Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal/Archive 2

I'm ready to support this if some items are clarified
The proposition is sound and I would be quite ready to support this if some doubts I have could be answered:
 * 1) Would some WP useful userboxes stay as templates (Admin, etc.). If so, how many and who will decide which are useful? This could be a new possible source of eternal voting.
 * 2) Would removing category template follow? Most of the same arguments could be used against categories (except the silly "server overload" one). Will a new category war start with the same adversaries wasting again a lot of time that could be used making WP better?
 * 3) Who can guarantee that the proposed list of usebox code will not be another battleground (with the same set claiming a "Userbox Christian" code id divisive unless it include a spinning crucifix?
 * 4) How can we be sure that no general offensive against users showing any political / ethical / religious affiliation will be next?

Generally, if the discussion started with this proposal and not awarding my userpage with the above-mentioned alleged symbol of my religion, I would be 100% amenable to change. I do assume good faith on the vast majority of WP editors. However, there is always a small minority which could use any pretext to start new disruptive WP-wars. Good policies which withstand the test of time must take into account that we are only human. Assuming good faith is what we do in case of individual users, it does not work for the whole population. Therefore any final version of this policy should contain definite statements about categories, userbox code lists and userboxes on userpages. Thank you for attention. Stepping off the soap-box. --Friendly Neighbour 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The question of "useful" boxes is tricky. It's dangerous for precisely the reasons you suggest. My thought is this: babel boxes can stay, if we have a wiki in that language. The primary utility of a babel box is to enable interwiki translation. Boxes which denote a user's status on Wikipedia...that I'm not sure of. Most administrators already note on their page that they're administrators.
 * The categories issue definitely has to be settled. I'm beginning to err on the side of permitting them, but again I'm not sure. It's a discussion that needs to happen.
 * I'll be happy to guarantee it for one. The proper placement of that code list is crucial. My own thought is that it ought to reside at Userboxes, and be watched over by WikiProject Userboxes.
 * There is no precedent for a campaign against content on a user page, save the usual proviso regarding personal attacks. Note that no one ever attacked a subst'd userbox; if they did they were in error. User pages are generally sacrosant. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Process comments
I agree broadly with the proposal, but want to include some thoughts I've had, as well as an outline of how it might work in practice, as the devils in the details, so to speak.

There are many contentious issues with regard to the current situation, vote stacking concerns, edit wars over wording or included categories of templates, contested deletes on grounds of process, and contested tfd results on grounds of policy. None of this is helping to build an encyclopaedia.

I believe this is a situation where over emphasis one either process or policy is unwise. Possible outcomes of following process too literally might end up with templates retained that are examples of what WP is Not, but following policy too literally might give the impression of arbitrary decisions, and alienate people. Policy nor process works ideally, because I believe the issue is one of people, the inertia of a large group of people can not be changed quickly. That's why I think that any change in policy or process that results in sudden changes will be unsuccessful. For something to work in this case, the change must be gradual, maybe even "one editor at a time", as a certain Jimbo once said. Think of a large group of people as a child with a toy, the more you try and take it away to tidy it, the more the child will value it, but if you ignore it, it will eventually be discarded, and can be tidied. Forcibly taking it away might end up the same situation, but the gradual approach, while slower, will have the same end result, but without the screams. That's why I believe that it is more important to do something right, than do it 'right now'.

In line with the compromise, of transferring userboxs to userspace, the first step that needs to be addresses is to stop the creation of non-userspace userboxes. There's no point playing "whack-a-Mole" by userifying 1 userbox, if 2 others get created in its place. One reason for the increase in usage is that as it's trivial to copy and paste from WP:UBX to your user page, that' where most non-creators get their userboxes from. I would suggest that a possible way to reduce this, is to require any userboxes added to WP:UBX to use format. That way, anyone interested in the userbox can still copy it (to stop "censorship" calls), but it could stop edit wars, as each user has an independent copy, and might reduce vote stacking, as no categories are added, and since they are independent, chances are people will change the image. This will basically have the same end result as requiring people to always subst, as they will be written in a pre-subst's way. (as per BigDT's suggestion above)

So, enough essay, and on to the practicalities.(which might explain my thoughts with more clarity)

An outline on what this is trying to to do is
 * 1) stop creation of new templates designed for user pages with no benefit to the encyclopaedia
 * 2) Still allow addition/copying of userboxs to WP:UBX, so long as they use UserBox, and not a standalone template.
 * 3) For existing userbox templates, the gradual conversion into userspace in line with any newly created ones.

So first, pick a date where the new guideline comes into practice, say, T:Day. TFUS = Template designed for user space in the form (Dual use templates (eg  could have a redirect from  to clarify this)

After T-Day
 * Any TFUS must have a clear claim for "usefulabilty" for the project (e.g. User Aid)
 * TFUS created after T-Day without a usefulabilty claim may be speedy deleted (CSD A7 equivalent for templates) (If claim exists (e.g. New project) go to Tfd, where a case must be proven to show that why it's needed in template space, and a Userbox would not suffice)
 * Userboxes added to WP:UBX must be either in format (i.e. Pre subst'd), or have shown a claim of "usefulabilty"above

Yes, this is an addition of a harsher CSD criteria, but as it would only applies to newly created templates, I think it would not be as controversial as applying the new CSD T1 to templates that existed prior to the T1 change.

For User templates existing prior to T-Day, the following would be done to transition into userspace
 * 1) Remove categories attached to userboxes (If people want cats, they can still add them, but separate the hard link between box + cat to stop edit wars)
 * 2) re-write into  format}}
 * 3) Subst into  format on WP:UBX page (do new users are pre-subst's)
 * 4) Subst template onto user pages (so no more edit wars over wording, pictures, etc)
 * 5) Remove original template from template space once has been userified.

That I believe would end up with all the user POV, etc., out of template space, not as fast, yes, but I believe more effective in the long term. It would also mean that addition of divisive userboxes to WP:UBX would simple involve a revert, or on a user page, where it can be dealt with like any other inflammatory statement on user pages.

People could still create their own userboxes ideas, and post them on WP:UBX (in the correct format), anyone who liked them, can still copy them, which should satisify the userbox fans.

As the userboxs are indepenent, with any POV in user space, with no hard-linked categories, it should please those that dislike edit wars over user boxes, those who want template space to be neutral, and remove the simplicity of vote stacking (as it will happen one way or the other, but if the boxes are pre-substs, chances are that people will personalise them by changing the images, etc)

As the result would be policy compliant, and the method according to process, it should keep both types of wonks reasonably covered, even if not as immediate as either might like.

Well, I've rambled on long enough for someone taking a short break. Demolish arguements at will! Regards, MartinRe 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

VERY wonkish, MartinRe (wipes single tear of joy)! Full marks and full support. Well done.  + + Lar: t/c 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll need time to digest all this, but at the moment I can see nothing wrong with this outline. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. At the same time, we obviously need to remove the categories from the userboxes (does userbox even allow categories?).  It's simply unnecessary, and unless we remove the categories also, the vote-stacking concerns still exist.  And need I bring up how absolutely stupid some of the categories were?  The Jimbo v. Willy on Wheels had a category associated with it and I almost got into a revert war deleting that stupid thing.  We really don't need a category "Wikipedians who want to see Jimbo and Willy duke it out to the death".  Dear God.  -- Cyde Weys  16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okkay, why not? How does it interfere with building an encyclopedia? Jay Maynard 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Jay, wow, it's amazing the wide variety of people I'm meeting on Wikipedia! Anyway, categorization by user has interfered with Wikipedia consensus-seeking decisions in the past.  I can now think of at least four instances in which vote-stacking by userbox or category (which allows association of users by beliefs) heavily disrupted Wikipedia.  I guess you haven't been here long enough to remember these, but they are: StrangerInParadise on userboxes, JasonGastrich on diploma mill graduates, people on both sides of the "Rationales for impeachment" AfD and DRV, and most recently, a user on CfD for user-reported mental illness categories.  -- Cyde Weys  16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Catholic Alliance of wikipedia and all the vote-stacking on abortion-related issues around January. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I'm an Internet phenomenon doesn't mean I have to give up participating in the net. :-) Can you point me to references for the controversies you note? I'll happily read all about them. Note, however, that in general, the parliamentarian in me says that get-out-the-vote efforts are best answered with similar efforts on the other side, not in trying to limit participation. (I'll readily admit that that viewpoint may be of limited application in this community.) Jay Maynard 17:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objection on categories, the above proposal simply sugests removing the hard link between a box and a category. There is nothing stopping people adding a box and the corresponding category, if they so wish (I do exactly that on my user page), but by separating the hardlink, it creates the flexability in allowing people to add the userbox/catagory independently, which stops wars over which category a certain userbox should have - and there have been quite a few! Regards, MartinRe 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the Jason Gastrich stuff, you'll want to check out here and here. In summary, he's an evangelical fundamentalist with a "degree" from a diploma mill, and he came to Wikipedia and started adding all sorts of articles about non-notable "graduates" and "professos" from his diploma mill.  When these articles were put up for deletion he used the Christian userbox to recruit sympathetic users and hijack the votes.  For the StrangerInParadise stuff you'll want to check out here and here.  Basically, what StrangerInParadise did was to vote-stack to death the previous Userbox Policy Poll that would have solved all of these issues months ago.  And yes, you might think that get-out-the-vote efforts would be a good idea, but in practice, they're not.  What ends up happening is massive user talk page spam as everyone is trying to "get out the vote".  Also, remember that Wikipedia doesn't use a voting method to make decisions ... we use consensus.  A bunch of mindless sheeple on both sides showing up to "vote" doesn't help consensus at all.  -- Cyde Weys  17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but what type of wonking is it? As I mentioned earlier, both process wonking and policy wonking seemed to be causing friction with people, so is this people wonking? :) Regards, all, I need to take a break now and spend some time with the three dimensional people. MartinRe 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Technical wonking... the best kind!  + + Lar: t/c 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What would this mean for me?
I'm trying to figure out how this would change my Wikipedia experience. Suppose this proposal passes, and we delete all the userbox templates, but keep their content somewhere else. What would be the new process for adding a userbox to my user page? Right now, if I see a chess userbox that I like, I can add it with " ". Would that still work, as a redirect or whatever? Jimpartame 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The code to be added would be a little longer, but also easier to customize. There are some examples further up of what this would look like. The net effect would be the same, but it might add a few minutes to your day. This proposal should not have any effect on what actually goes on your page, with the obvious exception that now it won't be in danger of being deleted. Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What would be the new way of putting in a chess userbox, and why wouldn't " " be maintained as redirecting to that? Jimpartame 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another effect is you will not be able to see what other wikipedians expressed that same interest in a central location. Rfrisbietalk 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not through this particular mechanism, no. But there are the WikiProjects, the regional noticeboards, and the various un-official organizations (Counter-Vandalism Unit, Esperenza). There's also the IRC channels. There are plenty of places to encounter like-minded individuals, although the current groupings do have an encyclopedic bias (not a bad thing, to my mind). Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty neat to be able to see which Wikipedians like chess. Could you change your proposal to allow that? Jimpartame 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimpartame, I followed the same idea as this proposal outlined on my own user page. All my templates (, etc.) have been "userified" to use  format. All attached catagories that I was interested that originally came from userboxes (now removed) have been added manually at the bottom of the page. (so there would be a central location to find chess players, if they so wished to be found) End result? My page looks the same, and has the same categories as it would have if I used templated userboxes, but with the advantage that it is not vunerable to wording edit wars/catagory debates, and is more flexible about the relationshipe between catagories and boxes. Overall, an improvement I'd say, even if the source is a little more complex. If my long winded idea above was followed, the process for adding a userbox would be the same, simply copy the code from WP:UBX The only difference being that the code would be slighty longer, using the  format. Regards, MartinRe 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The code from WP:UBX is " ", isn't it? You're saying it would be moved to "  "? Jimpartame 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tested that, and it didn't work, so I guess I didn't understand how you're saying I would use the chess userbox. Jimpartame 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, more in the line of " ". Longer, yes, but if you're copying and pasting it anyway, that's hardly a big disadvantage, for the advantage of being able to change the text/colours/picture, etc. exactly how you like it without affecting anyone else. Regards, MartinRe 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That's way too hard to read, especially if I had to do that for every userbox I wanted on my page. And what about people with 40 userboxes? They'd have to scroll forever in the edit window just to get past where their userboxes were if they all looked like that! Why can't we just set it up so that " " still works as a redirect? So your long version would be the real userbox, but I could still just type "  " and get the userbox. There's no need to make it hard to add userboxes. Jimpartame 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't as bad as it looks, and you'd be copying-and-pasting anyway. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's much worse than " ". And the copying-and-pasting bit doesn't make it any more readable when I'm editing my page. Jimpartame 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding blunt, Wikipedia does not exist to make every little operation you wish to perform on your userpage as efficient as possible. Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia.  -- Cyde Weys  16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression that this proposal would make Wikipedia worse for me, and I'm not seeing what the advantages would be. It's not much of a compromise when it's all downsides. Jimpartame 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One main advantage would be that your userpage would be unchanged if the origanal template was damaged. Currently if someone vandalises the User chess template, all of a sudden all chess players have vandalised userpages. Oh, and "Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia!". Regards, MartinRe 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But conversely, if someone made an improvement to the userbox, it wouldn't show up on your page. If we look at the encyclopedia itself as a parallel to userboxes, it's clear that articles (and userboxes) improve much faster with the input of many editors, despite the risk of vandalism. The Wikipedia method (allow all edits, and revert if necessary) is much more efficient than the Encarta method (review edits in advance, and implement if you like them). TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, our purpose here isn't to improve userboxes. We're here to improve the encyclopedia. We musn't lose sight of that.Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * " " isn't a redirect, it's a template call.  And since userboxes are no longer going to be in template space, that obviously won't work (what you're describing is the status quo, basically).  And as for the edit window ... yeah, it might be a little bit uglier.  But guess what, it was always that ugly all along, the templates just hid it from view.  Maybe now that people see how ugly this stuff actually is (and how much code and server resources it takes to display a small little colored box) they will go back to more reasonable things.  For example, you could always just write "I like playing Chess; if you need any help with Chess-related articles, please contact me" on your userpage.  It takes up a lot less space than a userbox and it looks a lot more professional.  -- Cyde Weys  16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the way the userbox looks, so telling me that I could write something that's not a userbox doesn't help here. I thought this proposal was supposed to be a good thing for people who like userboxes too, but it's sounding like you hate them and don't want people to use them. Jimpartame 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's Cyde's opinion, not mine. Give me a moment, and I can show you an easier way to format them.Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll need to edit this and look at the source to see what I'm talking about. See how clean the formatting is? Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty confusing to me. Not everybody knows what things like "| id-c=#00008b" mean. What's wrong with " "? Jimpartame 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It would still be in the template space. This is standard wiki-markup for a table, with some shorthand that would get substituted. And, in honesty, if you don't know wikitax table markup know you're certainly going to need to learn it at some time. It's in widespread use. Now, the raw HTML that the template generates (and what is eventually read by the browser), is even more complicated. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All the parameters are explained at Template:Userbox Regards, MartinRe 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why bother deleting the template at all? As long as it's unsused (which would be so because of the substing), it can't contribute to votestacking because nothing is in the whatlinkshere, so why not just make it easy for new users who don't know enough to make it themselves to just paste  onto their userpage? --Rory096 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why bother deleting the template at all? As long as it's unsused (which would be so because of the substing), it can't contribute to votestacking because nothing is in the whatlinkshere, so why not just make it easy for new users who don't know enough to make it themselves to just paste  onto their userpage? --Rory096 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, it looks to me as though one of the biggest problems with the proposal right now is that it would make it more difficult for people to use userboxes. (Yes, I realize Cyde probably thinks this is an advantage.) "Wikitax table markup" may be an interesting thing for people to learn eventually, but you can't honestly claim that " " is clearer than "  ". I've suggested an easy way to fix this: Have your proposal as it currently stands, but also keep the " " style as a shortcut for the new forms. That way, we get all the advantages of your compromise, and people who want to use userboxes don't have to fill up their user pages with huge paragraphs of gibberish. Jimpartame 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's exactly what I said just above, so I support, this proposal (see also Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion). --Rory096 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Transclusions and getting started
Two questions.
 * First, if server load is not the issue, is there any reason not to allow the transclusion of the main "Userbox" template in pages? The will keep the final amount of code on the user page reduced but will be of no use to the vote stackers as everyone will only be pointing to a single template and not to specific topics.
 * Second, if the answer to the first is no, is there any reason not to start modifying the entries in Userboxes to show this code? There is going to be a lot of effort needed to get this page and sub-pages updated to show the code for people to copy/paste into their user pages.  If the code is there already a lot of users may start using it to avoid having their userboxes disappear at random. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to start converting userboxes at Userboxes back to userbox. This results in much cleaner code on user's pages when substituted. -- Cyde Weys 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I outlined a possible method of doing this. First, pick a template . Then, remove the catagories. Next, rewite the template to use userbox format, so it looks idential. (I believe someone has a bot for that) Finally, edit Userboxes doing a simple replace of  with  Voila. Repeat for user pages. (Doing all the work on the original template means it only has to be done once, as it has to be done there anyway, if large scale subst's are going to work. Regards, MartinRe 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, you can make requests for userbox substitutions at User talk:Cydebot. It's a lot easier to substitute a box used on dozens or hundreds of pages when a computer does all of the work for you.  -- Cyde Weys  17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If it ever comes to substing them (I'm fighting for that not to happen), I submit that it be REQUIRED that they be rewriten using the userbox code and THEN substed. --mboverload @  17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be done yet, because as it is this proposal has WP:SNOW chance of passing.  Grue  18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor is anyone planning on it. Grue, I would be interested in hearing your actual thoughts on the matter. You obviously don't approve of the discussions here. I would love to know the reasons why. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I already expressed my thoughts above. Deleting userboxes from template space makes them harder to use. And userboxes are good for Wikipedia. Besides, what's a userbox? Something that is used only in user space and looks like a box? What about barnstars? Or Template:MultiLicensePD? Should they also be deleted?  Grue   19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you create a list of 'Template:Userbox' calls to replace the existing userboxes someone is just going to add a 'category' parameter to the template or include a category link right after each call in the list. If you remove the categories they'd fight it and we've got the same stalemate. Has about as much chance of succeeding as just removing categories from all existing userboxes. Any list could also be turned into a series of conditional parameters which could then be used to call just that one particular userbox from the page listing all of them. You'd end up with 'babel' templates calling instead of  but the syntax of the babel call itself would be identical. Moving things around doesn't change the underlying issues. --CBDunkerson 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then that someone gets slapped with a trout for violating policy. In this case, having a strict policy would be useful by setting ground rules. It has more of chance of succeeding for every user who agrees that it ought to succeed. Do I understand that you want this to fail, along with every other policy attempt? I'd like to see a success myself, and not one imposed from above. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The underlying issues–and it would help if you stated what you thought those were–may well be insoluble. However, removing the boxes from template namespace via substitution eliminates any possible grounds for destroying them short of an all-out war on userpages. That's not going to happen. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, why shouldn't userboxes (in template form, or whatever form you want to change them into) have category information? Whether it's in the template namespace or not, there's no reason including the chess userbox can't put you in the category of Wikipedians who like chess. Jimpartame 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - which was relevant to my point) I thought the 'proposal' here was 'move things around and that will solve everything'. Nothing in the text says, 'you can no longer have user categories' or 'you can no longer use transclusion on user pages'. Barring that it seems inevitable to me that people will continue doing those things. Any subsequent trout smacking would then be unjustified as the proposal didn't rule those things out. If you do want to rule those things out then I'd suggest proposing that directly. I'm all for the part of the proposal that says 'peace', I'm just suggesting that isn't as easy as playing musical chairs with the userboxes. Removing the boxes from the template namespace via substitution will not stop the disagreements in my opinion. People will still argue over inclusion/removal of categories. If you have a centralized list then people will still argue over whether individual items on it are divisive/inflammatory... perpetual edit war on Userboxes. Underlying issues... 'vote stacking', 'divisiveness', and differing opinions on those points. --CBDunkerson 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammy's proposal
See the source code of User:Grm_wnr/user Grammy's proposal (which is the thing above) to see what I mean with it. That would be the only allowable format for userboxes (personally, I'd not allow Babel boxes either, but that's negotiable. I'm firmly against programming languages and the like though). Yes, people might still misuse Whatlinkshere for the raw box code, but than again they can misuse Whatlinkshere for any other page too. Yes, this wouldn't keep the template namespace as clean as the list option, but be honest, the template namespace isn't very clean to begin with. This way, everybody gets the instant source code and can see what the box looks like on the box template itself. Note: This is not a finely honed proposal, it just got into my head and I'd like to see what other people think. Honestly, I like Mackensen's proposal as well... Comments? -- grm_wnr Esc  17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And how is this better than the current situation?  Grue   18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It gives people reason not to use transclusion, while leaving the source code where they expect it. -- grm_wnr Esc  18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Issues
There seem to be various different 'issues' with userboxes that are not consistent from person to person. To list the ones I've seen and my thoughts on each;


 * 1) Vote stacking - Does not apply to most userboxes (unless you are worried about the 'pi cabal' getting together and forming a 'consensus that pi=3.141') and seems to have been addressed by CSD T1. Granted, there is disagreement on that issue but there is a process and it has been proceeding. In any case, this proposal would allow categories to remain and thus not 'fix' this issue. Possibly the added difficulty in setting up userboxes (requiring some understanding of table markup) would reduce the number of people using them and indirectly decrease 'vote stacking', but it seems a stretch.
 * 2) User content in template space - I don't think template space was ever defined as 'for transclusion into every namespace except userspace', but if so then... why not just move the userboxes to user space? Not as multiple copies of the 'code', but just as they are now. Have to call the 'I love pink gerbils' userbox. It would then be simple to change all the infrastructure (babel boxes and the like) to expect userboxes to be found at 'User:Userboxes/ ' instead of 'Template:User '. That said, I really don't see what they are harming where they are now.
 * 3) Transclusion - Someone will have to explain to me why this is an issue before I can respond to it. Server load? Virtually non-existant and probably offset by the added cost (also minimal) of storing the full template code over and over again on every user page rather than just the short call to the template.
 * 4) Unencyclopedic - See 'user page'. The very concept is unencyclopedic and always has been. In any case, this proposal would not remove 'unencyclopedic' content - just change the way it is achieved. Again there might be some indirect reduction due to making the userboxes more difficult to use, but not much.

Anything else? What I had thought were the two biggest complaints against userboxes (that they are unencyclopedic and promote vote stacking) would not be addressed by this proposal. The things it would accomplish are new to me, but seem either not very important or easily resolved just by moving things. I'd generally be against subst'ing the boxes everywhere because it goes against the whole concept behind transclusion... removing complicated markup that many people don't understand from 'primary' pages to a centralized location that everyone can access. --CBDunkerson 19:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding transclusion, one of the principal objections was that things were being transcluded from the Template: namespace. T1 and T2 exist for that reason, but it's clear that an objective definition of T1 and T2 is impossible. Moreover, given the emotional importance attached to these boxes, a speedy deletion under T1 or T2 will always be controversial. Moving these things out of the Template: namespace eliminates this issue altogether. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, T1 and T2 were entirely motivated by the 'vote stacking' issue. I don't understand the "things were being transcluded from the Template: namespace" bit at all... that's the entire reason the Template: namespace exists... so that 'things can be transcluded from it'. Why was that "one of the principal objections"? I also don't think moving things out of the Template namespace resolves the issues... people delete subst'd 'inflammatory/divisive userboxes' from the individual pages too. Presumably they'd want to remove them from the 'list' (wherever it is) and the same disagreements would occur. --CBDunkerson 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of deletions of subst'd material–that shouldn't be happening. Again, regarding transclusion, it's a point of principle about what should and should not be in the template namespace. Any policy would have to make guarantees about the list. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with transclusion for user pages, from what I've seen, is the resulting edit wars over the layout, colour, wording, categories, etc, that go along with having one box transcluded on multiple user pages. Article based templates, and most of the "standard" user templates do not exhibit this problem. Also, if editors delete a (subst) divisive userboxes from a user page, this affects one person, whereas changing the template was affecting many, many more in one go. Regards, MartinRe 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How about just being bold and implementing policy?
How about just being bold and implementing Wikipedia's policy against divisiveness and what wikipedia is not and deleting all user groupings (userboxes, categories, whatever) in the obvious areas of sex, politics and religion - everyone knows this is what to talk about to make buzz and what not to talk about if you want to be noncontroversial. WAS 4.250 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's been tried, and it didn't work. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I recall, most people percieved it as an out of the blue unannounced suprise attack on their shiny new toys and were shocked upset and immediately began reverting. I can safely say being bold at this point would be after substantial talk and notification rather than before. Announce it. Wait 24 hours. Do it. It's time. WAS 4.250 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about consensus. If you want to make your own policies, make your own fork of Wikipedia.  Grue   19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * such a "bold" manoever is bound to be divisive and will be percieved by most users as the triumph of beurocracy over the usership. frymaster 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True - the main rationale given for the proposal is that one side contains more sysops, and therefore that side must be right. Admins are not any more important than other Wikipedians. (incidentally, I agree with this proposal, but not the wording). Cynical 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I'm not happy with the wording either, as the last thing we want to do is immediately split people into factions! However, prose isn't my strong suit, so I'm just working on the spirit. I would suggest something in the line of onf of my first paragaghs in my "essay", which simply lists out perceived problems without implying one is right or not. NPOV for a proposal anyone? I would also strongly recommend that prior to any "voting" on this proposal, that it has been worked on, and clarified as much as possible, I would ask that we all please make sure the wording, and what it will and will not do is 100% clear - even if you don't agree with all of the proposal - and let it succeed and fail on its merits, and not because people misunderstood it, for better or worse. (The last userbox poll had these problems, if I recall, as some people questioned many of the supports and objects due the reasons given being at odds to what was being discussed, resulting it being changed/clarified mid vote, which we should avoid. Regards, MartinRe 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

inflammatory way anywhere in Wikipedia is not welcome." policy, created and confirmed in the normal way. It is a very simple natural extension of all our other policies which, despite our ongoing tolerance of people trolling on the mailing list, *ahem*, have always urged people in no uncertain terms not to be divisive and inflammatory." WAS 4.250 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales says "Behaving in a divisive and
 * Jimmy Wales says "CSD T1 is normal


 * The problem is, however, that CSD T1 was recently extended to cover more than just "divisive and inflammatory", which caused a lot of the recent, ahem, debate! Regards, MartinRe 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Police and military use violence to supress violence. firefighters use fire to supress fire. Certainly there are times when "divisive and inflammatory" is needed to supress "divisive and inflammatory". I suppose there are disagreements about whether or not this is one of those times. WAS 4.250 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Civility is one of the key principles of the project. Jettisoning it to deal with this would be silly. Septentrionalis 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reservations
I supported the late userbox policy poll, which would have included this; I can support this. But I do have reservations.

The vote-stacking argument has never been phrased so as to answer two objections: This policy will therefore inflict significant amounts of collateral damage on people like our chess fan, three sections up, without doing anything significant to solve the real problem.
 * Most userboxes are not likely to help in votestacking. (The sum-of-pi or the Dolphin-1 spring to mind.)
 * Very few cliques have ever used userboxes. Most are doing all too well at imposing their national, religious, or political PoV without any boxen at all.
 * The collateral damage could be ameliorated by keeping the templates, with a warning that the template is liable to substitution without further warning; and going through and substing every so often.

The turbulence here is due largely to a couple of people on either side, most of them not long-established at all. The ones who specialized in making inflamatory userboxes about the War have been suppressed (and a good thing too); would it not be simpler to deal with the others by imposing the principles of the MarkSweep decision? Septentrionalis 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Question
The current proposal, as outlined, is essentially what I wrote yesterday afternoon as an idea of how matters could be resolved. It is, however, weak on its technical propositions (on purpose). There's been considerable and fruitful discussion on these points. Therefore, I'm going to try and craft a technical version (sort of an extension to the original concept).


 * Technical policy
 * Implementation
 * 1) Moratorium: Beginning with the implementation of WP:MACK, the speedy deletion of any existing userbox is suspended. At the same time, the creation of new userboxes in the Template namespace is highly discouraged and such templates may be immediately substituted.
 * 2) Substitution: All existing userboxes in the Template namespace will be substituted where they had once been transcluded. This includes locations in the Wikipedia namespace which previously had lists of templates.
 * 3) Establishment: The lists of userboxes will be changed to list possible substitutions instead (e.g. . A possible location for such lists is Userboxes, but absent the need for an authoritative list this is subject to change.
 * 4) Removal: All existing userboxes in the Template namespace, once properly substituted and documented, will be deleted.
 * 5) Aftermath: Further creations of userboxes in the Template namespace should be substituted and deleted.
 * Use of user pages
 * 1) The use of substituted templates on user pages shall not be treated any differently from any other text or image on that user page.
 * Use of category space
 * 1) The use of the category namespace for self-categorization being well-established in principle and in fact, Wikipedians may feel free to add themselves to whatever categories they desire.

What do people think? Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the last point (I don't want user pages in Category:Fundamental or any other article category, and if Whatlinkshere on userboxes is so terrible this is never going to fly), but I'd say they are beyond the scope of this proposal anyway. Let's focus on the boxes and deal with the categories elsewhere. Apart from that, it's okay I guess... I'll have to think about it some more. -- grm_wnr Esc  21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. I think it would be good to have something to look at so that discussion is centralized. My goal is that we all produce a proposal that we think can gain wide acceptance. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will the existing userboxes that automatically carry with them category inclusion continue to do so? Personally, I agree that this proposal does nothing to deal with the stated concern of votestacking, and without that, it's a lot of sound and fury signifying little. Since I also believe there's no good way to deal with votestacking except to ignore it and ban users who spam to try to generate it, and since I still haven't heard anyone back up claims of increased resource usage based on transcluding (despite repeated requests), I'm left wondering what this proposal will accomplish aside from lots of wrangling and user confusion. Jay Maynard 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal is a good way to rid template space of all userboxes in a way that causes as little harm as possible. It does not change very much for people who want to have nice colored boxes on their userpage, and it should make the people who can't stand having "junk" in Template: space happy. (Just standard babel boxes should stay by my argument above). Userboxes on a user page would then finally fall under the user page policies only again, and that policy seems to be a lot less controversial than what you can or can't have in template space. The proposal also separates the categorization and votestacking questions from the userbox issue. Kusma (討論) 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but there's still been no good explanation of why userboxes in template space are bad - aside from teh fact that there are admins out there who think they are. Jay Maynard 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, I think this proposal should satisfy these admins and not really harm anyone else, resulting in peace and more time for writing an encyclopedia. The userbox wars have been more harmful than userboxes so far, so it is time to stop the wars for good. Kusma (討論) 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Kusma on this point. Peace, in itself, is desirable under some circumstances. I would also support an exemption for babel boxes, subject to appropriate controls. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will we have peace, though? Will this proposal satisfy the rabid userbox deletionists? Jay Maynard 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Userboxes won't be deleted. I still have userboxes on my user page, which is in "post-proposal" form. You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference without looking at the source. Regards, MartinRe 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jay Maynard, one of the reasons I see userboxes in template as harmful is the edit wars that they create. Because transclused userboxes are all linked, whenever the original template is changed, everyone's user pages is modified in the same way. That means if someone changes the text/colour/category, or whatever, everyone gets affected, and one of those disagree and modifies the orignal back, and then someone else who added it in the edited stage, changes it back, and so on. This has happened in several templates that I have seen. If it userbox is put on a user page via userbox, then if the user can update it to their own preferences without affecting anyone else. Regards, MartinRe 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the userbox directory pages recommend subst-ing, and some do not. I chose not to because 1) the recommendation was inconsistent and 2) I wanted the userbox to change if someone came along with a better idea for it. Jay Maynard 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What would you do if someone came along with a worse idea for it? From what I've seen many users get quite irate if their userpage has been changed because someone edited a transcluded userbox. Regards, MartinRe 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Same thing I'd do if someone made a change to any other page I had an interest in: either change it back myself, or if it turned into an edit war, take it to the template's talk page, and trust that good sense would prevail. Jay Maynard 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles, by design can only have one version, so if editors disagree, one version has to be picked. However, with subst'd userboxes, two different users can start with the same userbox, and if one wants to change it, they can do so without affecting the other, resulting in two versions, with both users getting their preferred version. Having them unsubst's means that edtors have to agree on a version neither are 100% happy with, and hope no one else disagrees again. So, why create a focal point for potential disputes, when it can be avoided completely quite easily in the first place? Regards, MartinRe 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That proposal still has categories in the userboxen, so how does it solve the problem at all? --Rory096 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I'm not entirely convinced on that point. However, Wikipedians categorized themselves before there were userboxes, and not all members of a category have the same userbox. The same cannot be said of the "What links here" feature. Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And what if they were just substed, without point 4? That would get rid of the Special:whatlinkshere problem and would allow new users to easily add userboxen. --Rory096 22:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The easy addition of userboxen could also be accomplished by posting the code (ready to be cut&pasted) next to the displayed userbox on Userboxes. Should be easy enough, and nobody will have to go and subst all userboxen once per day. Kusma (討論) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but it's then needlessly making a high-risk template.  It's not like substing userboxen is hard, we have bots that subst plenty of other templates. --Rory096 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a serious concern. I think it's protected already. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Userbox has already been protected for a long time. -- Cyde Weys  23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'd support this if the code was in the userbox page. --Rory096 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Useful vs useless
As far as I can see, the general concerns with userboxes relate to whether they can be seen as useful to the building of Wikipedia, or are divisive, or are simply frivolous. The problem is that in many cases this varies from userbox to userbox. Sure, there are many here that are frivolous, and some are divisive - but there are also many others which are of great use in creating and building an NPOV and comprehensive encyclopedia. There are several occasions, for instance, that I have needed to know two sides of an argument before coming to a decision on problems retaing to a specific article, and have gone to userbox categories to find people I know who could give me the two sides to the argument. Substing, although in principle a great idea, would remove these categories and would also remove the ability to use "what links here" to find such users. Though I appreciate the motives behind the proposed compromise, I don't see it being at all useful in those circumstances.

Ideally, the best solution would be to nail down which userboxes are useful, which are frivolous, and which are divisive, subst'ing all the frivolous ones, deleting the divisive ones, and keeping the useful ones. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have theori own idea about which ones are useful and which ones aren't. A block subst'ing affecting every userbox, though, would be the wrong way to proceed IMO - it ould be like blocking all users from one country simply because that country has a lot of vandals.

On a side note, I'd be very interested to know where Mackensen came up with the idea that long-serving admins are generally against userboxes. I'd like to see some stats backing that up! As a long-serving admin I'm generally against their deletion, for the reasons given above. Grutness...wha?  23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice idea in theory, but I don't think it'll work in practice. There'll be too much bickering over whether any given userbox is useful, frivolous (which I assume you're defining for present purposes as "not harmful, but not helpful either"), or harmful. As I said above, the only way this proposal will work is if it applies equally to all templates intended for userspace. Angr (t • c) 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case we lose the useful ones as well. I don't buy it as a solution in that case. A weaker compromise might be allowing userboxes but disallowing any userbox categories. It would still be possible to hunt for users so marked via whatlinkshere, but would at least remove one level of clutter. Grutness...wha?  00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced this tripartite division even exists. I would call all userboxes (including Babelboxes) "frivolous" in the sense of neither hurting nor helping the encyclopedia project. Angr (t • c) 07:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not my idea. Rather, that most people against userboxes are admins. I don't recall emphasizing long-serving at one point, although there are of number of us who've been admins since mid-2004 or earlier. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User since late 2002 myself. -- Cyde Weys  00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I apologise for misunderstanding. Still, given the proportion of users who are admins, wouldn't that mean that most of those opposed come from a very small group of editors? Grutness...wha?  00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a straw poll?
If enough people participate, this could give us an idea of where the consensus is:


 * Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll

I think this is a premature step. People shouldn't get the impression that they're voting on the proposal, or even necessarily on the content. This is an attempt to guage where the boundary is, nothing more. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This poll is wildly confusing. I can imagine some of the users who have been blindly and ignorantly "voting" to save the content of the boxes coming to the poll page and being utterly confused. Nhprman 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hasn't happened yet, and I think the well-worded questions should prevent that. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I find question 2's options wildly confusing, and I think I got it right, but not sure. Most users won't know what "transcluded" means, let alone sort out what space it should be done in. Simpler options or better explanations of each should be included. Nhprman 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is that that would lead to ignorant voters such as the ones you describe above. One of the strengths of this talk page is that so far almost everyone on here knows what they are talking about, and little time has to be spend rectifying false assumptions. But if you can make the question both clearer and still accurate, go for it. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Revised Sample Box
User:SeventyThree was able to fix my box so that it works with included wiki code. I have created a template for it at Userbox Sample. This template should be suitable for use on WP:BOX. See here for an example:

And, if you use the generated wiki code, you get:



It's perfect! Give User:SeventyThree a big pat on the back ... this works great ... BigDT 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this kind of userbox listings for WP:UBX or a similar place. I think they encourage creativity and learning some wikicode to create your own self-made boxes for your own user page more than the regular ready-made userboxes do. (Real Wikipedians create their own userboxes). Kusma (討論) 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the raw code is broken out such that each param is on its own line. That is going to be a real pain if you want to put a lot of them on a userpage ... it will take up a lot of room. And I agree that educating users in WikiCode is a good thing. -- Cyde Weys 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking your advice, I made another version of it that has more compact code:

And here is the result from the code it generates:




 * Please see Userbox Sample2 and Userbox Sample. I have put a template usage notes header in both of them ... this should help users understand what is going on and remember to subst. BigDT 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I request that Userbox_Sample be renamed Userbox_sample (that is, with a lower case s) and that Userbox_Sample2 be renamed Userbox_sample_compact. I would also like to see the templates modified so that they don't leave a blank empty line above the box. Zerrakhi 05:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, don't forget that corresponding samplers need to be made available and documented for templates Userbox-r, Userbox-2 and Userbox-m. Zerrakhi 06:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And another thing. Please note that Userboxes does not presently document the "float" parameter of template Userbox. For clarity, therefore, the "float" parameter should not be mentioned in the code displayed by the above sampling templates except when the default value (left) is overridden. Zerrakhi 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for
I have a real concern about where this policy goes if it is passed. Once userboxes are no longer part of the template userspace but rather are shared among users unofficially it gets much harder to act in a centralized way. Which userboxes can be deleted? Which ones are trolling? Which versions of which userboxes (a userbox could have 1000 different versions in circulation with different language or images).

Just to pick an extreme example imagine a userbox with "This user supports freedom of belief" And that's just one forked userbox. Imagine hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of forked userboxes in userspace.
 * 1)  An image of an eagle
 * 2)  An image of the statue of liberty
 * 3)  An image of Osama bin Laden
 * 4)  An image of a burning cross
 * 5)  An image of the celtic cross (sometimes christian, sometimes white power, sometimes ethnic pride)
 * 6)  An image an old guy the admin doesn't recognize so can't figure out who this is aimed at
 * 7)  An image of minister Louis Farrakhan

And it can get worse from here if there are attempts to control. People who like the userbox templates might decide to keep them, and you start having certain user pages with lots of templates. But they get in trouble for a few so to avoid oversight userbox repositories might start migrating off wikipedia entirely onto other sites. So what gets accomplished in the end? We have userboxes that are more divisive supported by outside groups in places that aren't even subject to wikipedia administration.

Oh yeah and while we are talking about forked userboxes. What if they are pulling images from other sites (not wikimedia)? There may be copyright or obscenity issues with no easy central oversight. Also once they are part of userspace they acts against them will be taken personally. When an admin deletes a template he accidentally changes user XYZ's userpage. When he deletes a box directly on XYZ's page that is going to be seen as a personal attack and often against the ideas in the box. There is going to be genuine passion and not just mild annoyance.

I think the current situation requires consensus policy. That's going to mean really detailed long complex negotiation. Yeah that sucks. But I think that's what it is going to really take. I think the people who hate userboxes in template space will hate them much worse once they aren't in template space. Just my $.02 (from a guy with no personal interest in the userbox issue at all) jbolden1517Talk 03:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to find constructive ways of dealing with the problems, while retaining the strengths of this proposal. If you don't like something about it, suggest a way of fixing it! That's what I've done. When it became clear that one drawback would be the fact that people adding userboxes would have to go through reams of complicated code to do what we can handle easily and elegantly now, I suggested the obvious fix: keeping the " " syntax as a shortcut (but not a template) for the userboxes. People accepted that, and the proposal is now stronger for it. If you think decentralization will cause control problems, let's not abandon the proposal because of that. Let's try to brainstorm ways to fix it. Jimpartame 03:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well my proposal in the article was that we maintain a central repository of userboxes and slowly develop policy about what is an acceptable userbox. In other words a slow long detailed peace treaty not a one shot deal.  .  If you want me to throw out a proposal after the rules are made up I'd say deleting a userbox (or class of userboxes) should take 66% support of 50 or more editors on an open vote lasting at least 3 days.  That way its not seen as some admin just doing stuff arbitrarily OTOH the worst offenders can be gotten rid of.  jbolden1517Talk  04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say decentralization is a bonus, because enabling users to act in a centralized way isn't a stated goal of the project...unless they're writing an encyclopedia, in which case the centralized place is hopefully an article. Regarding offiste images, the software doesn't permit it. Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A further comment. Context is everything. One reason why I always preferring paragraphs when discussing myself (but that's me). I doubt very much an admin (or any editor) would remove something from someone's userpage absent a clear and compelling threat to Wikipedia or a personal attack. It would be unprecedented. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are OK with the above scenario than that kills the problem. I just don't see how the this is not worse than the situation now in tems of divisiveness which I thought was the root cause.  I'm starting to think I completely fail to understand the anti userbox policy.  You are right about the software issue with offsite images, I stand corrected.  jbolden1517Talk  04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not true; User:Gmaxwell removed a bunch of userboxes and stuff from my userpage, saying "Remove inflammatory content, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that this is a userpage is no excuse: wikipedia userpages are not a myspace replacement." He later replaced it, though. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it's good that he reverted himself. Exceptional, this case. I'd have reverted him, to be honest. Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

long-time sysops
Not really. For the most part long-time sysops have been staying away from this whole thing. The most identifiable figures in the anti-userbox group tend to be pretty new admins.Geni 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree, but that's just my view. I don't it matters, in the end, who comprises which group. That there's a disagreement is obvious. Mackensen (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that's the case, what's the point of making unverified attributions in a proposed policy statement? It's certainly counter to NPOV considerations. Rfrisbietalk 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This proposal isn't an article, and isn't subject to NPOV, even though I believe it to be balanced and fair. Nhprman 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Balanced and fair? I'm pretty sure that the statement we're talking about was never intended to be part of the proposal.  It was a c/p from a conversation at DRVU. Maybe it could be moved into this talk page as to not be confusing. BigDT 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Triggered by Kelly Martin who had only been an admin for 7 months. Carried on by MarkSweep who had only been an admin for a simular length of time. Current flagbarer appears to be Cyde who has maybe 2 months as an admin. The true long timers mostly stayed out things.Geni 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is about obvious commentary on a page that's called a proposal. At the very least, more sections like "Background" and "Proposed policy" would be useful. Rfrisbietalk 04:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy
I just have one thing to say. I admire--strongly--Mackensen's efforts to negotiate a peace. It is clearly a sign that the end is near to this conflict, by hook or by crook, that more and more people are realising that a peace is needed and focusing on it. However there is one fault I find and offence I take. The description of the proposal as a peace between warring sides, as a compromise that makes most people reasonably happy is significantly disingenuous. It does no such thing-- on the contrary, the proposal (read it carefully) is nothing less than the gradual phaseout of all userboxes (except, apparantly, Babels). That's not a peace. That's game, check, & mate in sheep's clothing. Even if it ends that way, I'll be happier than if it keeps raging on, but... I don't like the way things are being done, not one bit. D. G. 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a compromise. From what I've seen the two warring sides have opinions of "keep in template space" and "delete completely", so I think "keep, but in user space" is a reasonable line between the two. the proposal wouldn't phase out them completely, it would simply move them to user space. As I've pointed out earlier, my user page still contains userboxes, and it's in the state it would be in if this proposal passes. Personally, I have nothing against userboxes - even funny, non-encyclopedic ones - if used in moderation. They have been compared to bumper stickers, which is quite apt, as not many would object to a few bumper stickers, but if the car is covered in them to the point of covering the windows making driving dangerous, that is when it stops being fun. If I see a userpage covered in hundreds of little boxes, that gives me the same sinking feeling. The editor in question may be a long standing contributor, but the impression it is giving is harmful, as new editors think "cool", and copy it, and first time visitors do the same, signing up, but spending all their time on their user page, or editing userboxes) and not on the encylopedia, turning wikipedia into a free web host. That, I believe, is the core problem with userboxes, not the boxes themselves, but the mis-use and overuse thereof and the wrong impression it gives. Unfortunately I can not think of any ideal solution that would help with this overall issue. Even this proposal only tackles this indirectly, and I'm having second thought about it, if it would result in babel boxes being lost. Maybe we should try something simplier, like having a limit on the number of userboxes a person can have? In the same line as WP:3RR, there is nothing magical about 3 reverts or 24 hours, it's just an arbitary line in the sand to stop edit warring. Would a similar "line in the sand" work for misuse of userboxes, or would it get shouted down as another type of "censorship"? Regards, MartinRe 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the danger involved in having hundreds of userboxes on a user page? They don't cause any meaningful problems for the servers, so the only downside I can see is that it might make the page look kind of ugly. That's not something we should be trying to prevent with policies. Jimpartame 09:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See explaination from paragraph above: "The editor in question [with 100's of boxes] may be a long standing contributor, but the impression it is giving is harmful, as new editors think "cool", and copy it, and first time visitors do the same, signing up, but spending all their time on their user page, or editing userboxes and not on the encylopedia, turning wikipedia into a free web host.". So, yes, they look ugly, but they also encourage people to sign up for the wikipedia, use its resources, with no conribution to wikipedia itself. That is harmful. Just like employers often allow leeway for their staff to browse the web during work, if outsides see that, join the same company, and spend hours surfing, then more come in, and spend their entire day surfling and doing no work. (Not a perfect anology, as employee can be fired, but I hope you get the general idea) Regards, MartinRe 09:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem then is that this compromise does not confront that problem. :p After all, people can still stick whatever they like within policy - including userboxes - on their pages. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed :P Or at least it only confronts it indirectly. But I cannot think of a solution that confronts it directly that has any chance of being accepted. Limit of X userboxes/page? Limit of X userboxes/page for every 1000 edits you do? That would turn into a DnD leveling campaign! Ideally, community pressure might work asking people to reduce the numbers, but I think it's reached a critical mass that that won't work - if Jimbo himself can ask, with limited results. Hmmm, have another idea, will post in a different section. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, sir, the candidate official policy at Userbox policy does stipulate a rather reasonable limitation of 64 userboxes per userpage. D. G. 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kind of silly. If there's a user who has hundreds of userboxes, and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, then yes, that's a problem. But the problem isn't the userboxes, it's that he isn't contributing to the encyclopedia! You could have a hundred userboxes and write great articles, and you could have no userboxes but still not contribute anything meaningful. They don't have anything to do with each other. You still haven't identified anything wrong with "a userpage covered in hundreds of little boxes." Why does it give you a sinking feeling, and why should those users change to accommodate you? Jimpartame 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of us perceive an indirect relationship between the number of boxes on a userpage and the user's contributions to the encyclopedia (in part because they spend all their time editing their user page). Fair or not, that's a strong perception. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My user page has a number of boxes on it - but that number is unlikely to change, now that I've gotten it set up. My contributions to the encyclopedia, few (comparatively) though they may be now, will go up, OTOH, as I chase links and find things that I can knowledgeably add to. CHasing users away because you don't want them to take some time out to say "here's who I am!" in a space reserved, at least in part, for that purpose, is not going to help build the encyclopedia. Jay Maynard 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No disagreement there–we're talking about people who have been here weeks, even months, but have yet to move beyond the user space. This is a cause for concern. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This compromise isn't addressing the issue of whether userboxes on a userpage are harmful or not. It's addressing the issue of keeping userboxes in template space. As others have noted, this gives them what is apparently something of an endorsement or official sanction - this is especially so for newbies who may not be familiar with Wikipedia. Another thing is that now people will actually have to read a page explaining why some userboxes may be harmful, etc. (this page is of course the userbox directory) before adding a userbox, as opposed to the current situation where anyone can just stumble on a link to a userbox template and then go, "Ooh, shiny!" and sticking it on their userpage. Another benefit for the individualists would also be that this makes customising userboxes easier and more transparent. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem that Wikipedia is being used as a free hosting service à la Myspace, but userboxes are tangential to it. I've been doing a lot of work deleting improperly source and/or licensed images lately, and I have encountered the following situation with disheartening regularity: A brand new user starts a vanity article about himself, which instead of being speedied gets userfied by someone not wishing to bite the newcomers, i.e. the article Joe Q. Blow gets moved to User:Joe Q. Blow and the redirect deleted. The user has no problem with this, and continues to spend days getting his user page just the way he likes it. Then he disappears forever, having done nothing on Wikipedia but tell us all about himself, and never having made a single contribution to an actual article. I have seen this scenario (with slight variations) over and over again, and not once has the user had userboxes on his page. Making userboxes the scapegoat for the descent to Myspace both maligns their users (the vast majority of whom are valuable contributors to the encyclopedia) and ignores the real problem. Angr (t • c) 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This IS an interesting problem indeed. It is however entirely unrelated to the userbox issue. And I might add, it seems an easily solvable problem. (1) Don't Do That. Next time, bite the newbie. Delete the page, don't move to User:, and kindly explain to the newbie what was wrong. (2) Fix things up so User: is unindexed by engines. The first is easier done by individuals, the second would be more of a general policy change. D. G. 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is also a problem, yes. I think it might be reduced if user pages didn't get indexed by search engines, which they do now, and as wikipedia is just a major site, searching for your username will make it near the top of the list, and if your username is your real name, voila, vanity page on wikipedia, when most people won't realise that the User: prefix means unoffical. However, this problem already has a solution in mfd, even if that is after the fact. Or maybe we need to think of something completely different that might cover both cases, maybe new editors can't edit their userpage until they have been here a while? But that, like any other solution would hurt some good editors, and I can't think of any solution that will stop everything without causing inconvience to someone. The only debate is where we draw the line. Regards, MartinRe 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I never thought of MFD'ing the user page of someone who hasn't made any (or many) contributions. That's actually a good idea. I'll remember that next time I come across one. Obviously there needs to be a grace period, but if someone has only (or almost only) made edits to their own userpage, and done nothing else for, say, a month, MFD'ing is a good idea. Angr (t • c) 10:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think it is a compromise. From what I've seen the two warring sides have opinions of 'keep in template space' and 'delete completely'" - This is an obvious falsehood. The two warring sides say, and have always said, "keep in template space" and "convert into raw code". Noone has ever seriously argued that we can't allow the templates to be substed before they're deleted! Even the strongest opponents of userboxes, like User:Cyde, have long preferred substing to mere removal. This is no more of a compromise than any other proposal has been: it's exactly as DG said, the extreme of one end of the range of possible solutions. 100% take, 0% give. -Silence 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would note that this compromise accepts the principle of userboxes, and the idea that they belong on a user's page. That is something. It also provides a mechanism to create new ones, and to maintain a central listing. In return for the effective establishment of boxes, it asks that they leave template space. I don't find that one-sided myself, but that's me. This is also the only proposal, to my knowledge, which does not try (beyond babel boxes) to make any value judgement on individual boxes. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, Mack, but I think almost everybody is in favor of some value judgment, even the biggest userbox proponents. As an extreme example: "This user thinks all Jews should be killed." So I would say that this lack of a value judgment is actually a weakness. That said, value judgments are dangerous, and any proposal that contains one should be treated with caution. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Silence, please do not refer to my opinion, given in good faith, as an "obvious falsehood". I may be mistaken, I may not, but to suggest that I was lying is not helpful to this discussion. I would appreciate it if you stuck that word out and replaced it with something more appropiate, for example "obviously untrue". (I have no objection to being told I was wrong, but not if that implies that I deliberately said something false) Regards, MartinRe 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't "false" and "untrue" exact synonyms, sir? D. G. 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A "falsehood" has additional implications that an "untruth" does not.  Λυδ α  cιτγ (TheJabberwock) 00:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)