stuck with it: "policy" created by false consensus is not policy and is even less binding than policy normally is on Misplaced Pages, which isn't much really. And the way this is proceeding, you're not going to get a true consensus, because there's no debate, no discussion, just posturing and voting.
I have some small hope that saner heads will prevail, but that's unlikely when surrounded by villagers wielding pitchforks and flaming torches. A good start would be to delete all votes from the main page and not have any voting until after (arbitrarily) January 8th. Seven days ought to be enough time to develop a true consensus. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite. Those who are in such a race make this a vote should take at least a cursory glance at Misplaced Pages:Straw polls. —Cryptic (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, it seems to be more about what is a building block and what isn't. Other than those who just want the status quo, no one is talking about having a policy by the end of the week. I'd anticipate seeing a new discussion soon centred around the few proposals with solid support (#1, #4, #7) and looking to gradually move forward. No one is trying to rush through a policy, but it doesn't seem like an issue which would get anywhere with back-and-forth arguing as it is too divided. If you have suggestions about how to approach consensus, please share them, but if you just want to damn the process, maybe wait until we get closer to a resolution to rain on the parade. I understand your views, and have tremendous respect for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but don't forget that nothing on Misplaced Pages is permanent and we have checks and balances for policy. Harro5 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have made the decision to withdraw from the userbox debate. When this proposal began, there were two (initially one) proposals made: one concerning what was acceptable and unacceptable (Kelly Martin's proposal), and one concerning the process of removing non-abiding userboxes (my proposal)--the original Proposals #1 and 2. These policies have been slowly morphed and melded into Proposal #10, proposed by TCorp. However, along the way, there have been proposals made left, right and center which have been little more than rewordings of earlier ones, yet attracting differing opinions from the same users. In the end, I very much doubt that a true concensus will ever be reached in this, bringing us back to Square One. --JB Adder | Talk 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fresh start

In light of the fact that we were heading down a spiral to nowhere, I've reset the debate to look for a discussion to see if we even want a policy, rather than confusing policies about not wanting policies, and trying to keep track of an incredibly complicated vote/debate we had going. If I've been a dick in doing this, say so here, but also say why, and try to see if we can get a genuine discussion going rather than a straw poll. Thanks. Harro5 06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Begin from fundamental principles

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that we stop trying to write proposed wordings of rules and "voting" on them. Rather, I think an approach would be to try to get principles (based on core WP values and well accepted precedent) articulated and arrive at consensus (or realise that it can't be arrived at for a particular facet) for the various underlying fundamental questions around userboxes. In fact I thought that was what would be done first, but when Kelly presented a draft I thought, hey, maybe this is farther along and went straight to proposing mods. So if no one else does it by tomorrow, I'll try to make a subpage of the project page that has some principles that we can try to agree on, and ask people to edit them rather than "vote" on them. It's what I should have done in the first place and I apologise to the community for not having done it when I created the page by copying material from WP:VP that User:TantalumTelluride posted, material that I really thought was a good starting point for articulating principles. ++Lar: t/c 06:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. We need to have a knock-down drag-out brawl over whether to even have a policy first. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That's what this is now set up for. Brawl away, to quote you. Harro5 08:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Protect all existing userboxes as long as this discussion continues

After Kelly´s action some time ago, now all religious userboxes have been speedy deleted. Without any warning or discussion. I think this is outrageous and all userboxes should be protected from now on against this kind of admin vandalism. Larix 09:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sides in the argument have agreed that there are some userboxes which have got to go. Protecting the lot makes no difference to deleting them; it's purely symbolic. However, symbolically, it does stop administrators deleting userboxes which do need to be deleted. Rob Church 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no concensus on how to deal with pov userboxes yet. So it is appalling to just massively delete these ones. I'm not talking about wikipedians who believe in santa here, but about humanists, muslims, jews and so on. Larix 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I find this very upsetting. I fail to see what urgent threat is posed by these userboxes that could not wait two or three days until we hash out some sort of preliminary policy, and I am extremely offended that whoever deleted these userboxes didn't have the common courtesy to post a message somewhere explaining what he/she was doing and why. After the RfC, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior and I don't see how it serves any purpose other than to irritate people. (It's worked; I'm irritated.) The point about userbox proliferation has been made, and the people here are working to remedy the problem. Mass userbox deletion with no explanation given is absolutely uncalled for. - AdelaMae 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and even if we had decided that these templates should be deleted, many of the proposals on the table suggest that users should be given the chance to place the code directly on their userpages; deleting the templates AND the pages at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes prevents this. - AdelaMae 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is User:Tony Sidaway. deletion log. Larix 10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes should not be speedied, especially while such discussions are ongoing. Such behavior is certainly uncivil, and should be treated as such. Kaldari 13:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain that 'both sides have agreed that there "are" some userboxes which have got to go'. This seems to be a bold statement. I think that under the current circumstances, boxes should not be restricted. There is already the TfD process for removing templates, and it should work quite well for userbox templates. It would be nice to avoid speedy deletion in user space. --Dschor 13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that general consensus supports any userbox being placed on a user's page, as it is free to be POV. The issue comes from templatised userboxes, and their listing at WP:UBX. I know what my POV regarding categorisation is - that is laid out in proposal #4, but achieving consensus here is going to be very difficult. The final solution would be to ban templatising any userbox, and forcing users to create individual ones for each's page... but that wouldn't be very popular methinks! Deano (Talk) 17:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
2/3 of my attempted edits in the last 5 hours have failed due to server load. I do not know how much that is due to failure of the userboxes we love to comply with WP:AIM, how much is normal for this time of day (I usually editing late nite), or other purposes. Meanwhile the community disruption continues with more players taking over what User:Kelly Martin had quit doing pending resolution of the RFC. User:AlMac| 20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of wikipedia for nonencyclopedic purposes

Little pretty boxes are not the issue. Use of wikipedia for nonencyclopedic purposes is a key issue in the use of pretty boxes. Deal with the real issues and the derived cases take care of themselves. To what extent social behavior on Misplaced Pages enhances encyclopedia building is highly subjective and no one should contemptuously or arrogantly or high-handedly act as if their assessment is unquestionable. Voting can not make unencyclopedic behavior acceptable, but what does and what does not help build the encyclopedia is no one person's right to decide. I think the real issues are in that mess of words somewhere and policies on pretty boxes are beside the point. WAS 4.250 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 cuts to the crux of the matter. I think in that:
  1. Use of images that are being used outside of FU Wiki policy should be speedily deleted (eg templates)
  2. Userboxes are a fad. I saw what others were doing and started adding my own before I saw how silly some had gotten IMHO...but that's just it: my opinion. What does it really matter if someone writes "I am a christain" on their userpage or puts/references a pretty box with a symbol of a cross on it.
  3. Meaningless issue for us to continue wasting time on and too time consuming to police. Let people build userpages as they see fit as long as it does not violate the userpage policy, which is???? --Censorwolf 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. which is WP:UP, I believe. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some hard facts would be helpful

Here is some information I think would make it easier for us to resolve this issue:

  1. We need to quantify the effect that userbox templates have on Misplaced Pages, in terms of sever load or whatever. This will give us an idea of the urgency of this task and how widespread the change needs to be. I have seen a couple of people make comments vaguely linking userbox proliferation and Misplaced Pages's fund drive, but correlation does not imply causation. Let's get some hard facts on how userboxes affect Misplaced Pages.
  2. We need to come up with specific instances where userbox templates have been used for various purposes, good or bad, so that we can evaluate the non-technical issues that have been brought up. If userboxes and their corresponding categories are being used for vote-stuffing, provide examples. - AdelaMae 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A third way

As Wikipedians, we must always try to make compromises in a fashion that addresses as many people's concerns as possible. As can be seen above, many people have concerns that they feel are best addressed by regulating userboxes in certain ways. Similarly, others have concerns with the idea of regulating userboxes. It is the intent of those working on this proposal to address as many of these concerns as satisfactorily as possible, so we may be advised not to limit ourselves to either "drawing up a set of regulations" or "not doing anything at all". There may be a third way to resolve this.

  • I had this suggestion on the proposals page, but it got lost in the crowd: "Could there possibly be a place like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals where people propose new userboxes and they are created or not based on that vote? Then, we could create a speedy delete criteria for any new userbox created that hasn't gone through this voting process. At least that would regulate it more than the current scheme (Misplaced Pages talk:Userboxes/Ideas) which basically sees people say, 'Can someone make this?', and it's done. This keeps the deletionists happy by slowing down the influx of new userboxes, and also allows userboxes on all topics to be created." Harro5 10:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: no regulation, please

Regarding the proliferation of user boxes, I find this an endearing and valuable community-building aspect of WP. Since there are few tangible rewards for working on wikipedia, camaraderie is really really important. I think we should enforce that they are all of the form "Template:User ___" but other than that, allow freedom within the normal wp policies.

Regarding POV on user pages: I believe that WP policy allows for POV in the User: namespace (and thus templates used in user space). Moreover, I find specific value in people placing their personal biases and alignments on their user pages. I am under no such delusion that we can ever really escape POV (we can only do our best to approach NPOV), so it is very helpful when checking history or contributions to see where people are coming from. Brighterorange 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not really made up my mind, nor do I think this is too important. However when I see things like:

Template:User against scientology

I think when we get to the point of boxes like this we need to have a policy regulating linking users opposed to certain ideologies. What should be done about things like that? It does seem to be getting out of hand. gren グレン 21:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an unhealthy amount of boxes denouncing groups rather than supporting your own. Template:User GWB for example. This doesn't need to be on userpages, and belongs on blogs. Misplaced Pages needs to stay focused, and if your a new user who sees someone revert your edits to Bush's article for example, and go to their userpage, and see that userbox, it's likely you will start a partisan argument about doing the work of the Democratic Party, or being a communist, or some ridiculous thing like that. These userboxes aren't just "fun", they are clear statements that I edit articles with a specific POV related to this debate, and so am going to take badly to opposing views, even if I'd like to claim otherwise. This isn't good for anyone, and so we need to be careful how much free reign e allwo with these templates. Harro5 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree that such sentiment is unhealthy. But do you think that a policy against such userboxes really addresses the underlying problem? Every editor has POV. Being up front about one's POV in userspace but striving for NPOV in articles is the best scenario, in my view. I don't think a "don't ask don't tell" policy (if that's what you're proposing) does anything except make the problems more insidious. Brighterorange 22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the user space is a suitable place for such sentiments. An attempt to censor userboxes is harmful to the purpose of user pages. I for one would rather have this information, and appreciate the opportunity to make my POV clear to the community, even as I make my best effort to maintain NPOV in the article space. Censoring user page content that does not violate policy is a poor precedent. --Dschor 23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That particular user box violates several policies and should be deleted. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you list some policies that it violates? Sorry, I am arriving to this discussion late, I guess. Brighterorange 00:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It shows a POV. But I don't think it has been clearly shown that having a POV is disallowed in userspace, has it?. Near as I can tell it is not an advocacy, it is not asking other users to dislike Scientology. Jimbo has asked us to deemphasise external beliefs, so it's not a box I'd choose to use, and it's in a category that I would put on the "discouraged" list (I support the notion of discouraged sorts of boxes, although I confess I have a FSM box and an atheist box on my page), but I would not ban/delete it. It MAY contain a copyrighted image (I haven't checked). However the MOST damning thing about it is how bright yellow and orange it is. Those colors are so jarring they must not be suffered to be shown together. (K, kidding about that last part. But they ARE jarring!) ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Policies relevant to the userbox debate

regarding this policy as it stands now

  • WP:NPOV - many userboxes offend against WP:NPOV - NPOV is a concern for articles, not User pages.
    • I will continue to argue strongly that userboxes should be allowed to show POV, but I nevertheless feel that NPOV is a policy that is relevant. it's relevant in that it doesn't apply as strongly (or at all) in userspace and should be mentioned in the list of relevant policies. (while you could argue that every policy that doesn't apply in user space could be mentioned, the POV/NPOVness of boxes seems to be a critical thing that this debate turns on. I think CIVIL bears mentioning here too for the same reason, and it is in fact mentioned just above that bullet. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It largely depends on what namespace the template is created in, doesn't it? That's a bit of a technicality, but I think it might be true anyway. Harro5 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In the debates that I was involved in regarding userboxes, mainly the Democrat and Republicans, editors who were pro-userboxes states that the Fair Use of images extended into user pages. However, the same people often say that NPOV does not apply to user pages; so where is it that certain policies inexplicably end? Fair Use is not just a guideline; the images are copyrighted, and copyright owners can sue. It's in place for a reason. Eightball 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree. I strongly feel that userboxes cannot, must not have copyvio problems. Fair use is for purpose of review and commentary, and nothing else, and I'm not sure I see how showing how you feel about Pepsi, for example, is fair use by any stretch of the imagination. I think the mechaniasm that has been proposed (see the archived older version of the proposed policy page) for sheperding userboxes through a creation process would help address this. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I also agree with Lar very strongly. I know that Wikipedians are creative people, so if people wish to have an icon on their userbox, they should try to be creative and come up with their own icon. However, with some of the recent problems we have been seeing with the servers, it would be each template's creators wishes to include an icon or not. However, it must be under a free license, not fair use. Zach 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Lar that policies can still be relevant even if they don't necessarily apply. Remember also that policies can be changed. So, references to existing policy should not be considered a finding of law, but rather, a pointer to existing concensus which help guide us here. So, to that end, I will add some sub-topics for individual policy/guideline pages. --DragonHawk 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User page guidelines

User page guidelines

  • Commentary on what should and should not be on a user page. Ultimately, it appears inconclusive for this discussion. Opinion pieces not related to Misplaced Pages are discouraged, but community-building is encouraged. --DragonHawk 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

No personal attacks

  • A personal attack is a attach on a particular person. By extension, it could be argued that user boxes should not be used to attack a particular person or group of persons. --DragonHawk 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy

NPOV policy

  • This has been getting brought up a lot in this discussion. Previous concensus appears to be that user pages are explictly allowed to contain opinion. I see the fact that template namespace is not user page namespace as a technicality; user boxes are, by definition, intended for user pages, and thus can be considered part of user space. OTOH, it does seem somewhat counter to the spirit of the Misplaced Pages project to fill one's user pages with POV just because we can. Spirit vs letter of the law and all that. --DragonHawk 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not ...

What Misplaced Pages is and is not

... an indiscriminate collection of information

... a soapbox

Key policies

Policies and guidelines

  • Respect other contributors. This is one of the four "key policies" listed, but has no single page of it's own (is actually has several). This policy is extremely relevant to this discussion, I think. I think it's clear that anything, user page or otherwise, which fails to respect other Wikipedians is Not Good. --DragonHawk 07:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Eightball

In an edit summary just now on the project page (attached to this edit that changed what was lined out around NPOV as an objection, Eightball said "Many say that Fair Use extends to userpages, but NPOV does not; this is contradicting. Either they both do, or neither do."

  • My response: In my view these are different things. Fair use is legalistic. ALL publications, websites, etc, at least those in the US, have to abide by Fair use, or may get sued. It applies to ALL content, and specifically, it applies at WP in articlespace, templatespace, categoryspace, userspace, you-name-itspace. (and yes I possibly run afoul of Raul's rule about who knows copy law and who doesn't). NPOV is a policy of Misplaced Pages. It applies where it is chosen to apply. It's an unshakable policy, with respect to articles. Jimbo has said it is not negotiable. However he did NOT say it applies to userspace, and common convention here, as this newb sees it, is that it is OK for users to say they have a point of view. That's getting to the crux of the problem. Is it or isn't it OK? I think it is, I think policy and precedent here say it is too... see WP:UP. (as an aside, it may be under this interpretation that templatespace can't have POV, so all boxes that did assert POV would have to live in userspace and not templatespace)++Lar: t/c 04:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that NPOV does not apply to talk pages the same way it does to articles, either. As far as I can tell, users are free to make their personal POVs clear on talk page discussions when they are relevant to editing of the article. In fact, I don't see how we could have productive discussion without this. Here are some examples of edits I've made to talk pages expressing my POV: "I really don't think this section is going to work out"; "If people were to come forth with examples of the term "heteroflexible" being specifically used in the news media and so on, I think that would be grounds for re-opening the debate on this topic"; "The assumption here that any criticism of Christianity must be based on false premises seemed offbase and not at all NPOV to me"; "I also believe that practitioners of my own religion, Hellenic polytheism, should be willing to walk hand in hand with Wiccans, but I would not add information on Hellenic polytheism to this article because it is not relevant." Thus, NPOV, as it is being interpreted here, already does not apply to portions of Misplaced Pages. - AdelaMae 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent example. Arguably trying to speak NPOV-ishly in that context would be impossible and worse, useless to making progress. Another place where POV comes up is in (x)fD... if only to disclose one's leanings and perhaps establish credibility on the topic of notability, although that's controversial.++Lar: t/c 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My counter-response: First off, Fair Use is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. I'm not refering to the legal equivalent, I'm refering to Misplaced Pages's interpretation of it, and the way it is applied. I am not trying to interpret the policies and guidelines any differently than they already have been. My _only_ point is that the proponents of userboxes are choosing where to apply certain policies and guidelines. It seems to me that if I did the same I could "choose" to ignore half the policies of WP; if enough did this, it would destroy the system. The policies are in place for a reason. Editors are creating userboxes with copyrighted images, saying Fair Use extends to userboxes, while they also violate NPOV, which they say doesn't extend to user pages (Fair Use, in my, explicitly excludes user pages, while the wording of NPOV seems more ambiguous). You can't be allowed to pick and choose your guidelines. Eightball 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You won't see me supporting that stance. I think all fair use images need to be removed from userboxes, forthwith, and do not see fair use as a valid defence for inclusion copyvio images in boxes (as I have said already, rather emphatically). But they ARE being removed. the Userbox project is cranking through all the boxes and fixing them. My point is that violating Fair Use can get WP sued if someone pushed the matter. Violating NPOV is not likely to get WP sued. Hence they are different. But to your point of picking and choosing, I agree, there should not be picking and choosing. That's not the same as deciding which policies apply to what by applying principles though. ++Lar: t/c 07:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a refactor

I tried a bit of a refactor here: Policies relevant to the userbox debate to try to capture that some people might think these policies are relevant, because there was a lot of back and forth and maybe this is inclusionary enough to be good? ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically a user conduct issue

From my perspective, the actual problem seen at least by Tony Sidaway is that userboxes are being used to rally POV crusades (especially regarding deletion). I would prefer a policy to deter this behavior directly, whether carried out through userboxes or not, by blocking/banning the users engaging in it, rather than deleting the userboxes themselves, which 95% of users seem able to employ harmlessly. Deleting the userboxes is at best a stopgap, as users who are operating with the intent of deliberatly subverting neutrality will surely find another way to do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a stopgap. But the least we can do is to deny the enemy of consensus and neutrality the free use of the most powerful tools at our disposal. If I want to tell the world I'm a Bigendian I'll do so, but it would be wrong for me to add a "Bigendian Wikipedians" category to my userpage enabling all of us Bigendians t operate as a bloc. This is what userboxes do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If userboxes did not add to categories would that be as good (or almost as good) of a stopgap as deleting them altogether? I suspect that the dedicated team of editors at the Userbox project, if that were the consensus, would have that fixed in nothing flat. The speed at which they are fixing the fair use issue, and at which they are fixing the multilevel template substitution issue, is nothing short of remarkable (as well as amazingly commendable). PS, Tony, I for one am glad you are here and talking about this. Very glad. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 07:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that as a stopgap it is harmful to other concerns as well, both in that it pointlessly alienates the many people who manage to use these userboxes harmlessly, and in that it deprives us of the utility gained by having people organized into these categories when they are employed productively. I don't see any reason to undertake this solution to the problem, which has these obvious flaws, when we could attack the problem directly without causing collateral damage. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
WikiProjects do EXACTLY the same in some cases. - But they're not banned or with possible policy to stop users "grouping" together: This happens anyway in the long run:
For example, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild (and it's splinter WikiProjects for Shia and Sunni) looks like it's the Islam equivalent of the Catholic WikiProject Sidaway doesn't like so much (there's already a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam for people that don't necessarily follow the religion)
Stuff like this will always happen on Misplaced Pages, what you are trying to do is stop people grouping together by view by making it harder to find people: This is silly, it happens anyway on Misplaced Pages --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

refactor

( Moved MSK's "counterargument" to talk page ++Lar: t/c 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) )

Tony added this:

    • Neutrality and Consensus - userboxes can easily be used by POV pushers to enable them to contact a large number of like-minded people so as to destroy the effectiveness of our neutrality policy by subverting normal consensus-based decision-making. Case in point: 9 out of 11 keep voters in the Catholic Alliance deletion debate did so after being contacted by the page's creator who found them through a userbox declaring them to be Catholics and placing them into a category that he was able to scan at the press of a button. (this has to do with usage)

MSK replied:

      • Counter-argument: People will always find other Wikipedians with similar beliefs or interests and form groups of friends in their time on Misplaced Pages anyway, this only speeds the process and gives less of an advantage to newer users who haven't been around long enough to develop a network of Wiki-friends. Also categories help find other users knowledgeable or interested about the same subjects to help improve articles that might otherwise be neglected. It's not so different from a WikiProject or from users in fact stating their interests on their user page without using a "user box" for it as has been going on for a long time, or user categories without matching userboxes such as those in Category:Wikipedians.

I suggest refactoring it into a point in one of the pro/cons as it's not a policy point per se. The points are points, they should be countered in the pro/con section. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, done now - hope that's better --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Community

One thing user boxes let us do is build communities. Communuity building yields two major kinds of benefits. One is that people interested in the same things, or sharing knowledge on the same subjects, can collaborate better as a community. Experts on, say, geology, can coordinate their efforts, distribute the load, and check each other's work. Such a community can even be a resource to outsiders -- to continue my example, if someone else needs to check a geological fact, they can go to the geology community. Most or all of the WikiProjects are fall into this category. The other benefit from community building is less tangible. By making Misplaced Pages a place people feel like they belong, where they want to come to, we increase the overall quality and quantity of contribution. These are all Good Things, and reasons why User Boxes can be Good Things.

However, as a counter point to all that, it should be noted that putting people into groups does not always build community; indeed, it can do the opposite. Grouping people can divide people. Any time you create a group that is "in", everyone else becomes "out". This is an ancient human behavioral pattern. Being a member of a group that others are not a member of can be powerful and addictive in all the wrong ways.

So, I think one key thing to look at here is: Does the group created by a user box bring people together, or push them apart?

Given that criteria, I realize now that perhaps some of the user boxes on my own user page are, perhaps, not as nice as they should be. Rather then saying "I contribute with Foo", perhaps it would be better if I just said "I know a lot about Foo".

--DragonHawk 07:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful in refactoring

MSK while you refactored helpfully, I think this point got lost from the policy points

    • Neutrality and Consensus - userboxes can easily be used by POV pushers to enable them to contact a large number of like-minded people so as to destroy the effectiveness of our neutrality policy by subverting normal consensus-based decision-making. Case in point: 9 out of 11 keep voters in the Catholic Alliance deletion debate did so after being contacted by the page's creator who found them through a userbox declaring them to be Catholics and placing them into a category that he was able to scan at the press of a button. (this has to do with usage)

So I put it back. It's a valid policy concern whether you agree with it or not, and we must be careful not to lose text accidentally. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 07:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to delete it, sorry
I was just about to add it back then came back after realising you had already hah. Didn't read properly }. Ok, I tried to make it a bit more NPOV: It must be noted that most of the "applicable policy" bit is things from the "concerns about not regulating userboxes" bit. --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya, it does (read like a personal view) at that, even after you AGFed it... See if Tony's willing to move it out of the policies list and into the appropriate pros/cons section would be my suggestion. (the pro/cons sections still don't quite seem to have the right titles either but they're clearer than they were, the reason there are two sections are to separate userboxes from stating preferences/viewpoints, it's possible there are things about a box that is completely preference statement free that are good or bad) ++Lar: t/c 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some concrete examples of belief and conviction-based userboxes being abused

I've mentioned how I think that belief and conviction-based userboxes will be abused and I've given one good example where 9 out of 11 keep voters on an article up for deletion voted after their talk page was spammed.

Perhaps people are saying this was a one-off, a fluke, just one user who overstepped that mark. Not a bit of it. Only the previous week, the following two incidents took place and again involved (to some greater of lesser extent) someone looking in a user category planted on a page by a user box and then spamming the talk pages.

Of course we don't know how many times someone has abused these categories in a savvy way, contacting people by email instead.

I'm sorry that my examples are all based around similar issues. It's not that I have a thing about Catholics (I was raised as a Catholic myself), but that (including the example that I gave before) these are the three examples that come most readily to hand. I remembered the Pitchka one from last month, and found the Chooserrr one while Looking for it.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories: