Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 4

Userbox Migration? Reelection! Cast your official vote

Weak yes. The idea is a good one and will help distinguish userboxes and start new ones of similiar titles. More support should follow. --DrZeus 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since everyone was complaining about the whole "German" thing, we've move to a more country neutral title. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And this isn't a !vote. It already happened, and we've already moved. We aren't just going to go back. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I must have been totally out of it last night. I'd like to caution User:DrZeus not to edit my comments on this page dif. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup Charon like. Charon now go back to study for final exam tomorrow. bleh. CharonX/talk 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no My two cents:

• I think that moving longstanding userboxes from the template space in an unnecessary pain in the ass to users, and generally shouldn't be done.
• I agree with the premise of creating all new userboxes (or moving userboxes with very few transclusions) in the userspace from now on, however this does not justify moving old ones out. Wikipedia:Userbox policy should require all new userboxes to be created in userspace.
• Wikipedia:Userboxes should be a complete and central directory of all userboxes, hosted in userspace or not, as it used to be. There is no reason to have 50 different userbox directories moving around.
• Userbox-hating admins should enforce their POV about userboxes on other users. If they don't like userboxes, then nobody's making them use them. Why should they make others who like userboxes suffer? I do agree with deleting inflamatory userboxes, but deleting a box that says "This user drinks Coca-cola" is stupid. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Irony

In changing the name, you've distanced yourselves from "the german solution" (since this doesn't follow that, and since they're now having troubles of their own), which is fine, I suppose. What is interesting to me is that you've now lost the "Jimbo supports this" excuse of WP:JOU.

And by the way, just to re-state: I support the "idea" of the self-voluntary placing of a userbox in userspace. What I oppose is this arbitrary "migration" interpretation.

I've attempted several times to illustrate some of the pitfalls of this "plan"... Perhaps this discussion just needs to be placed at a "larger" venue... - jc37 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Larger venue? What are you proposing? CameoAppearance ^orate 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jc37, how does this move lose Jimbo's support, do you figure? We're still doing the same thing, namely, what he suggested we do. He didn't say to slavishly imitate The German Wikipedia's every choice; he said, "the middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior." We're doing that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No you're (plural) not. That quote was about advocacy/campaigning, not about all userboxes in general. - jc37 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so no campaigning in template space, including userboxes that have a POV. NPOV applies to template space as much as it does to the main space. "This user is a/n x" is expressing a point of view, and by extention an advocacy. We take the POV out of template space. So just a question; are you a userbox purist who just hates GUS/UM because of what we do, or are you one of the anti-GUS/UM people because of process? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I hate, or am I anti- ? The inflammatory wording of that whole question... Rather than answer, I think I'll request you re-word it so that I can answer in good faith, and civility, not to mention Wiki-love. - jc37 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you opposed to the ideas of GUS/UM? (and don't political two-step). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting myself from above: "I support the "idea" of the self-voluntary placing of a userbox in userspace. What I oppose is this arbitrary "migration" interpretation." (note the "self-" of self-voluntary.) - If you look over my contributions, especially from when I first joined the userbox wikiproject, I supported WP:GUS. I still do, as it was written/intended. I don't support the arbitrary wholesale moving (migration) of userboxes from Template space to some arbitrary user's sub-page. I think it's an incredibly bad idea for so many reasons, not the least of which is precedent. - jc37 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) So, from what your saying is that if we were doing this informally with a bunch of users just arbitrarily adopting userboxes it would be fine, but being organized isn't? Or are you saying that this isn't self-voluntary? I have volenteered my userspace for boxes, as has Rfrisbie in multiple locations. The "migration" is keeping with WP:JOU. I read under "Strongly discouraged" it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. (refering to POV ones, which is essentually all of them). Under "Activists for a POV", I read The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. I get "get them out of Template space", don't you? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I oppose the concept of "adopting userboxes", since it's essentially another way to say "migration". The idea behind WP:GUS was that inflammatory userboxes were to be userfied (to the user which created them), rather than speedily deleted. This is what JW was talking about in WP:JOU when he said that he doesn't suggest any more deletions... (WP:JOU#I have done nothing, and WP:JOU#Everyone please relax). It also implied that you could save everyone effort by proactively userfying any userboxes you created. But the migration, adoption, user galleries, and the rest, I strongly oppose.

This is a WP:JOU quote that directly deals with this:

• "There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results."

I strongly oppose interpreting that to mean "all" userboxes. It's not what was said, and in my opinion, is twisting his words to mean what you want them to mean, rather than what was stated. - jc37 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cons and Pros of migration

Jc37, can you explain what harm you see in adoption/migration/whatever? Do you oppose it simply because you see it as different from what Jimbo said, or do you oppose it on some other grounds as well. I ask because ultimately, the important question is not whether or not it's precisely what Jimbo had in mind, but whether or not it's good for the project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I've talked about some of it before. First, nearly every time this comes up we hear:

• "Jimbo said so."
• "But you don't want the wars to return"
• "It's not policy, so we can just do it."

I think I've dispelled the "Jimbo said so", already, and the "wars" question below. As for "Just do it", as I said above, the intent was for userbox creators, not for self-proclaimed migrationists to create personal galleries. - jc37 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Restarting indent)

(Please note that several examples below are ways for users to "Stuff beans up their noses". Please don't attempt these examples.)

So, since we've dispensed with the excuses, let's answer your direct question: "what harm you see in adoption/migration/whatever?"

As we've seen several times (including in WP:JOU), users are pretty much free to do whatever they want with their userspace. So now a gallery owner may {{db-owner}} (and note the name of the template) any and all user sub-pages. That sounds rather too close to violating Wikipedia's policies surrounding GDFL. Do you think that when asked the creator of the userbox will say that he felt that license was given for another user to take his creation as their own? Yes, user space falls under GDFL, but standard practice on wikipedia is, as noted above, that users can do pretty much whatever they want with their userpages. IANAL, but it seems to me that we've now created a rather hazy situation in coptleft law.

Continuing on the WP:OWN theme, we now hear things like "Xaosflux now has all the sexuality userboxes". Our frame of reference is becoming possessive, irregardless if the users themselves intended that, or if they actually feel that way. It creates a rather bad example for newbies, as well. Especially since "possession" of pages created by other users should not be a standard on Wikipedia. Yes, there is always the right to fork, but an intra-wikipedian fork? How about if I duplicate the whole of wikipedia in my userspace sub-pages? Or just everything related to a single TV Show? all The actors, characters, themes, etc, of Bonanza, for example. What if it's not just a copy, but I actually move those pages to my userspace? I can actually sincerely claim userbox migration as precedent, since bonanza related articles are just "fancruft" to some users, and I wanted to prevent any "deletion wars". (If you doubt that deletion wars exist, spend some time on any XfD...).

Now let's have some "fun". As I mentioned elsewhere, by defining userspace as "less than offical space", and saying that anyone can "just do it", that means that any of us could go to anyone's userfied userboxes and move them. Right now, thanks to the precedent established, I could go move all userboxes from every userspace to be sub-pages of my userpages. And since it's not policy, I will not have broken any rules. And if I don't break rules, I can't be in violation of WP:POINT. And this is just userboxes. What's to stop someone from saying that they want to archive all the proposal sub-pages to his/her own userpages? How about all rejected or historical proposals out of project space? This is (again) a rather bad precedent to set.

And note the recent TfD, which was closed for reasons of WP:SNOW!! The claim is that a sub-page of a userpage, even though it acts like a template, is not a template. And tell me that is a good precedent to set.

And all of this when I haven't seen any good reason to remove userboxes from template space. It's what the space was designed for. Wikipedia:Namespace is rather clear on that.

Page transclusion should not be used as a way to "get around" guidelines/policy. Userboxes are templates, and I think that there would be difficulty proving otherwise.

And I haven't gone into how obnoxiously rude it has come across to users, or how it's bred distrust and contempt, both user against user, and users vs wikipedia. Or how making all these redirect changes is actually worse on storage space than if they were just left alone.

I won't go on with eamples, for now, but let me ask you now (paraphrasing your question):

GTBaccus, can you explain what value you see in adoption/migration/whatever?

I look forward to your response. - jc37 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Jc37, I hardly know where to begin. I'll begin at the top.

First of all, "we" certainly haven't "dispensed" with the "excuses". A more intellectually honest way to say that would be something like "as far as I'm concerned, we've dispensed with the justifications given for the migration. Do you agree, or is there something I'm missing?" You see, I would say that your arguments "dispensing with the excuses" are shoddy and specious, and I'm prepared to explain why in detail, if you're interested. I'm unconvinced by your arguments, so let's not pretend that issue is over. For now, though, let's move on, having not dispensed with that topic at all. (GTB)

While, I think your example of what I could have placed there is fine, I stand by my opinion. If you have counter points to it, of course I welcome them (perhaps we should make a additional sub-section just for that) - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we'll try interleaving responses. If it becomes unreadable, we'll either refactor or give up, right? I've added some mini-signatures to help keep track of who's talking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Next, you make up a bunch of hypothetical situations of what someone might do after the migration. Trouble is, anyone doing any of those BEANS moves you enumerate is behaving grossly uncivilly, (GTB)

Not necessarily. There could be great reasons to make some of those moves. Just as those who believe in migration feel that they have great reasons. If the examples I gave are uncivil, so is WP:UM, by what you just said. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. If there are great reasons for those moves you imagine, then I would hope those reasons would be stated by someone, which would change everything. When you gave the examples, you cited no reasons. WP:UM has cited its reasons since before it ever began, and we've bent over backwards to answer everybody's questions and address concerns. That makes a big difference, as far as civility goes. It's amazing how many potential problems just evaporate if people talk to each other, and try to make sense and be decent. If people don't do that, then we're lost, no matter what rules anybody makes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"...we've bent over backwards to answer everybody's questions and address concerns..." - While I don't doubt your (singular) good intentions, in several instances by several users, "answer" has equalled "bullying tactics", or even "ignore query". I don't think you'll disagree with that. What I was saying is that if you feel that making those moves is uncivil, the same could be said about WP:UM. I think that you would have a hard time saying convincingly that the GUS moves have not been disruptive. - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

and they aren't going to get away on a technicality like "if I don't break rules, I can't be in violation of WP:POINT." That is absolutely false. (GTB)

Can you cite a reference? I only ask because that's how I am currently reading WP:POINT. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(response) I think there are a few good examples of WP:POINT violations in the article itelf, though the key phrase would be distruption. A good example for this would be, I think, AFD. If somebody were to think that dynamic IP users should not be allowed to nominate articles on AFD and go ahead and just randomly nominate hundreds of articles under different IPs (with really weak reasons) that would be a WP:POINT violation. IP users are allowed to nominate, and there is no hard limit for nomination - thus no rules of WP is seemingly violated. Except that the aim of the action is to distrupt WP to prove a point, which in itself, may be punished by bans. CharonX/talk 23:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CharonX, that works. As for citing a reference, you shouldn't get hung up, Jc37, on the idea that "the rules" consist of what's written down on those pages. The content of WP:POINT is simply "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Those other words are window-dressing. If you disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, there you go. The particular way in which you did it doesn't have to be written down in a list in order to "count". -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It rather clearly says:

• "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself."

The problem is that GUS isn't policy, so the moving I suggested won't have anything to do with policy. The problem is POV. Supporters of WP:GUS/UM/whatever, are so certain that this is the "right thing to do", they're willing to disrupt Wikipedia to do it. And you don't see a problem with that? Have the disruptions died down some? Yes, partially because there have been some rather intensive discussions lately in which some of the same people involved in some of the early deletion sprees are involved in other controversies. And partially because people are sick of it. I know there have been times in which I wonder why we spend so much time on this. We shouldn't have to. The cabal of the few is apparently insistant that the rest of us "sit up and take notice", since, if we don't, they will take action (userfication/migration/adoption/whatever). I repeat: The intent of WP:GUS is not arbitrary migration of all userboxes. Further, such arbitrary migration is a "bad idea", since it is disruptive. - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do to be a dick, is knowingly upset people. If you do that, you're in violation of WP:DICK. (GTB)

I suggest that you go back and read WP:DICK (which is actually a soft-redirect to m:Don't be a dick). I don't think you'll find that it supports your interpretation. And again, Do you think the migration has "knowingly upset people"? - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the migration has done its best to avoid upsetting people. The intent of the migration isn't to fuck with people, it's to resolve conflict. If it doesn't make everyone happy, well, life's tricky, isn't it? It's certainly not a spiteful action, as anybody can determine, just by asking. If you think someone's being a dick, the first step is to ask them, politely, what they're doing. If their response is "SHUT UP, THAT'S WHY!", or anything to that effect, then they're being a dick. If they respond politely, explaining what they're doing and why they think it's best, then they're not. We all know this, right?

As for m:Don't be a dick not supporting my interpretation, I don't know what you're talking about. It intentionally avoids defining what "being a dick" is. The policy is: "Don't be a dick," and we all know what that means without having to read about it. If you're going around intentionally pissing people off, then you're being a dick - you knew this when you were 7 years old. It's still true. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"I think the migration has done its best to avoid upsetting people." - Actually "the migration" can't do anything of its own accord, that's up to the people actually performing the task. And as such, I would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. Just taking time to read through this page and it's archives proves that rather clearly. And - "If their response is "SHUT UP, THAT'S WHY!"" - has seen the light of day more than once. Variations include: "Because I /we said so", "Because I/we can.", and "Because I/we have decided that we have consensus". the last is the most troubling, since much action has taken place out of consensus. Even the "straw poll" (which I have several process issues with) shows that not all userboxes should be userfied. - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're making a point by doing it, you're in violation of WP:POINT as well. It's not about technicalities; it's about actually respecting your fellow Wikipedians. How are any of the actions you describe consistent with respect? (GTB)

I'm not certain how "respect" became part of this discussion, but ok... Since all of this (again) relates to WP:UM how can you describe WP:UM as consistant with respect? - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Easily. It's an attempt to respect people who want userboxes on their page by letting them have userboxes on their page, and also to respect people who find POV userboxes to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's mission, by moving them into User namespace, because that seems to calm them down. I don't understand how rejecting the migration is consistent with respecting the perspective of those, like myself, who see POV userboxes harming Wikipedia.

How "respect" became part of this discussion is that we're talking about people getting along with other people, and the only key to that is respect, in all cases, everywhere. Violating WP:POINT is a failure to be respectful. So is violating WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA, or WP:NPOV for that matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"who see POV userboxes harming Wikipedia." - The problem is that it's not restricted to "POV userboxes". And further, who is a member of the userbox board of arbitration who makes such a dtermination for the community? I would think that that's rather specifically what TfD is for. And I disagree with your belief that userfication "respects" the wishes of the users who have them on their userpages. - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In detail:

• "So now a gallery owner may {{db-owner}} (and note the name of the template) any and all user sub-pages."

  False. First of all, nobody "owns" a gallery, though someone may curate it. Secondly, no sane admin would carry out a {{db-userreq}} (the actual name of the template) on a gallery that's linked to from other user pages. We're not supposed to speedy any page with incoming links; every admin knows that. Anyone making such a request would find it denied immediately. Admins are neither robots nor fools, and nobody WP:OWNs their userspace. If anything like this actually happens, you let me (or another sane admin) know, and we'll fix it, ok? (GTB)

  relying on the good graces, and/or the good intentions of other editors falls within WP:AGF. "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." That said, there have been more than a few examples of where admins have failed in such discernment that you feel is obvious. If you disagree with that, I would be surprised (especially considering some cases currently underway at arbcom). And so as such, we should not make policy which relies on that. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'm pretty much aware that there are some people who don't treat their fellow Wikipedians very well. Be that as it may, many of our policies rely on people not being complete shitheads. If we're not basically decent to each other then the project falls apart. Seriously, if someone gets a hair up their ass and tried to {{db-userreq}} a ubx gallery they're maintaining, and if they manage to get the attention of an admin irresponsible enough to do it, please let me know. I won't be holding my breath, since this scenario depends on two people really going off the handle. Still, if someone goes off the handle, they can mess stuff up, so please let someone know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  "I won't be holding my breath, since this scenario depends on two people really going off the handle." - It only takes one if that person is an admin... - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "How about if I duplicate the whole of wikipedia in my userspace sub-pages? Or just everything related to a single TV Show?"

  It would be speedied, and somebody would hit you upside the head with a trout for WP:POINT and for screwing around. Again, you don't have to "break a rule" to violate WP:POINT, you just have to be out of line in a way that bugs people. If anyone starts copying articles wholesale to their userspace, you let me (or another sane admin) know, and we'll set them straight. (GTB)

  I think a cluestick would probably be more helpful than a trout, personally : ) - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• "any of us could go to anyone's userfied userboxes and move them"

  No, that would be a WP:DICK move. Why would you do that? It sounds disruptive, because of all the incoming links. A civil user would not do that. WP:CIVIL is policy. If someone does anything like that, you let me (or another sane admin) know, and we'll fix it. (GTB)

  I disagree, per above. As to why, what if the user was the one who created it, and wants the edit history as a subpage of his userpage? Such a move actually embraces GUS, so how is it uncivil? Again, I think we're starting to stray into hazy areas. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, look. If you move a page for a reason, then hopefully you say that reason aloud, if not immediately, then as soon as you're asked. If someone moves a page that you thought was yours, first of all, it wasn't yours. Second, if you want a copy, make a copy. Third, talk to the person. They might have a good reason; it might have been a misunderstanding. This is just normal. People have to be able to get along with each other, and the policies will not protect uncommunicative dickheads from one another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  "If someone moves a page that you thought was yours, first of all, it wasn't yours." - Thing is, it isn't theirs either. And (as I said above) userfying/migration/adoption/whatever, would seem to meet your same standards of violating WP:DICK. - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "And note the recent TfD, which was closed for reasons of WP:SNOW"

  I'm sorry, but I don't know which TfD you're talking about. Gotta link? (GTB)

  sure, it's on this page under "test case". - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• "The claim is that a sub-page of a userpage, even though it acts like a template, is not a template. And tell me that is a good precedent to set."

  I won't tell you that, because I don't agree. I think it's a stupid precedent to set. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in this connection. (GTB)

  see prior comment. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your above arguments basically come down to: "if someone is a fool and an asshole, then they could use the migration as an excuse to piss in everyone's cornflakes". My response is, no they couldn't, unless they want to get banhammered, quickly. (GTB)

Do you think that those opposed to WP:UM could say the same about those doing the arbitrary mass migration? : ) - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No. See above. All they would have to do is ask, and they'd find that WP:UM is being carried out by peaceful, friendly people who are doing what they see as best for Wikipedia. If someone is doing what they think is best, and willing to explain themself when asked, then they're not pissing in the cornflakes. At worst, there's a misunderstanding. Furthermore, the migration isn't arbitrary; it's motivated by a very specific set of circumstances, which you know about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"they'd find that WP:UM is being carried out by peaceful, friendly people" - While there may be exceptions, not in my experience. "who are doing what they see as best for Wikipedia" - Good intentions doesn't mean that it's not disruptive, nor does it mean that it's the "right thing to do". - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "And I haven't gone into how obnoxiously rude it has come across to users, or how it's bred distrust and contempt, both user against user, and users vs wikipedia. Or how making all these redirect changes is actually worse on storage space than if they were just left alone."

  In my opinion, this is the closest to a substantive point in the above post. (Feel free to explain to me why I'm wrong - I'm sure you will.) (GTB)

  - ok, I admit it, that made me laugh : ) - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly though, I think you're exaggerating the backlash of the migration; I think most people are perfectly ok with it. If I'm wrong, give evidence please; I'm fully prepared to marshall evidence that I'm right. Secondly I find this point, to the extent that it's real, greatly outweighed by the benefits of the migration, which although you claim to have refuted, you have not. Which brings us to your question... (GTB)

I appreciate that you feel it's outweighed. But please realise that not everyone shares that view. The fact that the so-called "wars" happened at all, proves this. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not remotely. You're claiming that the fact that the "wars" happened proves that this compromise, which came after the wars, is upsetting more people than it's worth? I'm either misunderstanding you, or this makes zero sense. That's almost exactly like saying that the fact that the World War I happened proves that the Treaty of Versailles was bunk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Treaty of Versailles was one of the causes for WWII... Also, a "compromise" determined by one side isn't a compromise. (A side note: The userbox situation reminds me quite a bit of various passages of Animal Farm, including the famous/infamous: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.") - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You ask what value I see in adoption/migration. I see it as having one chief advantage - those who were deleting userboxes wholesale earlier this year are ok with the migration, and those who want userboxes on their userpage get to keep them. It's a peacekeeping measure. (I don't know what 1000 diffs of incivility you're talking about - some kind of context, please?) It got Tony and Doc and Cyde to lay off the delete buttons. (GTB)

So we change policy out of fear, rather than deal with problems "head-on" through dispute resolution? There are several examples, but here's just one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. And I want to be clear, I am making no current statement about Tony Sidaway's current actions, or what I may feel he may do in the future. (I honestly think it's fair that he should be left alone unless he asks for discussion though word or deed) I merely am giving an example of an arbcom case in which such things were talked about and resolved. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I neither said nor meant "fear". I wonder how you see the migration as anything other than direct dispute resolution. We had one group of people saying "get userboxes out of template space" and one group of people saying "let us keep our boxen on our user pages" and the migration satisfies both demands. It's a model of dispute resolution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"I neither said nor meant "fear"." - sure you did: "It got Tony and Doc and Cyde to lay off the delete buttons." The implied fear is that, for whatever reason, they will start up again. (See: Argumentum ad baculum.) - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can still have your boxes. If they were staying in template space, they would be unceremoniously deleted before long. (GTB)

And the recourse would be to start the dispute resolution process. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not just have your boxes in a place that doesn't upset people? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not have those upset people join the community, and use our current dispute resolution system? Why disrupt the community? - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the migration is counter to Jimbo's wishes is belied by the last item on WP:JOU - the most recent item - in which he prodded the entire category of belief userboxes citing the "German solution". If he were against it, why would he say that? (GTB)

There is a difference between being (again) the polemic "belief" userboxes (did you see any of them? "I'm an x, who hates x" - seriously inflammatory), and talking about all userboxes. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Jimbo's words carefully, all of them on wP:JOU. He's not talking about "seriously" inflammatory hate-boxes. He's talking about boxes that express a position on a religious or political issue. That's always been what this is about, since his very first remark near the end of '05. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If so (and I am not certain of that), then how does that supprt the interpretation of userfying all userboxes? - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell if he's against it, go ask him, and then give us the link where he agrees with you. His talk page is right here. (GTB)

I don't believe I ever said that he agreed with me, just that I felt that others are misinterpreting him. If you feel I did say such a thing, please show me so that I may clarify. And by the way, if you want his opinion, just read User:Jimbo Wales. I think he's rather clear on what he believes. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Any particular spot on Jimbo's user page that you're referring to? As for misinterpreting Jimbo, I've explained why I think we're not. If you still disagree, you're welcome to say more, but I'm not buying it, based on anything you've said here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The section that begins with the link to: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. - jc37 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I answered your question. Please let me know if there are any important points I neglected to address. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time deciding whether to respond in sections again, or just at every point. I think I'll try "every point", let me know if you feel it gets confusing. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote the above comment before I started writing the interjections.) And of course, if there is anything further, feel free to continue the discussion : ) - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---

And, you know what, if you don't like it you can go and tell Jimbo, Cyde, Tony, Doc glasgow, Mackensen, and any others that its userbox hunting season again. If this collapses, that's what happens Just check out here for what it was like before we existed. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a good point. This migration/solution thing must be constantly evaluated in the context of the problem it was created to address, and it has addressed that problem admirably. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I would be rather hesitant to ever use the word "admirably" in this context. I seem to recall a discussion where we were talking about well over a thousand diffs of incivility, among other things. So I personally would shy away from that word. - jc37 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As for what happened "before". I was here for most of it, and I've read/researched quite a bit since then. The "wars" were more a problem of civility, and of a small group coming out of wikimania with a "bold plan of action". As there have been several arbcom resolutions since then, which, I believe, has resolved those issues, I don't think your fears are founded. - jc37 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom resolutions? Where - I only recall the two at the beginning of the 'wars where several admins where wheel-warring over boxes (an of course there was incivility and other stuff too) which did not end too well for the pro-userbox admins (though there were many other factors involved). CharonX/talk 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Jimbo prodded the whole category of belief boxes in July, citing the German solution. Therefore, I feel pretty justified in saying that many userboxes in template space, if not most, remain vulnerable to deletion, and that Jimbo supports the migration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look up. Waaay up. Somewhere you'll see Cyde's pink signature. Obviously nobody has stopped paying attention. And you know what, if you don't like it, than be like the rest of the purists and refuse to use any userfied box. You can't break UM by beating it again and again. People have already tried. Furthermore, I tend to sympathize with the admins. Template space is not for usercruft! It's for encyclopedic content that is used on multiple pages. Things like {{stub}}. Not for what movie/book/colour/whatever you want. The only reason there isn't systematic deletions anymore is because they're giving us a chance to userfy the boxes. "Userfy" is still a valid vote on TfD. Basically any userbox nominated gets that response. This system is already fragile. Don't keep hitting it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Adopting essays/guidelines/policies based on fear of retribution is probably not a good idea. And I prefer to WP:AGF than to presume that the users you named are some sort of "boogeymen", laying in wait. On those grounds, I wholly reject this as a valid reason.

"And you know what, if you don't like it, than be like the rest of the purists and refuse to use any userfied box." - Sticking one's head in the sand doesn't solve a problem, it just gets sand in your ears. : )

"You can't break UM by beating it again and again. People have already tried." and "This system is already fragile. Don't keep hitting it." - These would seem to be contradictory. And by the way, I disagree with your characterisation of my comments - "beating up". I stated that I felt this to have some irony, and I have further responded to queries regarding my comment and opinion. Essentially I was/am engaging in a good faith discussion. My apologies, if I was incorrect to presuming the same about you as well. - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Break

I have decided to take something from this discussion. I have proposed at WT:CSD that userfied userboxes be excluded from the U1 criteria. The post is here. Any suggestions and comments would be appreciated. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there was no opposition from users, I have added to CSD U1 This does not include userboxes that have been userfied per the Userbox migration. That should take care of some problems.

A new Essay

After all these people of different personalities are arguing about userboxes, I have chosen to create an essay on the topic in my userspace of corse. If you wish, change it, rip it to shreds, or praise it. It's located here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess the next step is who want to make a userbox for it? And if it's created in template space, who will snatch it up and adopt/migrate/take it? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At your request, I have changed your essay. I think it's actually very useful and will help people understand why any proposed userbox policy will take a long time to reach consensus. Also, please see Template:User UBXEssay--NThurston 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot typify Userbox opposition/support as corrosponding with the political spectrum. You did describe the types rather well other than how you named them though. --tjstrf 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Royalguard didn't mean it literally. I actually had to reverse right and left to make it make any sense at all. But it can be done. Generally, now "right" means a freer templatespace, and "left" mean a more restricted templatespace - pushing towards userspace. While it's not an easy fit, you can sort of see a correspondance with the political spectrum because the templatespace/Right end of things corresponds to less "governing" interference with personal actions (put all templates in template space, use the existing rules to enforce it) and the userspace/left end of things correponds to more "governing" interference and regulation (someone else gets to tell you where your userbox is located, whether it's divisive, etc.) I can't think of another taxonomy that would work any better anyway. --NThurston 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Must...resist temptation to adopt new userbox... Or would the far right want their userbox in template space, and the far left want it in userspace? Or should I nominate it for TfD because it's redundent to User:Tl1/UBX essay (which allows a choice too). Actually, the new edits look ok. I originally had the template spacers on the left to corispond with the hippy movement (free everything, nobody tells me what I can and can't do), and the userspacers on the right (we must do it this way, authoritarian, ect). I think it's pretty cool that people have read it. I still open it up to editing, after all this is a wiki. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Had to readopt the box, the user seems to be almost non-existant, no user or talkpage. This is just a precaution to be certain that it isn't deleted. I've moved it to {{User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay}} just so everyone knows. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Now I see what they mean by ownership issues! (Insert lots of smiley icons here.) I created it. Then I adopted it onto Tl1 because that has a nice short name - User:Tl1/UBX essay. And where is it? User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay. Hmph. Note to newbies: We are just having a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun with the userbox, but the essay is actually quite informative. And, you know, being a userbox libertarian/librarian, I think it's kind of neat that it exists in both template and userspace and I also think it could be fun to see how people choose to declare their opinion on userboxes (not biases, those were checked at the door). --NThurston 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My problem is I can never resist a shiny new userbox... --BlueSquadronRaven 14:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know who User:Tl1 is anyways? It just seemed to be someone who made a couple comments on here (I think by contri's). NThurston, is that you? (I'm going by a diff here). Cause if it is, then it might be better to have the box there. It's an "outward" neutral location (except to us). I actually don't really care where the box is, I just want to make sure that an admin doesn't come along and say "oh, no userpage, so no user, so no subpages allowed". You know? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration committee and userboxes

I recently went through a successful RfA. Five out of six of the oppose !votes I received had to do with POV userboxes (properly migrated) which I had on my user page. That in itself wouldn't surprise me so much except that the first one, by Dmcdevit a member of the Arbitration Committee, was very strongly worded. That a member of the group responsible for adjudicating issues based on policy would express such a strong opinion on something which is not backed by policy leaves me concerned of how he would react if a userbox issue ever goes to RfAr. I'd suggest that if a case involving userboxes ever does go there that someone either filing or responding ask that Dmcdevit recuse himself based on his postings. I personally would not be confident in his ability to weigh the issue impartially against policy after what he has expressed. --StuffOfInterest 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno; it seems to me pretty consistent with

• "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian,"

and,

• "It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia,"

and,

• "I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV. I think users should realize that having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish other people's respect for you and your work,"

and,

• "The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else,"

and,

• "use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns".

I wouldn't support someone for adminship who seems to not understand this. Dmcdevit didn't say that the boxes should be speedied or something, just that he wouldn't support giving the admin bit to people who think that getting political on their user page is somehow appropriate. I agree with him; that should be discouraged, although it's tolerated. Just like Jimbo said. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see "discouaged" rather than "prohibited" and "ought not" rather than "may not". This has been the issue for the better part of a year. No policy has been set which says one may not have the boxes but it is considered acceptable to judge people for having them. For regular users, and even admins, I can understand this but for the ArbCom this seems to be a recipe for future trouble. --StuffOfInterest 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, they're not prohibited. You can put political boxes on your user page or not, and Dmcdevit can support you or not in an RfA based on his impressions of you, however he gets them. I don't judge you, in some moral sense, for having POV boxes, but I think it might be an indicator that there's some elements of Wikipedia that you have yet to understand. I understand the "disclosure of bias" argument, but I'd prefer to support admins who are more swayed by the "culture of neutrality vs culture of partisanship" argument. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus here. Had I known of your RFA, I may have considered opposing as well. You need to realize that we're here to write an encyclopedia, and although having a bunch of POV stuff in your userspace isn't necessarily prohibited, it also isn't a good idea. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I must be slow, which of the userboxes on your page are "political POV"? If you had just turned the text into paragraphs, do you expect you would have encounteded the same degree of opposition to your RfA? Rfrisbie^talk 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I took them off in the interest of reducing conflict. I used to have ones on the page which declared my political, religious, and social issue affiliations. As I've stated before, this was not in the interest of promoting but in identifying possible biases. Some time later I intend to redo my biases as a text based disclosure, which was a suggestion made to me by the closing bcrat. Still, despite how quiet things are, it is obvious that there is still a lot of passion on the issue simmering under the surface and we could see another blow up in the future when even userfied boxes become targets. --StuffOfInterest 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting introduction I found at User:Warofdreams

"I'm Warofdreams, the name taken from the title of a book by Angela Carter. I'm from Sheffield, where I studied architecture at university. I am involved in socialist politics and work in community radio.

"I've been a contributor to Wikipedia since August 2003, an administrator since February 2004, and I went to the first ever Wikimeet, in London. I'm also a bureaucrat, but there must be a better term for that."

To claim the narrative statement, "I am involved in socialist politics..." is any less "divisive and inflammatory" than a userbox that contains the same language is patently absurd. Clearly, wikibigshots have the same types of biases as we rabble, whether they are disclosed or not, and regardless of the form the message takes. It's unfortunate that displaying userboxes as a means of disclosure would be considered to be grounds for disqualification to become an administrator. If that's the true position of the powers that be, then take it to the next step and use it as a grounds for recall. But of course, we all know admins won't go for that, so don't worry. Rfrisbie^talk 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion just shows me that, even if I had the time to devote to serving as an admin properly and the interest to do so, I'd never succeed - for I've supported userboxes as bias disclosure, and used them that way. As User:Rfrisbie points out, it's patently absurd to consider them as any different from the same disclosures in text form, yet that's the current Wikipedia political correctness. Jay Maynard 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes think it was pure luck that mine made it though. It amazes me that no matter how straight forward your editing history is just by virtue of holding an opinion many will disqualify you from being eligible to be an administrator. --StuffOfInterest 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the big lie about NPOV around here. It's laughable. Rfrisbie^talk 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

...and those who point out the emperor's nakedness are written off as "not getting it" about Wikipedia. Thoroughly disgusting. Jay Maynard 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The non-wiki addict has no idea what is going on

I have no idea what any of this means in English, what this alternate space is, what anyone is talking about here. The more I read about it, the less I know.

In English, please--am I not supposed to use userboxes on my user page? If not, then why not just remove the userboxes from Wikipedia? Or is it just controversial user boxes I am not supposed to use? And what's controversial about geology that isn't controversial about punk rock? Again, in English, not wikitechaddictspeak, please.

KP Botany 18:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The very short answer is: just don't use userboxes. It takes a lot of time to simply get up to speed on everything that's happened/happening with them, and in that same time you could have done some very good work on the encyclopedia. Besides, userboxes are very old now, to the point that no one ever bothers reading them. They're just wasting space on your userpage, and you're effectively wasting your own time in carefully selecting all of the ones you want since no one really ever reads them. My suggestion is to say the same information you would using userboxes in prose form on your userpage. --Cyde Weys 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, in a slightly less extreme form, just put the semi-important, project related ones. No one cares about the 87 psuedo-babel music boxes you have, but they might read that you speak Dutch and Spanish and are a member of the Military history project, since those 3 would only take about 5 seconds total to read. --tjstrf 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the usable answers. KP Botany 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You got some very clear answers but I don't think they're especially neutral. Let me try to shine a light from another angle.

UBX were, for several months, a source of contention among many editors; UBX abuse and overreaction to UBX generated a lot of upset and led on occasion to RfArb. Several attempts have been made to define community policy on UBX; most have failed.

This page, UM, attempted to sidestep the issue of gathering consensus by refusing to declare itself a policy proposal. Backers have been moving UBX out of templatespace into userspace. This has no particular effect; you can still use UBX in userspace, they're just a little harder to find.

I initially drafted Userbox policy in order to provide a starting point for real compromise on the issue. Over time, it has been edited heavily to address the concerns of a majority of editors. Discussion is still ongoing. See that page to find out what limits are proposed on UBX.

The shortest possible answer is that putting UBX on your own page is generally non-controversial. You can put as many as you like, including those in templatespace and in other users' userspaces. If you decide to create a new UBX, you will probably not run into trouble either; but it may be deleted, without or without policy to support the deletion. Chances are, it will not. Your new box is more likely to survive in somebody's userspace than otherwise, regardless of other merit.

And that's about it. John Reid 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Compromise solution"?

I don't think this was ever meant to be a "solution" or "compromise" - I always interpreted this as a way to just stop the conflict over POV boxes. (As a reminder, this really only addresses the "in which namespace should POV userboxes be?" question, which was a consequence of a larger unanswered question about whether they might not encourage the right sort of mindset while editing the encyclopedia.) This page really shouldn't be presented as a "solution" in the box at the top as it only addresses a tangential objection, and also shouldn't be a "compromise" because that falsely implies that there is "consensus", which doesn't even apply here because this procedure was described as something to "just do". As it is, these wordings probably just serve to rile up people.

Of course, I may be interpreting this all wrong, if somehow the rest of the objections were smoothed out somewhere and I missed it? But if there isn't any objection, I'll just remove that wording from the page. -AySz88\^-^ 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Scope of page

While I'm here: I've also noticed people seem to be beginning to move distinctly non-controversial boxes into user space, like the Firefox one. Although there is an obvious reasoning in keeping POV restricted to User space, I see no point in moving all userboxes there, especially helpful ones created in good faith (I assume). Some userboxes have some value to the project (it's nice to know which browser a user is using in order to fix or troubleshoot layout problems, for example), so I don't think they're within the scope of this page. While I guess there isn't much harm in moving the boxes, I personally feel some (the Firefox box for example) probably should be part of the group of boxes which are encouraged (i.e. remain in the Template space). Although there might not be enough value in putting effort to move them back into the Template space (unless, of course, it would make those people feel better :p ), what is the point of moving these non-controversial boxes away from the Template space in the first place? -AySz88\^-^ 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

From "English implementation features#After the Migration":

“ <<Non-Babel userboxes are to be removed from Wikipedia:Userboxes.[?]>> It should be updated to inform users that non-Babel userboxes should only be created in userspace or an appropriate subpage, such as a corresponding WikiProject. ”

Doesn't this mean that every non-Babel userbox should be migrated out of template namespace?? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NO!!

“ Parts between <<double angle brackets>> should only be performed if there is consensus between all affected users. See the userbox location straw poll. ”

Since there is emerging consensus against that particular line, I am going to delete it. It's just causing confusion. --NThurston 14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox migrations involve controversial and unencyclopedic boxes. I clarified that point on the page. The controversial boxes are pretty well moved. What constitutes "unencyclopedic" still is up for grabs. There is no real consensus on what that means. That's why Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes has a growing backlog. Rfrisbie^talk 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that unencyclopedic boxes are intended to be moved under this initiative, but I also am very sure that there is no consensus yet on what that really means. I also think the mess at Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes is responsible for part of the "GUS is the problem" mentality. It seems bad form to migrate boxes if you can't/aren't going to take the time to finish the job. Just browsing through that category, I see lots of unsightly user-pages, which to the unsuspecting Wikipedians must be frustrating. --NThurston 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said there (is that a first? ;-). That's why I added this to the Quick summary a while back, "(To minimize page display disruptions, if you have your own bot or are experienced with a tool like WP:AWB, you might want to bypass redirects before you edit/delete the original redirect page.)" Unfortunately, very few users adopt that approach. It certainly makes one think twice before moving a box. :-) The "last big" unresolved issue in my mind is, "What does 'unencyclopedic' mean?" Apparently, that's going to be one of those "descriptive, after the fact" definitions. Rfrisbie^talk 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen. --NThurston 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" is not only vague, it's useless due to accidental equivocation - people won't always be looking at this page to remember the exact definition this page gives the term, and some people might just read into it whatever they wish. People can interpret it as anywhere between "discourage any box that doesn't mention Wikipedia or articles" to "avoid joke boxes" to "get rid of everything". Let me give an example:

Is the "I'm interested in astronomy" box encyclopedic? It certainly does help the project, I think, and I would call it "encyclopedic" - but it might not be "encyclopedic" because it focuses more on describing the user than directly helping the project. A rewording of the same thing, "This user is interested in editing astronomy articles", is more "encyclopedic". But such a distinction has no practical benefit at all.

Now replace "astronomy" with "Lost". Any change? Okay, we have a nice big section on Lost, that can be helpful. With "YouTube"? Internet literacy, perhaps. With "Neopets"? MMORPGS? What about saying something like "This person stargazes as a hobby"? "This person is a Neopian"? The utility becomes less obvious, but it's still just as helpful to those looking for it. For example, "This person knows nothing about this fictional language that relates to this webcomic?" ({{User ury-0}}) - which makes no sense to outsiders but would be useful for those working on that particular subject - but then it's not exactly broad. At which point does the box become "unencyclopedic" - and which of the many different criteria did you use (broadness? usefulness? obviousness?)? Even if you define the word, it's not going to be natural for a lot of people, so I think it should be avoided, and some different description decided on. The word should not be "encyclopedic" - there's too many ways to equivocate. -AySz88\^-^ 03:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that "unencyclopedic" should not be a speediable criteria. (Which I presume is already true on all XfDs.) If it's not speediable, then userfication should not be "speediable" either. - jc37 09:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The user "UserBox"

I think we should add something about the user called UserBox. Making the userboxes here (like for example User:UserBox/User Earth) makes links to userboxes much shorter and more uniform. Any thoughts? Cristan 07:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure someone's tried that before, and people didn't like it, I think because of the similarity to a role account. It's not quite the same though - the username can be blocked (making it unable to be used as a role account) while the function you're aiming for can be preserved. I'm a little fuzzy on how that whole debate went, though. -AySz88\^-^ 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember which exact name was discussed before, but the idea is proliferating to some degree; check out [1] and [2] - oi. -- nae'blis 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One which Cyde nixed was User:Box. You can see the deletion log and note where the Talk page redirects. --NThurston 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tony blocked User:Boxes, which I'm pretty sure was the one I was specifically thinking of earlier. You'll probably have to get some sort of sanction to allow a special-purpose account for this, if you really think it's important. -- nae'blis 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather annoyed

Well, I had a "this user contributes using Firefox" template, and now it seems to be being migrated, on the basis that userboxes promote factionalism. My level of caring about factionalism is incredibly low, and I had no interest in being part of some kind of Firefox faction, which seems absurd to me. I've never been particularly a userbox person - all I had was that and a language box. My reason for the box was more or less the same reason I had the language boxes - I thought it might be useful in some contexts for people to be able to easily see what browser I use, in case there was some kind of browser display issue, so as to minimize any confusion and misunderstandings that might result from that.

Now I see that, in fact, this isn't why I had that box at all, but that it was rather an attempt on my part to promote some kind of political campaign. So I'm irritated. I've always thought userboxes are silly, and yet now I find that my user page is broken because basically the only stupid userbox I have has been ruled frivolous. It seems to me that user boxes that are actually vaguely useful to the project should stay in the template space, which seem to be the official policy. Perhaps I am wrong that a template indicating what browser one is using is vaguely useful for the project? anyway, I'll be damned if I'm going to have a userspace userbox on my page, so it's gone. Irritatedly, john k 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, there is usually a box that says this box replaced by this, so all you need to do to get your box back is to replace the code. Why are people making this so hard for themselves? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about replacing the code. I don't want a user box that is in user space. I am not irritated the my userbox is broken. I am irritated that my userbox was judged frivolous. For God's sake. john k 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I had the same userbox on my page, and a bot came along and just replaced it with the new version, so I never noticed a difference. Is it possible the bot missed some pages? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Apparently, my moves are causing much unhappy misunderstanding. Does anyone think I should move them all back?? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the long-run viability of this compromise, I highly recommend that people not get too enthusiastic about userfying popular userboxes that are not particularly controversial. The hard feelings that ensue have the potential to reignite old flames. In short, this approach should only apply to controversial boxes initially. There are enough of those to work on to keep y'all busy for a while. Later, we can work out "unencyclopedic." --NThurston 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's generally easier to itentify "controversial" boxes. At this point, what "groups" or "types" of boxes are still in template space that are particularly controversial? My impression is that the "biggies," politics, religion, beliefs, etc., already have been moved. Rfrisbie^talk 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I was mostly thinking of the new ones that are created AND the keeping of the old ones from returning. However, I think there's a good point that browser use isn't controversial and probably not "unencyclopedic," so rather than force the debate on unencyclopedic into case law, let's continue to discuss it before we migrate. --NThurston 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I classified the browser as unencyclopedic because it doesn't help the Wiki. Similar edits can be made whether you're using FireFox or IE or Windows or Linux. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar edits can be made, but that's surely not the only issue. There might be display differences, for instance (that is to say, one might have a browser-specific display problem), or any number of other reasons why it might be useful to know what browser somebody is using. If what browser one uses is not useful, than pretty much no userbox is, I should think. john k 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's where you may have gotten ahead of yourself. I have had more than one occasion where a template or other edit affects different browsers differently. When someone flamed me for making a change - I said "what problem?" We quickly noted that I use FF and they use IE, and were able to work together to make sure that the changes are compatible on multiple platforms. Hence these things could have a lot of the value to Wikipedia. --NThurston 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Browser preference is both useful to know and controversial, as anyone who's watched the browser wars will attest to. I'd much prefer to have it in userspace than gone altogether. -- nae'blis 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And there you have it! While communication is a good thing, how you do it is a power thing. Hence, userbox migration. At least we know where we stand...out on the information superhighway, playing in the middle of traffic. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Irritated that a userbox was judged frivolous? Thats a new one. Far Right! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm irritated because the userbox migration page specifically says not to go overboard, and browser usage seems like a clear instance of that. I'm also irritated that I've apparently been judged to be akin to those ridiculous users with 60 user boxes, saying that they support Francisco Franco and sunshine and kittens. Although perhaps this is more irritation at myself than anything. john k 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

John K, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't construe the migration of any particular userbox as a "judgement" against yourself, or even necessarily against the box. I think it's more an example of an object in motion tending to remain in motion. Someone's userfying boxes, and they figure, "this one might as well go, too." It doesn't mean that anybody thinks you're indulging in excessive frivolity, or anything like that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"controversial" in what way? I mean, saying "my browser is the best" would obviously be controversial, but I don't see how simply stating what browser one uses could possibly be controversial - what controversy does that involved? john k 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My browser =best =POV, Template space=NPOV. Is that so hard to understand? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

However: I use this browser = NPOV fact --NThurston 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I never thought the browser ones would be migrated. Then again, I never thought we'd migrate the birthday one either (that one will be a nightmare). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm incredibly annoyed to find out that my firefox and MS windows userboxes have been replaced. I support the Extra edit buttons script and it is very important to know what browser/OS combination people are using so I can support them when they have problems. It is appears that rather than providing me with useful these people who request my support are subversives who want to undermine Wikipedia. I understand that there is a problem with POV userboxes and something has to be done. However, a small group of users forcing through their preferred solution isn't a solution at all. This is something fundamental and needs agreement. I'm especially annoyed because the authors of WP:UM know they won't reach agreement around their solution so they just stick "this is not a policy as doesn't need to be" at the top of the article as if that makes it OK. --MarkS (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

migration?

Why do I get this image of boxes flying south for the winter? :) Ok, enough of my spam, I'll go away. ---J.S (t|c) 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

...because that's where userspace is in this grand wikiworld. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Odds are they won't be flying back, though. ;) CameoAppearance ^orate 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why this isn't called Userbox periodic migration! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Tax Retreat? --BlueSquadronRaven 07:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that like a tax shelter? -- nae'blis 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Death March? Oh, wait... -- nae'blis 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, some consensus building! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 15:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I don't see that in any way this has led to the destruction of userboxes, so don't try to cite me as agreeing with that viewpoint. If anything, some of the pages that were deleted on sprees earlier are coming back via DRV; maybe that's an example of Userbox Zombification? -- nae'blis 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Userboxes

Due to this policy (or the german solution one, I'm really not sure) several of the userboxes I've been posting in my userpage have disappeared. Could anyone please tell me where may I find the userboxes formerly labelled as "Renaissance man" and the ones referring to Wikipirates (pirates are better than ninjas etc...)?Rosa 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You could start here and look under whatever categories you originally found them in. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, found the wikipirates one but I still can't find the one formerly labelled as user Renaissance man, could anyone help me out with this one? (It's the one about a Renaissance man having bad teeth and a life expectancy of 35).Rosa 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this it? User:Jokes_Free4Me/UserBoxes#Renaissance_Man ? -- nae'blis 02:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

yep, thanks :) Rosa 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reason why this is a "bad idea". Now couple this with trying to track down "fair use" violations... - jc37 09:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rosa 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just use "file links" on the image page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just used http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+user+Renaissance+man&btnG=Search - took about 12 seconds. :) -- nae'blis 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

why not just a "userboxes/" area?

Why can't we just create a "userbox" area and put all the userboxes under "Userbox/User whatever"? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler and less controversial than moving boxes back to user pages?

I'm sure I must be missing something, since if that was ok it seems like it would have been done a long time ago. Robert 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a similar suggestion here. - jc37 09:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't per WP:JOU. I read The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer. Jimbo Wales. He's the ultimate authority per this decision by the ArbCom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards there ... ArbCom's authority was granted by Jimbo, not the other way around. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom's -- or anybody else's -- statement to the contrary, Jimbo is not the ultimate authority. The community is the ultimate authority. Jimbo is the head of state; to the extent that he directs this project by fiat, it is with the consent of the community. In this particular case, it's pretty obvious that the community has a different opinion. John Reid 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem!!!

Centrx's gone and deleted User:Royalguard11/userboxes/NDP with the reason Divisive template. That sounds like T1. This is very interesting. So, what forseable consequeses do we see here? Anyone want to comment? Is userspace no longer available for userboxes? I've asked User:Centrx the same question, and I hope this gets cleared up fast. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just repeat to yourself three times each: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Neutral point of view. I'm not really too worried about this being deleted ... it doesn't get in the way of building the encyclopedia, and possibly helps it by reducing divisiveness. --Cyde Weys 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the spirit of UBM? All the sudden, all the work we've done is for not, and all of a sudden it's just, "well, that's long enough"? We've gone several months with these userboxes, now all the sudden their being deleted? What's changed in the last week? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the history of userboxes (I registered after UM was proposed but before it started to be implemented on anything near the scale it's grown to), but I think the point of UM was to calm the deletion-warring, at least to a degree, by removing the userboxes from T1's jurisdiction (which had been used as a justification for mass deletions on the part of anti-userbox admins). This flies in the face of all of that. CameoAppearance ^orate 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? The admins are bound, damned, and determined that all userboxes will be deleted, and Cyde's comment shows their true colors. Jay Maynard 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't paint with too wide of brush. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Show me a reason to trim it, then. As long as the admin community allows folks like Cyde to run rtampant without any attempt to rein them in, the admin community can only be seen as agreeing with the actions. Jay Maynard 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many admins disagree with their actions; though, I am not an admin and I won't single out anyone. Making enemies with the non-overreacting admins does not help. —AySz88\^-^ 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay's conflating many different reactions under "agreeing with the actions," including "disagreeing but not thinking it's a battle worth giving energy to", and "disagreeing but a little bit slow to get to it". Some see userboxes as truly trivial and inconsequential, and some of us just aren't online all the time, it turns out. Stay tuned. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stay tuned for what? If we have to go to DRV every time an admin takes it into his head to delete some more of those nasty, eeeeeevil userboxes, life's going to get real dull. As it is, I'm going to have to go back through my user page's history to find out who deleted my User Republican userbox (which I know damn good and well got userfied) and add it to the DRV, or else just recreate it and screm like the proverbial stuck pig when some userbox-hating admin deletes it.

Frankly, until we get some firm policy in place that userspace userboxes are not subject to T1 and may be speedily restored when deleted, I won't be convinced that the compromise is actually holding. Mass deletion sprees are too easy to do and too hard to reverse. Jay Maynard 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Jay. How do you think we get a firm policy in place? It turns out it's not by some authority figure saying so. It's by means of things like this DRV, establishing habits. Once the community has settled into a habit, it's very hard to change it. We're getting more and more into the habit of allowing userboxes in userspace, as indicated by the dearth of "keep deleted" recommendations at the DRV. Don't take my word for it - I know you won't - but this userbox DRV is pretty damn different from those back in May. To me, that says something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe in May it was 30 keep deleted votes for any userbox taken there. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm running rampant now? I haven't deleted a single userfied userbox. Please do some research rather than making false allegations. You're way out there on the opposite fringe, and your extremist language isn't helping anything. The sky isn't falling, so you don't need to drum up panic as if it were. --Cyde Weys 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The sky isn't falling yet, but it'll only take about two more of the mass deletion sprees like the one being challenged at DRV right now to knock out the thin props holding it up. Your comments aren't helping, either, as you're attacking the compromise just as much as though you were deleting the userboxes yourself. Repeat after me: user space does not have to be encyclopedic or NPOV. Jay Maynard 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see you stuck to the compromise we found even though you were against userboxes before. And you deserve props for that :) But I think you also agree that the speedy-deletion of e.g. political userboxes (not blatantly campainging ones "VOTE %PARTY% for %ELECTION%!!!" but "This user supports %PARTY%") does threaten the compromise (aside from summoning up some unpleasant memories). I have the fear that if those deletions would not be challanged, others like of boxes "This user is an atheist" would follow - which would lead to the breakdown of the entire compromise. Its not that sky is falling, but a small meteorite just hit our backyard and now we are worried if more will follow. CharonX/talk 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Royalguard11, I'd take it to WP:DRV. In most cases, T1 is not applied in user space, so you should be able to prove it as being out of process. Things had been quiet for a while, but I've long felt that in time the deletionists would start up another campaign. This may be just an isolated incident, but if precedent is established you may see the deletions come back in force. --StuffOfInterest 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. I don't understand why this would be deleted. Andre (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My box was restored (thank you Andrevan), and I have added a deletion review on the nine remaining ones here. They're all from the page User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Political Parties. All I've gotten from ANI so far is one responce from User:El C: It is regretful Centrx did not link to the pertinent discussion in his deletion edit summary. So unless admin's are cabaling behind our backs, then I have no idea what he's talking about. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the deletion review is going strongly towards restoring the boxes on the concensus that T1 does not appy to user space. Once the review closes, I'd suggest a link to the discussion on the main UM page as a precedent which can be called on when something like this happens in the future. If we have clear cases of this type of deletion not being acceptable, then an admin undoing the deletion does not have to worry about being accused of wheel warring. --StuffOfInterest 12:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now it makes sense why there were so many people on the DRV, all interested in userboxes; you advertised it. —Centrx→talk • 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked a question on ANI, which is now archived, with no responce. It said that UM was suppost to solve this. If someone was interested, then maybe they'd check here. No responces at all. The responce is still that MfD should have been the place for this. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"you advertised it"... words fail me... anway if you want to start a MfD, at least one box would get a delete vote from me (the UBX war, because of "police state") and a few others would most likely get weak deletes too (e.g. the nazi party box and the faschist party box) due to personal opinions CharonX/talk 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So, when you're deciding which political positions are too offensive to have userboxes for, do you base it on a raw count of how many innocent people were killed by the party being supported, or do other factors enter into it? Do they have to be currently regarded as "evil" in Anglophone nations, like Nazis and Stalinists are? Is it based on the atrocities committed, or on the arguments used to justify them? I'm genuinely curious how one reconciles disallowing expression of some political opinions and not others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above my delete votes for Nazi and Faschist boxes would be based on my very own bias against them. I'm from Germany and the Nazi era is a sore spot for me. Still, I could offer no other reasons than "I don't think we should have that (due to the history associated with it)", which are - as I also said above - very weak reasons. I know from an objective point of view I should treat all parties the same, but being the imperfect human being I am, I cannot. And this is exactly why I believe such things should be solved via MfDs instead of speedy-deletions or outright bans. Communities define their own set of ethic and moral guidelines, of what is permissable and what is not, by finding consensus amongst its members. CharonX/talk 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. I wasn't trying to trap you into some kind of answer there; that was genuine curiosity. Personally, I think that establishing ethical and moral guidelines regarding political positions is so far from the mission of an encyclopedia that we should really not be messing around with it. This is why I support getting rid of all unencyclopedic userboxes, but I'm aware there's not likely to be consensus for that... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody has really shown that these boxes actually cause any harm, or more harm then help. IIRC, plenty of people (perhaps even most) were allowing the boylover/girllover/pedophile boxes, and a few knew of valuble editors who identify as such. Other people wanted to identify them, make sure they weren't doing anything shady, make sure noone was embedding POV in relevant articles, etc.. However, Jimbo stepped in, stopped the argument, and then a few people jumped on his bandwagon very vocally (not that I know whether it would have become worse if he waited to step in, or if consensus would shift the other direction if the discussion was allowed to go on). But regardless, since a bunch of admins started wheel warring over it and everything, it's not obvious the boxes themselves substantially harm anything and it shouldn't just be assumed that they do so. —AySz88\^-^ 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true what you say - nobody's proven harm from userboxes. I don't really know what such a "proof" would look like, since the nature of the claimed harm is very subtle and insidious. I don't like the word "assume" though, describing why I think they're harmful. I'm not assuming it; I concluded it after long and careful thought. In fact, I started out as a userbox supporter, until I considered the arguments against and was swayed by them. Some people just don't buy those arguments, and I don't know a way out of the impasse that we've reached. I think that, partly due to the way the situation was handled early on, people are very defensive and polarized over the issue, and that very little persuasion is going on, in either direction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The last is absolutely, 100% true. At this point, due to the way some admins (Tony and Cyde being two of the biggest examples, but there are others) have done everything in their power to destroy userboxes, folks on the other side of the issue simply don't trust the admin community at large to live up to the compromise. I fully expect to see further attempts to destroy userboxes that have been moved to userspace. Constant vigilance will be needed to make sure the other side sticks to their end of the bargain.

As for persuasion, at this point, you won't persuade me that there's any difference at all between saying something in text and saying it in a userbox, and as long as people can say things in text on their user pages, I will oppose any destruction of userboxes saying the same thing. Jay Maynard 13:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you honestly think there's no difference between plain text and a colored box, as far as its effect on viewers, then I probably can't help you. Everything that's known about advertising, propaganda, pedagogy and highway signage says you're wrong, but who cares, right? Everyone who's ever studied modes of communication is wrong, and you're right. Awesome, Jay.

You know who's always wrong in a debate, Jay? The person who says "I refuse to be persuaded," which is equivalent to "I've stopped listening, stopped learning, essentially stopped living". Sound bytes, logos - no more powerful than ordinary text? What a laugh. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of Marshall McLuhan? "The medium is the message"? I'll bet you're way smarter than him, and have given this subject a lot more thought. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, am I completely misunderstanding this, or did I miss when people started making the argument that userboxes are propaganda? Where is this coming from? I'm sure none were created or are being used for that purpose.

Although I can't speak for others, the colored box doesn't proclaim "advertising" or "highway signage" to me. Maybe it draws attention to itself, or helps recognizability or something if, say, the firefox box is orange, but that's the furthest possible "advertising" that I can see - I can't see how the fact that colorful userboxes are colored boxes advertises anything except putting similar statements in more colorful boxes, in the style of André the Giant Has a Posse. —AySz88\^-^ 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Andre the Giant example is a good one. It's certainly true that putting statements into colored boxes encourages others to do so, too. When those statements are political, it encourages others to put politcal statements into colored boxes. When one's landscape is littered with political statements in colored boxes, then one is in a politicized environment, and one will notice that people act out of political motivations, because their environment is sending the message that such is appropriate, whether or not anybody intended that message. If, on the other hand, we create an environment consisting of images related to academic inquiry, then people will feel that it's appropriate to behave academically. The type of iconograpy we surround ourselves with helps define the character of our community. This really shouldn't be controversial, but apparently it's a pretty shocking idea for some people, that images have power.

Now, I didn't say that userboxes are highway signs, or ads, or propaganda (or pedagogy for that matter). I brought those up for a very specific reason: they illustrate other areas in which people have found that text in a colored box sends a very different message than the same text in a black-and-white paragraph. That's just a fact.

I'm am curious how you're "sure" that no userbox was created for a propagandistic purpose. Have you not yet had the privilege of interacting with people who are on Wikipedia to push a specific political agenda, and who say so on their page with userboxes? I have. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree with your first paragraph, as that's the potential problem that my own proposed solution tried to solve. (It's a bit heavy-handed, but much less so than UM. UM has also destroyed my proposal's potential to function, as it's not-quite-kosher to edit things in others' user space, so don't mind it so much.) I don't agree that equates to advertising or propaganda, but I don't think that's what you were trying to say. :) However, I really don't think it's as big a contribution to the problem as you make it to be; that environment has much more been synthesized from our image to the outside world than from within Wikipedia. I feel that heavy usage of political userboxes is more a symptom than a cause - new users and anons are not really exposed to user pages before they start participating in earnest, and I think those with good intentions are more likely to be more healing to the present environment and, relatedly, also use the boxes "correctly". I think if we fix the public image problem first, then we fix the environment problem. (This has the potential to go way off track, so I won't elaborate on the image problem here. :p )

I'm "sure" they're not propaganda partly in the sense of WP:AGF, and partly in that any POV pushers are probably trying to use Wikipedia articles to POV push, and their userboxes to brag about holding their own POV (not to convince other people). BTW, such cases also don't really show any harm - they make such people much easier to identify if they're actively pushing that POV while on WP. They also don't really show that the box was created for propagandistic purposes unless only one user (the creator) ever used it, or some similar situation. —AySz88\^-^ 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AysSz88, I'm very interested in this "public image probem" you allude to. If this isn't the place to discuss it, where is? As far as whether or not anybody's thinking of using userboxes as propaganda, I have no stake in that assertion, I just found it odd that you would be certain otherwise, since I don't see how to be. Like I said, I have no stake in that point, because the negative effect that I see coming from userboxes depends not at all on the hoster's intentions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For posterity, and for reference in the future, here is the final result of the deletion review. It might be worth citing on the UM page as precedent for future conflicts regarding userboxes in user space. --StuffOfInterest 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued irony

Considering the arguements about "official" namespaces, and such, I find the existance of this category up for CfD ironic. - jc37 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. CfD is now called Category for Discussion, and the !vote is for a renaming from Category:Sexual orientation user templates to Category:Sexual orientation Wikipedian userboxes per the standards of trying to separate the encyclopedia portion from the community portion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't understand. I was commenting on the fact that this is a category of userspace userboxes. And the argument that there are "official" namespaces kind of falls apart in this discussion. I just consider the whole double-standard going on here more than ironic. - jc37 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Misguided

I think this effort is misguided. The problem is moving divisive templates to a User template is just that... moving them.. it doesn't make them go away, there's nothing substantial that "moving" things around accomplishes, other than needless disruption of user pages that transcluded user box templates. --Mysidia (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're not getting this. We're moving them out of official namespaces (ie template) into non-official space (ie userspace). Userspace can be POV and all that, but NPOV still applies to template space. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

POV content can and does appear in many areas. NPOV applies to what appears in encyclopedia articles, that has nothing to do with what appears in Discussion areas, individual Templates and Images. These are separate, from articles, relevant only to Wikipedia editors. A template isn't part of the encyclopedia, except when it has actually been included in an article. Thus there should be no need for migration on that basis.

Userboxes like "XXX contributes using Opera" or "YYY is an atheist" state only a fact; such language gives no indication as to the merits of any point of view, only that someone claims to have that character.

Moving boxes to someone's private user space, has a side-effect of putting the future appearance of the box under the ultimate control of one individual (whatever user's private space the box got put in), also, not to mention, making it no longer a template, no longer easily accessible by just knowing its name (nearly de-facto deletion, it would seem..). --Mysidia (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're using the fallacy that people control or own pages that happen to be in their userspace. This is not true. You wouldn't have any more ownership over User:Mysidia/User Atheist than you would over User:UBX/Atheist. If you're hosting a userbox and you mess with it without consulting those who are transcluding it, that's just as disruptive as if you're not hosting it and you mess with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then wouldn't "messing" with userboxes by migration be just as "disruptive? : ) - jc37 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's done without careful attention that people's userpages aren't left covered in redlinks, then I suppose it could be disruptive. If any of that's going on, I think you know that I'm eager to help out, and insure that people's pages aren't defaced by the work we're doing here - just let me know. "Messing with" can mean different things: There's disruptive "messing with", and there's "messing with" that's done for the benefit of the project amid months of discussion among scores of editors. I got the impression Mysidia was asking more about the idea of someone taking "ownership" of their userspace and somehow "taking control" of the appearance of the box. I'm not aware that the migration affects the appearances of any boxes, just where their code is stored. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Altough user pages belong to the community WP:UP says that it is impolite to edit other users' pages. In this case we are putting something used by many people in the community into a single users page. It would at least be helpful if those users who are taking control of the boxes could put a note up saying that other people can edit the boxes. --MarkS (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. CharonX/talk 11:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As an example, I put the following on User:Rfrisbie/Userbox, "You are welcome to add and edit userboxes as subpages here, as long as you honor all applicable policies and guidelines." The same should apply to directory pages, such as on User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In all my time here at wikipedia, I know of only one person who does not like people to edit his userpage (Rfrisbie should know who that is). If someone where to edit my userpage, and I didn't like their edit, I revert it and get on with life. In other words, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, don't get caught up on trivial matters like your userpage. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was/am reading it to include more than just content. Either way, the question of ownership once again rears its head. - jc37 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The "question of ownership" really isn't a question. You just don't own anything on the wiki. Period. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarified for me at WP:CSD was that a user cannot request deletion of anything moved to their userspace from another space (like template space). Nobody own's anything on wiki. Userspace is technally not private. They're not hard to find if you know where to look, or you ask us. Template space is an official namespace, and every policiy that applies to mainspace applies to template space, including NPOV. Template are meant to be used on articles, that's why. I think I covered everything there righties. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? If someone created an essay in Wikipedia space, and then decided to move it to their own userspace to continue work on it, they couldn't then just request it be deleted? How about if several users were working on an essay, and due to a MfD result, it was requested to be userfied. Could that user later delete it/have it deleted? I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but I would be surprised if such pages would not be deleted, possibly even by bot. - jc37 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on several factors, like whether others are linking to the essay. If I were asked to do a db-author on an essay, I would check "what links here" like I'm s'posed to, and if it had incoming links, I wouldn't delete it, whatever namespace it's in. When you click the save button, you agree that you're allowing your submission to be edited and distributed by others, period. It doesn't say "unless you're in user: namespace" because that would be false. I'm just one admin, but I don't treat user: namespace as people's private property at all. Is that surprising? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Of corse that's not surprising. I keep an essay in my own userspace (the userbox personality essay), but it's really only half-written by me. It's a wiki, and I just started it. It was improved. U1 was created (I believe) to help users organize their space. I have had several things deleted in my userspace (testy things). If someone userfied an essay, then I guess that would be (IAR'ing) speediable, if they want if gone, are the only editor (major), and nothing links there. The guideline is under here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit splitting hairs. In essence the self-speedy criteria is meant that you can get quickly rid of content you (almost entirely) contributed yourself and is currently not majorly used/linked by others (inestead of going through all the XfD motions necessary). You can't WP:OWN stuff on Wikipedia. So, if you move a box out of templatespace to your userspace and then try to db-self it any admin should recognize what you are trying to do and stop it. Otherwise you could, I don't know, drag WP:POINT into your userspace and db-self it. CharonX/talk 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point though? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...at which point it's also a violation of WP:ASR, I guess. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that NPOV has anything to do with templates, it has to do with articles. If it applied to anything other than articles, that would be written into the policy. There are many templates that are not meant to be used in articles. There is a large collection of templates designed to be used on talk pages, user pages, and Wikipedia project pages. The talk namespace is an official namespace too, that doesn't mean that points of view cannot appear there. I think it's very clear that userboxes are templates that are intended only for user pages. If such templates can't exist, then neither should items exist in template space intended for talk pages or wikipedia project pages. --Mysidia (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. From WP:NPOV. CharonX/talk 13:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when are user pages "encyclopedic content"? If they're not, why should templates - in either template space or user space - intended solely for user pages be considered encyclopedic content? If it's not encyclopedic content, it doesn't fall under the NPOV policy, by its own words. Jay Maynard 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This (and discussions like it) would seem to be one of the crux points of this whole thing. It's about namespaces, and what one defines as "acceptable" content. - jc37 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you really don't like this, then just don't use any of the userfied userboxes. It's much harder to get the point across know when userboxes aren't being deleted and culled anymore. And the reason for that is the delicate balance which is being kept by keeping the boxes out of template space. We must keep visible spaces NPOV really. Readers (for who WIkipedia is written for) must see NPOV in mainspace, and templatespace since they are trascluded onto articles. Talk namespace isn't visible, like the mainspace. That is what template space is made for, transcluding large amounts of information onto many pages which would be redundant to do many times. You do know that some wiki's have outright banned userboxes, right? So, if this falls apart, that would be the next logical step. N'est pas? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's completely two different issues - the namespace issue, and the divisiveness issue. The divisiveness issue is the main one that Jimbo et al. have complained about, fearing that the userboxes may push the community towards advocacy or the acceptance of advocate editors who don't have the benefit of the encyclopedia in mind. The namespace issue is another thing entirely. Some feel it's "one of the crux points of this whole thing" (Jc37 above), I think it's a rather tangential problem. Of course, one way to reduce the divisive impact is to make it less visible, and one way to make it less visible could be to change its namespace away from Template space, which I assume is why UM has gained acceptance. But since all the userboxes started with "User" anyway (making them effectively their own logical namespace, although not technically), I personally agree with Mysidia - this doesn't solve what I feel was the main complaint. —AySz88\^-^ 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Remind me what the original complaint was again. It's hard to keep track of them all. Everyone complains, everyone thinks we're wrong, everyone thinks this is stupid. What would be nice is a logical argument. Asking why? is not a good arguement. List points and counter-points. Go. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"everyone"? At least two seem to support this idea (you and GTBaccus), since you both seem to do the (only) arguing in favour of it. - jc37 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed Daddy "Rfrisbie" Warbucks. I never said everyone agreed with this. I said everyone hates us, but with no logical arguement to back it up (well, you can't count "My userbox got lost somewhere"). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"...everyone hates us..." - rather gross generalisation. There's quite a distance between feeling that this is "misguided", and suggesting that everyone hates you. As for "logical arguement"... feel free to surf the archives, I've brought forth quite a bit. (Though GTBaccus would seem to disagree?) There are quite a few problems with this. However, since it's about something that most everyone is sick of hearing about, most are ignoring it. Even just the simple ignoring of WP:T1D, is just the tip of the iceberg. It's VERY obvious that this is designed to "game the system". (Just read your own comments about how bad it would be if this isn't implemented. Which is also Argumentum ad baculum.) It's not a policy, but "just do it"? Riiiight. Being bold doesn't mean ignoring Wikipedia:Consensus. etc etc etc. - jc37 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Remind me what the original complaint was again" => Maybe try User:AySz88/Sandbox#Bias-declaring_Userbox_brainstorm - the question marks only denote things I either felt were dubious or I didn't understand, and ignore the things under "reasoning" and below (that's no longer viable at all). —AySz88\^-^ 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

little orphaned userbox

Is someone willing to adopt User:Rockthing/Userboxes/overuse? Rockthing would rather not host it anymore, and I am unclear on if anyone else userfied it. Outright deletion does not seem to be the goal here. -- nae'blis 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I adopted it. Now it's at {{User:UBX/Overuse}}. If someone else wants it, feel free to move it on. Rfrisbie^talk 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the listings at Wikipedia:Requested moves, it appears that User:Rockthing/Userboxes/selfref-3 (formerly Template:User selfref-3) is in the same boat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 'tis the season. It's now at {{User:UBX/Selfref-3}}. Rfrisbie^talk 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rfrisbe, you're the Daddy Warbucks of userboxes. -- nae'blis 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki-drama always occurs when I'm not here. I adopted some userboxes a while back from User:Digitalme. Maybe I'll just adopt another book box. I've got a lot of those. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rfrisbie, your sponsor dollars will provide for important nutritional and medical needs for these boxes.... oh, wait, that's something else. On point, there are a good handful of links here and here that could use fixing now. Perhaps a bot request is in order? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought somebody had a bot that was approved for fixing userfied boxes... The Raven's Apprentice maybe? (see section #Rather annoyed, above) -- nae'blis 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very un-Rfrisbie-like to leave backlinks like that. I guess I'll do as much as I can, but Mac's don't have AWB, so it'll be slow working. Maybe I'll ask someone to write me a bot one of these days. Or just figure out how to get pywiki to work from Special:Whatlinkshere (if that even works). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll use AWB to clean up my messes. I just couldn't do it right away. I'll get to it before I'm drummmmmd out of the 'pedia! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There and there! Now, can I get back to taking over the world?! *Oh yeah, that was part of taking over the world.* Nevermind. By the way, If anyone else knows of any other poor little orphans, just send them over to User:Rfrisbie/Userbox. The door is always open. No need for me to bring them all over by myself. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a superstar, Rfrisbie; thanks for doing that legwork. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're great, mate! I'll keep a keen eye out for lost lambs like that and herd them into your shelter if I find some. CharonX/talk 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The lesser evil isn't the same as the greater good

I didn't want to inject this into the discussion above, but I saw this comment and wanted to use it as a jumping off point for an idea that's been brewing in my mind since I first became involved in the "Userbox Question." Speaking of userbox migration, Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) stated that (added wikilinks mine):

And, you know what, if you don't like it you can go and tell Jimbo, Cyde, Tony, Doc glasgow, Mackensen, and any others that its userbox hunting season again. If this collapses, that's what happens Just check out here for what it was like before we existed. - 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In the past, I've been annoyed, inconvenienced, even angered by the userbox wars, but this is the first time I've ever been frightened. Is this where we're going? Are we going to say that whatever policy doesn't trigger a particularly rabid deletionist response is by definition a good policy? I used to take the time to oppose every userbox deletion. Now I say: why bother? The entire userbox deletion/migration debate is pedantic to the point of silliness. Because templates are considered a part of article space, they have to be NPOV or be moved to userspace. To my (admittedly) simple understanding, articles have to be NPOV, and a template has to be NPOV if (& only if) it appears in an article. Templates for userpages should be governed by the standards for userpages. To do otherwise is a Chamberlainesqe attempt at appeasement. People who oppose userboxes won't stop opposing them because they moved. There will be a pause while a new rationale is brought forward to justify further deletions, but I can't see where this migration plan can accomplish more. --Ssbohio 04:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you do that without invoking Godwin's law? Also, are you proposing a constructive alternative, or just predicting that we're in for more trouble later? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that it has come to this. But, userboxes have to do with supply and demand. There was a supply before, so it created a demand. Now, there will always be a demand for this supply of userboxes. I asked for a logical argument above, and this is the best argument on this page I have seen in a while. Clear, concise, logical. The thing is, they never go away, the userbox-deletionists. Reasons? There are many given on my current RFA (Disclaimer: It is a link to my RFA. I don't care how/if you vote, but there is currently a discussion under question 4 about many things pertaining to userboxes. If it gets any longer, it'll probably be on the talk page soon. I would not normally link to any RFA, but there are many userbox questions there). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as Mike Godwin's postulate goes, I think invoking Neville Chamberlain is once removed from an actual Godwin invocation. My best alternative for userboxes would be that the templates go back to Template space, and that logic be applied to what need meet article standards (articles) and what need not (userpages). That said, I realize that the knives are already out for that solution. I'd be happy with any solution that returned userboxes to a communal storage location, along with appropriate protective modifications to deletion policy. A contributor on my talk page describes the Germanification of userboxes to be the equivalent of hiding the Picasso behind the coatrack. A userbox is still a userbox no matter where it is stored. Those who love them will still defend them, and those who hate them will still seek their destruction. Perhaps instead of Chamberlain, I should compare this solution to the Maginot Line. It looks like a solution, but it seems destined only to delay the inevitable. --Ssbohio 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There's one assumption there I'd really question: "those who hate them will still seek their destruction". I "hate" userboxes, in the sense that I think they're bad for the project, in a way that changing namespaces does nothing to address, and yet I'm not seeking their destruction. Nor do I know of anybody who is. I think most of the anti-userbox crowd is ok with following Jimbo's lead on this: we're tolerating them in userspace, and we hope people will be convinced by reason that POV boxes aren't appropriate here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The test case posted below by Royalguard11 is further evidence that Wikipedians - even "anti-userbox" Wikipedians, accept Jimbo's suggestion that we, "let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that." -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a loosely edited stream of consciousness... Userboxes are trivial. This page is not policy. A working consensus does exist within a homeostatic range of acceptable usebox content for the applicable namespaces. Drama is in the eye of the beholder. Those who choose to disrupt the community to support any position will do so at their own wikiperil; it's always easy to find a fresh example. The balance of the community will prevail over any issue that attempts to disrupt it. Wikipedia will be just fine, with or without userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 04:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this is the reality in which we (wiki-)live. Some userboxes are not accepted in template space, and the only reason that userboxes started re-appearing in template space was that consensus was so stacked against deletion. You might be interested in the almost restart of the userbox wars in the past week [3]. Scarry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A measured response to a clearly provocative offense. I'll guarantee it won't be the last of this nature. A class war it's not. Rfrisbie^talk 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at what Centrx's made of it though? "Where are these lines drawn and who decides where to draw them? Why should infamy decide whether a userbox is allowed? Is a userbox more conducive to creating an encyclopedia simply because fewer people will know enough to be revolted by it?" and "What is consensus; how is consensus formed? Do consensus decisions result from counting numbers in a poll advertised to partisan allies? Should a userbox be allowed simply because the political position in it is more popular? " Yikes. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. RfA isn't quite a Supreme Court nomination hearing, but some would have you believe it is. The price of admission to adminship is a quarter-pounder, for sure, but never forget this is just a wiki. What matters (IMHO) is you be true to yourself. All the things that appear on userpages (boxed or not) are lovely windows to the human pysche. Enjoy the view and then move on. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the most philisophical thing I've heard in a while. Maybe we should make that fit in somewhere. Or it'll go on the essay at least. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)