User:Kim Bruning/inciteful answer to tony

'''This is a scratchpad! I reserve the right to write anything here and not mean it!'''

Having reviewed precedent, I've come up with an inciteful (pun intended ;) userbox which works as a corner case:

Hmmm, if I were to ever create this for real (I won't, that wouldn't be proper), people would be stuck with a conundrum.

On the one hand, if you're in favor of people having userboxes, it obviously flies in the face of your ideals. On the other hand, if you're in favor of deleting userboxes, then erm, you're stuck with it again.

The one thing left to do is to avoid dealing with the person who would have such a userbox on their page, I suppose. (And watching their deletion log like an eagle).

So, based on the corner case, I think that's what's going to happen with userboxes for now. Everybody who uses them will watch everybody else, at the cost of writing articles. This is not ideal, but what can you do about it?

That's something the community will have to think about in the coming year. I'm not sure if it's the arbitration committees place to intervene.

'''THIS IS A SCRATCHPAD. DISCLAIMERS APPLY'''

Rewrite by Nicholas Turnbull
Take a look at this demonstrative userbox (left) which I have placed here as an example. Imagine what would happen if I created this as a template in reality; I would not create such a box as a template on principle, but please treat this as an experiment in thought.

This userbox is, in itself, an oxymoron; it contains an opposition to those ideals held by those in favour of userboxes, and yet its mere presence as a userbox is in support of the idea of representing one's point of view in userboxes. The irony is even deeper due to the fact that it is specifically a userbox indicating a hotly-disputed topic.

If you came across this userbox on someone's user page, how would you react? What strategem would you employ to handle the activities of such a user with a radical view within what is such an emotive topic amongst Wikipedia editors? Think about it: since it flies in the face of both opinion to keep userboxes, and opinion against it, your only options would be to either risk contention by discussing the subject with the user - or, for the sake of a smooth ride, avoid talking to the user about the subject. I expect most people would choose the latter.

In such a circumstance, the only thing that is left to do where motives are questioned but there is no amicable means of questioning them is to merely watch their actions very carefully, and I think that is what will end up happening as a consequence of userboxes indicating points of view. All this watching will mean everyone will watch everyone else, at the expense of editing articles.

This is terribly inefficient - but what could we possibly do to solve it? I think that all members of the community interested in ensuring the continued operation of our project in building an encyclopaedia will have to consider this philosophical problem; perhaps the arbitration committee, or Jimbo, may intervene, but I am not sure whether such "divine intervention" would be appropriate. Only time will tell. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)