User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Userboxes

user box madness (Archive 42)
I saw this going by on recent changes and thought people here might find it interesting: User rfa-2, as well as User rfa-1. - BanyanTree 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC) I speedied it. Objections? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 06:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, who would want to use that? You can't put it on someone's user page without their consent. (well, you could, but they could take it off, and then you could have an edit war resulting in an RfC and an RfAr, concluding with an order that you stop putting this on their page) bd2412  T 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Luigi30. He designed the template and proudly displays it on his user page. It takes all types...--File Éireann 19:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected (and flabbergasted). (shrugs) Well ok, then - if one guy wants it, maybe others will too. bd2412  T 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with his decision to make it into a template when so few users will probably use it especially when most userboxes don't have templates but there is no reason why he can't put it on his user page if he wants I guess he's proud of his RFA's. Jtkiefer T  23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Place on TfD and recomend -ing would be appropiate then. -  brenneman (t) (c)  04:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's gone from his user page now anyway since he was elevated to admin today. Though I have not checked, it seems doubtful anyone else is using it or would ever want to. -- DS1953 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hearing none... Tom e rtalk  08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I made it a template so it would work with things such as Template:Babel. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 15:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes? (Archive 44)
I'm seeing a few "Oppose - too many userboxes" votes, yet I haven't seen any reasoning given anywhere as to why having userboxes is a bad thing. If anything, I'd say they are a good thing, in that they tell people a little bit about the administrator they're dealing with (which may be very useful when you're asking them to have a look at an edit-war on a controversial subject, for instance). Can anyone explain why they are bad, or is userboxitis the new editcountitis? Grutness...wha?  08:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably a spin-off of Kelly Martin's RFC. NSL  E  ( T + C + CVU ) 10:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess my question is, are b-crats given enough latitude to discard such votes, and if so, are they actually counting them? :P Unless there's something particularly bad about userboxes I missed, I can't imagine such a vote being reasonable. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But I fully intend to oppose anyone who uses inappropriate userboxes, such as those containing personal attacks or fair use images. I don't think that is a spurious reason.   [[Sam Korn ]] 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. "POV presented in userboxes is troubling" would be a perfectly good reason for opposing, IMO. --Deathphoenix 12:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, there's no problem with that as a reason. But that's a completely different thing from "too many userboxes", which is what is being used as a reaon for opposing. That's like the difference between opposing someone for a personal attack on a talk page (understandable) and opposing someone for simply leaving lots of messages on talk pages (very strange). Grutness...wha?  13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but even then, with the possibility of a userbox changing from the time the user added it ntil the time of the RFA, it's not really fair to assume the person being nominated has noticed that one of their userboxes contains a disputed image (unless the person added the image themselves, or reverted over someone who'd removed the image). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hence I agreed with Sam Korn's comments. :-) --Deathphoenix 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I joked about it on wikien-l, and here we are... Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 13:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the right to have userboxes and the associated categories. But I very much understand where the "oppose -- too many userboxes" is coming from. That's why we're each allowed to contribute our opinions to RFA discussions, and why we're allowed to each have our own standards. We need to be flexible as we think about new things. In many cases, too many userboxes (not the presence of userboxes at all, but an obsession with them) MAY indicate a Wiki-immaturity. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)