Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Userbox content

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment | Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random832 (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 17 January 2008 (→Discussion: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:51, 17 January 2008 by Random832 (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: +)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:RFCpolicy Userboxes have been widely used by editors as one of many means to express themselves in Misplaced Pages. Although most userboxes contain mostly neutral and trivial information, some contain expressions and assertions which other editors may disagree on. These disagreements may sometimes turn into heated debates, creating divisiveness within the community. There have been several discussions on interpretations of policies and guidelines over these userboxes, both in keeping and deleting them altogether, or keeping some while deleting others.

This RFC has been opened to create a centralized and civil discussion on past experiences and current opinions in order to try establishing discernible consensus, which could be used for making future decisions on this matter. While this RFC was not created to reach a final decision on these debates, I hope we can present fair arguments and suggestions to help editors create and manage their userboxes, as well as for administrators in resolving disputes and deletion discussions. For more information, see the Miscellany for Deletion discussion which sparked this request for comment. Thanks for your time. - Mtmelendez 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Applicable policies on userboxes

Misplaced Pages:Userboxes, particularly its Content restrictions section, which states:

All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
- Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
- Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
- Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes, and vice versa.

Comment by Zenwhat

If you're talking about something like this:

MR. STUPID ADMIN IS WILLY ON WHEELS, ROFL!!111

It's already covered under current policy.

If you're talking about something like this:

This user is a Christian anarchist.

This user wants to stop
global warming.

This user believes that hippies, celebrities, and politicians are NOT experts on climate change.

This user does not hug trees.

LIB

This user loves Drugs, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Immigration*

This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms.

This user recognizes the Palestinian right of return.

This user supports the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

This user believes that life begins at conception

etcetera, Misplaced Pages:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not censored. Don't be oversensitive and accept the fact that you're going to come across things that may offend you or that you might not like, such as the boobs on Breast or the butts on Buttocks or the word shag on Ball washer. Part of being a responsible editor involves being mature enough to not be bothered by these kinds of things.

☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Zen, please view my third comment below. It directly argues against your suggestions. - Mtmelendez 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Zen, what about stuff like this?
User:Tedius Zanarukando/Userboxes/User notrousers4women
And if you check his page (User:Tedius Zanarukando) he's pretty much got the whole barefoot and pregnant theme going. Aside from warning me that the user is a wingnut, what purpose does it serve on Misplaced Pages?

What about this one: User:Jw21/deUBdomain/"supports" bush invasion

Legotech (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning you that a user is a wingnut is not a valid encyclopedic purpose? —Random832 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Equazcion

If wikipedia is not the place for advocacy then that pretty much eliminates all the political userboxes. I'd be fine nukin' 'em all. Most userboxes can get off on the technicality that they have a chance at aiding in encyclopedic collaboration, since one can tell which topics a user might be interested-in, or knowledgeable-about, based on posted userboxes. However, boxes that just state a viewpoint on an issue, rather than just an interest in a topic, are not only excluded from that technicality, but can also have a negative effect. Advertising POV userboxes can enable people to more easily choose collaborators that hold the same POV, which can more easily slant the articles they collaborate on. Simply put, they make it easier for the community to divide. Boxes that simply state a positive interest (like "I like this TV show") don't have that potential effect. On a personal note, I see Misplaced Pages as a place where we leave our POVs at home and come together to write unbiased articles. Reminding each other that we disagree on political issues is just not necessary, carries no benefit, and has too much potential for negativity. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:17, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Well put. Legotech (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuke them all from orbit, that's the only way to be sure. WilyD 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you nuke politics, you have to nuke religion too. It's a very thin line between this user supports Israel or This user is a Zionist and This user is Jewish. It's also a thin line between this user supports country X and this user is a member of Wikiproject country X. Are you really supporting nuking all of that from user space? -- Kendrick7 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Life an WP isn't about everything being positive, there is negative in this world and user's should be allowed to say that. If positive user opinion/belief is allowed then so should negative (within common-sense constraints). There's too much political correctness as it is. At this rate the WP logo should have a rose-coloured tint. So long as there is a human element to WP then good/bad, positive/negative, light/dark will always come to the surface. One cannot hope to stop it, all we can do is give a framework that utilises realism based common-sense rather than idealism. It is human nature to express opinion and belief systems. You won't ever stop it. To attempt to do so is a recipe for either frustration, disaster or futility. There are going to be editors who disagree, there are going to be editors that are inflamed. You cannot serve all the people all the time. Life isn't like that and neither should Misplaced Pages. People have to learn to deal with offensiveness in the real world, let them deal with it here too. --WebHamster 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about positive versus negative per se, although steering clear of negativity is one of the things Misplaced Pages does try to do in terms of communication between its editors. It's more about beneficial vs. non-beneficial, to the end-goal. To Kendrick, I don't see any thin line between declaring support for a country or a wikiproject. One lets people know what you're thinking and the other is just letting people know what you're doing on the encyclopedia. Same goes for "this user supports this" or "this user is a -ist" -- these publicize your thoughts but have nothing to do with your role in the encyclopedia. Declaring your religion is iffy, but is something that can be dealt with separately -- they could be considered political and may warrant deletion as well. Anyway, this isn't about how "politically-correct" the encyclopedia "should be" or about rosey tints etc. Those are just personal perceptions. We should focus on what's the most beneficial in the creation of a reliable source of encyclopedic information, and on policy -- not on how agreeable or attractive the resulting forum would be to us individually. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:48, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Mtmelendez

Misplaced Pages has seen various editor disputes over userboxes. These debates are based on differences of opinions on what is considered acceptable userbox content under the #Content restrictions section of Misplaced Pages:Userboxes, ~~an established guideline~~. Recent discussions and debates have not shown a consistent interpretation within the community of this guideline's section, which has caused heated debates between editors. Some of these debates have ended without resolving the original issues, which has then caused other disputes over the same userbox, other userboxes, and over other unrelated matters, creating unnecessary divisiveness within the community.

Therefore, the section in question should be amended to reduce ambiguity and provide better, more detailed guidance to editors in creating and managing userboxes, as well as to administrators in resolving related disputes. These changes may include detailed wording on the freedom or limitation of userbox content, more examples of acceptable or unacceptable content on userboxes, and instructions on how to resolve userbox content disputes. The changes made to the section are not intended to promote any particular view or opinions on the liberties or limits of editor expression in Misplaced Pages, but rather to reduce future disputes, as is the purpose of many policies and guidelines.

Discussion

This is only a comment, not an endorsement: I've never seen WP:Userboxes actually referred to as a guideline, even in this last MfD, in which it might've made a difference. All people were using was CSD, in which it was pointed out more than once that the criteria that included the word "divisive" was technically not applicable since the box didn't exist in the Template space. No one came back with this guideline as an argument. That tells me that the problem isn't in this guideline's wording, but simply in the fact that people don't seem to know it exists, or at least don't realize it's a guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to stand by your point. Whether WP:UBX is a guideline (or just a how-to guide) is an important question. I assumed it was since it was tagged as such since September 2007, and it was merged from Misplaced Pages:Userbox policy. I removed the "established guideline" assertion, until this gets answered. - Mtmelendez 16:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't see how the removal of guideline status follows from people's lack of knowledge about the guideline. If the page is tagged as a guideline then there was obviously consensus to put it there. People just need to be made aware of it -- perhaps we need to increase the number of places from which it is linked. But this is no reason to remove its status as a guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:23, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  - My mistake, when you said you were removing the guideline assertion I thought you were removing the guideline tag itself from the page. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that my suggestion for change may go in either direction. If this receives reasonable amount of support and consensus, then users should draft suggestions on which way the guideline should be directed. - Mtmelendez 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines need to be changed with regard to the wording used, i.e. inflammatory and divisive. By their very nature any UBX giving an opinion or stating the user's belief could be inflammatory to someone and will always be divisive. Divisive is a particularly bad choice as it has multiple definitions. It's basic definition is to divide opinion. This will always be the case. Some will agree and some won't QED divisive. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, computer platform or choice of food, even something as inherently benign as the serial comma. Basically the criteria for allowance of UBXs needs better defining using specific terms that are not open to interpretation (or minimal interpretation), e.g. hate, overt violence, bigotry (racial, social, sexual). On the other hand this is an encyclopaedia of human knowledge, it is written by humans and should therefore allow UBXs that demonstrate a full range of human ideas, thoughts and beliefs. Additionally negatives should also be allowed but within the constrains of decency and legality. --WebHamster 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Mtmelendez

Misplaced Pages has seen various editor disputes over userboxes. These debates are based on differences of opinions on what is considered acceptable userbox content under the #Content restrictions section of Misplaced Pages:Userboxes, ~~an established guideline~~. Some of these debates have escalated into heated discussions, which in turn has caused divisiveness of the community. While this divisiveness may or may not be caused by the userbox content per se, many disputes have been caused by not properly following our policies on civility, guidelines on discussion, and our dispute resolution process, which includes obtaining third opinions from uninvolved editors and requests for comments from the community.

When finding a userbox they disagree on or that they believe is unfit for Misplaced Pages, editors should assume good faith (except in obvious cases), and discuss the particular issues with the userbox creator first and foremost, in order to find common ground on appropriate content. This is not a suggestion, but rather a standard practice within Misplaced Pages which should be followed by all editors in all types of disputes. If discussion proves fruitless, editors are encouraged to obtain good faithed, third opinions from uninvolved editors by following the dispute resolution process. Generally, after these efforts have not yielded any results, editors may then nominate the userbox for deletion, notifying the creator of this action. However, do not use the deletion discussion to make a point, and be prepared in case the community decides to disagree with you.

Administrators should generally not delete userboxes outright except in clear cases (see WP:CSD). If the admin is unsure on whether it undoubtedly meets the CSD criteria, they should obtain consensus from appropriate forums, including WP:MFD and WP:AN. However, if the administrator simply disagrees with the userbox content on a personal level (including personal beliefs or personal interpretation of appropriate content), he/she should follow the dispute resolution process mentioned above. - Mtmelendez 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment by Mtmelendez

Misplaced Pages's policies regarding user pages establishes limitations over what may and may not be included. Misplaced Pages provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia, and it is a mistake to think of it as a similar to a homepage. Users may include certain personal information in order to find other editors with common interests to facilitate collaboration and good faith, encyclopedic contributions. Adding certain personal details also fosters a healthy community, by letting other users know who they're working with. However, user pages should not be used to promote a particular point of view, or to incite or provoke other editors. While Misplaced Pages promotes free and open content, and the community has consistently frowned upon undue censorship of material, it is not an anarchy, and restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. - Mtmelendez 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

What this really means is: Inciting or provoking other editors who are bigots. This is just don't ask, don't tell. Don't tell the community you're X, because some editors are bigoted against editors who are X, and you're the one to blame for inciting their bigotry if you do. May not apply to forms of bigotry currently considered politically incorrect. Otherwise, let the bigots win or else you're just being divisive. -- Kendrick7 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Kendrick7

We need to stop developing policy based on whether user space content is or is not inside a rectangle or other geographical shape. If this RfC is an attempt to perpetuate that kind of thinking, this is a step backwards. -- Kendrick7 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)