Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll/Archive 3

Neutrality of the meta analysis disputed?
Why? It's simple factual information, I tried to avoid adding excessive editorial. If people are going to look at a tally without reading what people are saying it should be clear that no all editors are equally experienced.--Gmaxwell 23:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (Why does it let you add sections but not me T_T tried 5 times) It's simple, the information does not belong on the poll page. The experience of editors is completly irrelevant to the poll.  The analysis clearly shows that "experienced" editors are tending to go towards support, however that information is irrelevant.  Why should someone coming to the page be presented with that information?  The point of the poll is for people to read the policy and vote on the policy, not to see how other people are voting and jump on a bandwagon with the more "experienced" (and I say that only because edit count is not an indication of experience) users.  The reason the pie graph of the total vote is fine is because it's an open poll.  Anyone who wants to see the current status of the vote can just count it themselves by scrolling to the bottom of the support/oppose sections.  You pretty much summed up my point in your comment here "If people are going to look at a tally without reading what people are saying it should be clear that no all editors are equally experienced".  You seem to be implying that the opinions of editors with more edits are more important then editors with less edits, that is not valid.  If you want to post analysis of the poll put it here on the discussion page where the information is relevant.  It does not belong on the poll page at all, atleast untill the poll closes.  In addition i'd like to point out that the analysis is out of date everytime 1 person posts a vote.  It's trivial to update the vote tally, however the "analysis" will only beable to be updated by you.  It simply doesn't belong for the same exact reasons that it's illegal to stand outside polling places on election day and tell every voter before going in that the "smarter people" are all voting one way.  It's trivial and irrelevant. If even one person's opinion on the vote is changed by your posted analysis then it will have tainted the poll results.  Seraphim  00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The statistics about the voters shouldn't matter until the poll ends, and, in practice, the statistics triggers biases of voters unrelated to the proposal. Implication of ad hominem, even if unintentional, is bad. I would just remove all the charts until the poll ends. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Anything that can change a voter's opinion that is unrelated to what they are voting on does not belong on what's basically the ballot.  Seraphim  00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. We don't have simple votes on Wikipedia, we try to achieve consensus through discussion. Since most of the participants here have said nothing about their views, we can only guess. In any case, a discussion of the voters is pertinent. Not all participants are equal. If I was going around declaring voters as smart or dumb, Seraphim might have a point... but I'm not, I've presented simple facts. --Gmaxwell 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First off the page is a vote designed to test for consensus. It is not discussion. The discussion is on this page ("Discussion on the talk page"~bottom of the article) which is exactly why i'm suggesting that your analysis be on this page not the vote page.  Secondly you said "If people are going to look at a tally without reading what people are saying it should be clear that no all editors are equally experienced." that shows that you are not treating all editors as equal.  The opinion of a person who has been here for 2 days has the same exact weight as an admin that's the entire point of a wiki.  Adding text to an "unbiased vote" to show people that the more "experienced" users have decided it's a good thing and they should support it is completly innapropriate.  The pie chart presents no new information, the page automatically tallies up the votes and the pie chart is just presenting the current poll standings, that has no bias to it at all.  Posting stuff like an "analysis" of the voters on the ballot is not appropriate at all.  After the vote is over then you can post it so people can determine what they need to change, what areas they should target, however posting it now taints the poll results by influencing voters.  They should be voting on the policy, not the vote tally or the fact that editors with alot of edits are trending towards support.  Seraphim  00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the reasoned opinions of new editors should count as much as reasoned opinions of old hands, I can't automatically agree that new editors should have as much of a say in site policy as experienced editors. It's hard to see how somebody with little experience in editing of articles can have a meaningful understanding of how writing of the encyclopedia (which is what we do here) really works. It is a common misconception among new editors (and among some old hands, too) that Wikipedia started just before they joined, and that things have always worked the way they worked when the editor joined.
 * All that said, the analysis does belong on the talk page, not on the poll.Zocky | picture popups 06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The analysis should be on the talk page. I don't have time to rebut the rest, except to say that cultural evolution is being misrepresented as cultural catastrophe. The actions of certain senior people in the userbox wars belie the assertion that experienced editors know what is best for the community. StrangerInParadise 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to update the tally?
It is well out-of-date. Also, could neutral/abstain be separated from comments, as some have voted and commented?

StrangerInParadise 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The raw tally has assumed somewhat less importance than formerly, since the attempts to fix the vote. The straw poll still does serve a useful purpose in indicating the strength of the consensus among experienced Wikipedians, however, as Greg Maxwell has ably demonstrated.  --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's putting a brave face on it. I'd love to take credit for sending this absurd proposal to the bottom, but plenty have come from all parts to oppose. The select announcement of this poll has done far more to fix the vote than my telling 43 people about it. If anything, this poll demonstrates its dependence on secrecy for its short-lived success. Also, although I am grateful to Greg Maxwell for his analysis, this does not factor out the self-selection factor, as respondents are biased (over the general population, experienced and otherwise) on this issue. You may claim an uneasy consensus among the selected minority that agree with you, but that is it.

It fails because it is unpopular and so poorly conceived, period. If you want to clean the namesspaces rather than wage a pointless culture war, consider my proposal, above.

StrangerInParadise 20:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If we interpret the split as just being caused by 90 days and a few thousand edits, there would seem to be no justification to calling this a 'culture war', most of these users views will shift as they stay longer with the project. This is the interpretation I'd like to prefer. If we interpret the split as being mostly between users who are lesser contributors and established high-quality contributors, then I think you could call it a 'culture war'... but in that case, we should only be paying attention to the views of the established and high-quality contributors since they are doing much more to further the goals of the project. --Gmaxwell 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the case at all. The "split" is seen easially by the admin vote, people who are in charge of cleaning up messes want a policy on this, heck alot of the support votes are just saying "this is good for now".  It just so happens that the people who are in charge of cleaning up messes are people that have been around longer.  Plus edit count doesn't mean that your accomplishing anything with the edits.  If I hadn't gotten involved in some contravercial pages by accident my edit count would be significantly lower well below the 980 edit number.  Your idea that my imput is less important then yours is not a very enlightened pov.  WP works by reaching consensus, it doesn't work by reaching consensus only within an aristocratic group.  Seraphim  21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you were trying to say; my reading of your comments ends up with the impression that you agree with Greg's argument, above. The split here is between unenculturated newbies, who are not familiar with the nature of Wikipedia, and enculturated non-newbies, who are.  Basically, people who have been here a while "get" it, and people who haven't don't.  It's not a culture war, it's just learning curve.  The reason why most of the admins are on the "support" side is that in general people who don't "get" it don't get made admins (although there have been some exceptions to this).  Now, if it happens that a lot of our current unenculturated newbies are actively refusing to "get" it, well, then, yes, there's a culture war.  People who don't "get" Wikipedia (that is, those who don't understand that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia) shouldn't be in the community.  Anybody who is here for a purpose other than to write an encyclopedia, or who is here pushing notions that are inconsistent with writing an encyclopedia (for example, the notion that Wikipedia is, or ought to be, a free speech forum), will find that their presence here is not desired.  Kelly Martin (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much to be established between the results you have assembled, and your claim that the proponents are high-quality contributors, or that their views will shift, though if the latter were true, then there would be no use for a policy to begin with- newer contributors would outgrow their silly userbox infatuation. I have been here much longer than this username would suggest. StrangerInParadise 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the thoughts of those who have less of a stake in the project count for far less than of those who have made substantial contributions. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

StrangerInParadise is of course trying to claim that the straw poll was inadequately advertised. This is simply incorrect. It's been advertised on Village Pump, Current Surveys, Centralized discussion and WikiProject userboxes for about two weeks. He is attempting to defend the indefensible: his doomed attempt to sabotage a policy poll by spamming inflammatory edits on many user talk pages of people he hoped would cast a kneejerk vote against the proposed policy. It is precisely that kind of sabotage that reveals someone who does not understand how Wikipedia makes policy. "Getting the vote out" will never work. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it an aristocracy. I won't bother refuting- again- how this poll is not adaquately published.  My point is not that the proponents deliberately obscured it, but that inherent to how it is published, it is not representative of the community, the consensus of which you were trying to demonstrate, at least until you shifted gears and claimed to demonstrate consensus of the quality part of the community. As to the stake in the project you claim on behalf of the better sort, please consult WP:OWN, which applies broadly as well.


 * StrangerInParadise 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Before people continue to generalize, shouldn't we take a look at the actual stats first? I doubt that all of the 43 solicitations translated into actual oppose votes. With 129 support votes, 64 oppose votes would drop the proposal to under 70% - which would occur even if 22 votes were tossed out from the count right now. (Up to something like 85%, I would think that people would need take a look at the arguments before declaring a consensus.) I really think that the arguments should be looked at first before dismissing so many opinions just because some/many people voting on the same side have fewer edits or are newer. If too many people don't understand the reasoning behind the proposal - even new people - that's a fault of the proposal, not the voters. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, consider the consensus on the oppose side that they are comfortable with modes of POV and NPOV communication as they are, and find the proposal absurd. Tragically, there are several votes on the support side who are voting only to end the conflict. StrangerInParadise 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose vote and Comment
Oppose 1/ the technical limitations argument is specious 2/ If "political" userboxes go, then all the 9/11 and US war in Iraq related userboxes have to go 3/ This proposal would offer aid and comfort to those deleting user categories which has already happened as part of the action against userboxes (come to my talk page and ask if you want an example). Alex Law 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I felt I had to put this here given the scale of the problem. Many people seem to be voting 'oppose' on the basis that the proposal will prevent the use of userboxes/expression of opinions on userpages. This is not the case. You will still be able to use POV userboxes on your userpage - the only difference will be that you will have to use the ... raw code rather than a template call Cynical 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on comment. Cynical seems to have misread me. Their comment on my vote seems utterly unrelated to the content of my text.

Currently affiliative Categories are allowed, currently affiliative Userboxes are allowed. However, a small group of very active admins is deleting these outside of policy, including by emptying categories by editing all affilated userpages, and then speedy deleting the category as empty. This proposed policy offers aid and comfort to that behaviour (indeed institutionalizes it), without addressing any of the underlaying issues.

What this policy seems to say is something very much like: "You may place any bumper sticker on your car (as long as you hand lettered it, you may not duplicate any other bumpersticker). You may not purchase bumperstickers from a third party."

I find it disturbing that attempts to bring this vote to the attention of people who may vote in opposition are being actively targeted by some partisans by various uses and (I feel) misuses of proceedure. Alex Law 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently only four (really five if include Ian13) advocate my "Conditional Support" category, but it would answer your bumpersticker issue; though you would still lack affiliative categories for partisan POV userboxes (policy: all boxes could be hard-coded, only non-partisan boxes could be templates).  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times and in how many ways shall I have to say this, StrangerInParadise 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * new namespace easy
 * hardcoding dumb

When?
Since when do we require the need to utilize template space for bloody userboxes like ...? I was under the impression template space was for mainspace and articles; its all too simple to create userboxes independtly in userspace. This isn't boxopedia.-ZeroTalk 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not under the proposal, which defines transclusion from userspace as "templates" depending on its content. This is really about association and dissemination, not pizza. StrangerInParadise 16:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Curiousity simply slapped me there. I would be interested to know how the inclusions of an template saying "I consume pizza" is constructive to the encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Image:Ducks in a pram.jpg thing isn't completely constructive either, and userpage and pic of the day are just courtesies, but I don't really see any objection to those. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Solicitation
A disengenuous, bad faith solictation of voters has made this poll inherently untrustworthy. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence for this conclusion. Ansell 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * StrangerInParadise's contributions are a notable example. For example, [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], and especially []. How absolutely ironic. The policy is being shot down using the very vote stacking it was partially meant to prevent. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While StrangerInParadise's action was unacceptable (and he should stay blocked until he figures out why it was wrong), it's not really changing the results... if you exclude the votes from all those people we still get the same general outcome. --Gmaxwell 08:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You assume that this user is the only one doing this. I've seen many other users doing the same; whether or not it significantly affected the outcome doesn't particularly matter at this point. It just goes to show why we need this policy, and why the fact that we need it will prevent us from getting it. Administrator cynicism level up. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That a fair point, but we had problems with vote stacking before userboxes existed (for an extreme example, see Wikiproject Schools history). It's better to address things by attacking the root cause. Why are we allowing twits to have a voice? Wikipedia is not an experiment in extreme anarchy.--Gmaxwell 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this vote stacking? How is it possible to stack a vote that is by definition Wikipedia-wide? Which of the 255 UN Wikipedians who would be forced to disolve should not have been told of the vote? (Hint: every one of them was a victim of various rogue actions such as userbox burning, category depopulation, etc, and are the tip of the iceberg of those affected, and most did not know about the poll).

How is it bad faith? My message to those contacted was simple,
 * You use Template:User UN and are listed in Category:United Nations Wikipedians
 * You were recently the subject of wrongful blanking action by an admin abusing his tools, and were briefly delisted from the category
 * There is a policy poll, which should it pass will mandate the deletion of this category and template
 * I urge you to oppose it

It should be obvious that,
 * This proposal has only minority support, but is buoyed only by its very obscurity
 * Support was sinking before I told even more people about it (as I predicted above)
 * It is advertized mostly in places were admins read
 * The percentage of admins responding is much higher than in the affected community
 * It is a divisive power grab on the part of a highly ideological faction of admins
 * It is an awkward implementation

I have been told that by telling 43 Wikipedians about this poll (I intended to tell about 55— S through Z— and call it a day), I disrupted an attempt at consensus. What would consensus mean if only a self-selected 80% of one-fiftieth of one percent of Wikipedians managed to support? The policy would be slammed into effect immediately.

I've been accused of doing something out-of-policy. The blocking admin cited an arbcom ruling on an editor who tried to stack a vote on a small content dispute. How does this apply to me? How would I know this was even against policy. Where was the warning that this was a blockable offense (hint: not in any policy page I've seen)? BTW, I was engaged in discussion with Midspillage on why this was a problem when I was blocked. The notion that the block is the only thing which stopped me is ridiculous, as I was unblocked immediately and did nothing further.

Finally, enjoy the spectacle of the supporters of this proposal making several false accusations, then conspiring right in the AN/I to use it to push passage of their proposal, in part by banning me until it is over.

I'm the one corrupting process?

StrangerInParadise 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think everyone should assume good faith on the part of the admins. If you thought people should have been notified somewhere else, suggest such a place instead of unilaterally trying to petition users - recruiting biased people and biasing them before they've even seen the proposal is probably worse than what you're accusing the admins of.  (I don't want to repeat the rest of what I said before under .) --AySz88 ^  -  ^  23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if this was supposed to make a point, then see WP:POINT. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise, it's vote stacking because you specifically targeted a large number of users who would be likely to support your position. Had you been more equal in your actions, contacting users on both sides, it would have been more acceptable. Your actions, if permitted, would just turn the discussion into an arms race over which side can spam the most users. Further, it would reduce the credibility of the outcome, because we can't tell how the results would have differed without the spamming. --Gmaxwell 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no different then posting the message about this poll to the administrators notice board.  Seraphim  00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's different. Posting a note about the discussion to every admin's talk page would be no different than this. Posting this to Requests for Comment and/or Village Pump (policy) would be no different than posting to the AN. -- grm_wnr Esc  00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, according to gmaxwell's numbers. 88.8% of administrators have voted to support while 11.1% have voted to oppose. Which means that advertising designed to specifically get more admins to vote could be considered votestacking.  Seraphim  00:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still a noticeboard (and it's not even read exclusively by admins). Okay, maybe the better analogy would be posting this to WikiProject Userboxes, which, surprise surprise, has happened with no objections. -- grm_wnr  Esc  00:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I answer further for my actions here. StrangerInParadise 08:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just had another look at that notice, and now understand what my detractors think of as a neutral notification,
 * A proposed policy on userboxes has been created to help decide what should be considered acceptable for userboxes. A separate straw poll is underway. It has been proposed to migrate some userbox templates to the user namespace.
 * The notice is quietist to the point of soporific. How about,


 * Nothing to worry about, just a little move to a lovely place called user namespace.  Oh, and we will be destroying this directory and all categories pointed to by userboxes.  Oh, and just a technical point, user namespace can't actually support userboxes without hardcoding.    Not a programmer? Let us explain further: you can have bumper stickers on your car, but only if you draw them by hand, and photocopy them one-at-a-time (and no glue on the back, and no central place to browse them).


 * Oh, it just gets better and better! StrangerInParadise 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to make your point clearer. Getting people riled up is bad and isn't protected under free speech - even in U.S. law - see Schenck v. United States and imminent lawless action.  At Wikipedia (in the context of the community), that would probably apply with something more like "non-good faith" instead of "lawless" - and soliciting with that kind of wording certainly promotes looking at the proposal without good faith). --AySz88 ^  -  ^  23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the harm here?
That (non-rhetorical) question needs to be answered before a policy can be proposed. (Let us define a non-helpful affiliation as one that is not directly related to editing interests, whether or not potentially divisive.) Possible harms and remedies include


 * Campaigning for votes by stated bias
 * Ban non-helpful userbox templates (unless they can be made non-traceable, as proposed at least twice in this talk page), and categories. Specifically allow boxes to be created in User-space (for copying) and cataloged in Wikipedia-space.


 * Server load problems
 * Ban second-order transclusions of boxes, even from within user-space. Ban transclusions of non-helpful boxes.  Specifically allow copying of boxes from userspace (or even template space) and cataloging in Wikipedia-space.


 * Stating bias on userpages
 * If this is a problem, then Wikipedia is dead as a concept. It is important for editors to be able to state their biases, so that other editors can determine whether they are improperly acting on them.


 * Casting disrepute on Wikipedia.
 * Only the joke boxes and boxes that would violate guidelines even in text form do so cast disrepute on Wikipedia. This proposal, on the other hand, does cast disrepute on Wikipedia, and should be resolved ASAP.

I should add -- Almost none of the userboxen in question are divisive. Those which are (not including objective statements of the user's affiliation or potential bias) would be deletable whether or not in a userbox, and should be deleted whether or not in a userbox.

&mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment 14 on the project page for an example. There have been other attempts at ballot stuffing, often very cynical.  Another case is here Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich where the editor canvassed Wikipedia inclusionists to save articles he had created from deletion, shortly before he initiated a series of retaliatory deletion nominations.  This proposal would let people continue to express their POV while reducing that sort of exploitation.  After reading it with a very critical eye I decided to give it my support. Durova 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Being inclusionist is relevant to the project, although possibly not helpful as I would define it. In other words, this proposed policy wouldn't have affected that case, as being inclusionist would almost certainly be an allowed userbox.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the other example where Roman Catholics were canvassed? Durova 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. The first step, which has not yet been taken, is to declare such canvassing inappropriate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, everyone thought that was obvious enough (from "Not a Democracy" and "Voting is Evil") that it something like "don't solicit votes" (00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)) doesn't have to be said. I still think that should be obvious enough, though apparently it might need to be said anyway. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It still seems that specifically allowing the "templates" to be cataloged and made available for copying is a good thing. Technically, the current proposal seems to state that, but others differ (see ). &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't really support this
This entire proposal has been tainted through excessive editorial in the preamble.

"there should be no prohibition; prohibition is, in any case, unenforceable. Users should be permitted relatively free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance". Bullshit. Wikipedia is not MySPACE. User pages do not exist for free expression, they exist to further the project. There is no free speech on Wikipedia. If we decided to limit the damage done to our project by users who choose to have unprofessional POV laden userpages, we could do so... Although that would require blocking users who place advocating their POV over the goals of the project, I don't believe that would be a bad thing.

The text goes on to make the free expression mentioned at the top meaningless by denying almost every case of free expression that anyone would likely ever disagree with. Some who share my position might consider this as redeeming the proposal, but I don't see it that way. To me that text just seems mealy mouthed and dishonest. It appears that we're trying to gather the support of users who think userpages should allow free expression by tricking them.

This theme is continued through the proposal... It makes bold statements claiming to support positions I find unsupportable, but then making those claims meaningless through limitations. I simply can't support this as a result. I understand that it has become exceptionally difficult to get anything accomplished on Wikipedia because of the hordes of me-too voters who don't understand the long term goals of the project, and refuse to discuss... merely voting down the party line... But if the situation has become completely broken, the solution is to disenfranchise the useless voters, not deceive them.--Gmaxwell 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Greg. This whole thing seems so..dishonest. I don't think anyone's trying to deliberately decieve here, but I don't like the way this is written. I can't support this, but I don't want it oppose it either because it's good in principle. But oh well.--Sean Black (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When JIMBO made wikipedia, he made a source of knowledge for us, but this is the year 2006! Userboxes are now the present. Wikipedia has changed greatly, and there is no reasons that USERBOXES ARE BAD. Wiki e Zach|  talk  05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't intrinsically bad, but they can be put to bad use like anything else. Some have caused harm on Wikipedia by encouraging users to argue rather than collaborate, and some cause harm by making our user pages look unprofessional and disreputable. All these things are possible without userboxes, but userboxes have become a single point where such problems are concentrated. Once the userbox issue is resolved, I have no doubt that we'll begin tackling the same problems elsewhere. There is certainly nothing special now compared to the start of the project that make userboxes more necessary for our project... in fact, I'd say that the use of userboxes has come along with a huge number of new users who don't really know the difference between Wikipedia and myspace. Which is all the more of a reason to clean them up.--Gmaxwell 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Although you don't seem to have noticed it much, the encyclopedia still exists. the wub "?!"  12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am intrested to know what the userbox haters think of my suggestion here. By using a technical solution, I think that both sides will get what they want. Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes--God Ω War 06:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good step, but I think you're missing the bit about how some people don't want the bias userboxes, now matter how they're being included in userpages.... --AySz88 ^ -  ^  06:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There will always be bias, either on userpages or in templates.--God Ω War 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Thats not a solution at all. The solution is to politely ask people who are doing harmful thing to stop and patiently explain why... and if they refuse, we should block them. --Gmaxwell 08:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Supress anyone who tries to express their opinions. Sounds like Stalinism to me. Hey, guess what? I will express my opinions on my user page...period. People also should have a reward for the time and effort they spend editing Wikipedia. Nothing big, just the right to express their opinions, so long as those opinions aren't meant to insult another user, group of users, or other users' beliefs. If I'm not biting anybody, why should I have a muzzle over my mouth? If you think saying things like "I support the Republican party" is biting, you need to think again. I slave for Wikipedia and what thanks do I get? A bunch of jerks telling me I have no rights here and there isn't a blame thing I can do about it. Can't you see how ridiculous such a philosophy is? Users should be able to contribute info and have casual fun away from the encyclopedia on the user space. The Wikimedia Foundation should start printing that "No rights" policy page in their ads and see how that goes over. I guarantee you that there would be protests and lawsuits. No rights, surpress induviduality, protests surpressed or falling on deaf ears, and Wikipedia's higher power not giving a crap about any of it...Ahhh, doesn't that sound wonderful. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC), proud supporter of WikiFreedom.
 * You "slave for Wikipedia"? Please don't.  If writing and editing the encyclopedia is not rewarding of itself, then by all means - stop doing it.  This is not a job.  You are not being paid.  This is a volunteer oppurtunity.  If you need a "reward for [your] time and effort" other than the enjoyment of the work, and the free use of the result, put your time and effort elsewhere.  Don't let   the door hit you on the way out. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Close:Parliamentary Rules on the Subject
Just some info here. If at any time, a user which has taken part in conversation and the voting of this new policy adoption feels that voting should cease, he can make a motion to close. This motion to close must immediately (within an hour or will be discarded) followed by a second, and then for a period of exactly 24 hours since the second was made, the vote will take place on the motion to close. It requires a 3/5 vote to close at a time, and may be made as many times as possible. Here is an example:

I move to close the voting.
 * I second the motion.

Then the 24 hours will commence. Just some parliamentary expertise, that's all. Wiki e Zach|  talk  01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the vote is scheduled to close on the 8th anyway. Seraphim  01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Wikizach's complicated parlimentary rules are not used at Wikipedia, are not used on this poll, and are irrelevant.  But thanks for trying! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) With less than 18 hours to go anyway, I don't see the point of doing something like this. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To Save Wikipedia, Please Read
As a person familiar with these kinds of controversies, I find it very hard to pick sides on this issue. I believe we are all trying to reach the same conclusion, that Wikipedia is to become more united. The bad thing is just that we dissagree on how to get there. I voted against the proposal, because when my attention was brought to it, I knew immediately of the confusion some people had. Since userbox policy must be made eventually, I propose that we just drop this vote, and allow for some more time for discussion. The more the better, even with an entire's month's worth already. I think what would really help if we divided the proposal. Just some thoughts as the vote climax nears.

Wiki e  Zach|  talk  02:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The vote ends in like 18 hrs... it's obvious there is no consensus on the policy so it won't be put in place. There's no need to drop the vote.  Seraphim  02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless suddenly there are 66 support votes (or 28 oppose votes are somehow tossed out), there will be additional discussion. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta analysis meta argument
Since it appears that Userbox POV pushers are going to continue to try to suppress this information, I've moved it to the talk page where no rational objection can be made. Now that its off the primary page I see no reason not to editorialize: I think it's clear that, overall, experienced editors are opposed to the current trend in userbox use. It is also clear the people in support of this proposal are not opposed to userboxes overall (nearly half use them themselves). It appears to me that the entire trend to use new userboxes has been driven by a set of new users, who have not yet adapted to our community and whom believe that their ability to abuse Wikipedia as a platform for 'free speech' (i.e. POV pushing) is more important than the goals of the project.--Gmaxwell 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Generalizations like this are uncalled for. I'm not a Userbox supporter by any means. My problem with the policy is that it actually gives extra protection to userboxes and gives users permission to do whatever they want on their userpage. All the policy does to userboxes is move them out of template space and into userspace.  Your insinuations that i'm a lesser user because i've only been here for 3 months, or that just because someone has more edits then someone else they are somehow more valuable go against everything wikipedia is.  You need to re-read the policy since apparently you are under the false assumption that the policy limits POV pushing, when infact it instead gives people the right to use their userpages for their own pov pushing.  Your demonstrating my problem with this vote very clearly, alot of people believe that the policy limits userboxes and POV pushing on userpages, when infact it does the exact opposite, it gives people the right to create whatever userboxes they want (in userspace) and to say whatever they want on their userpages.  Seraphim  02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your response is a perfect example of an ongoing problem we're having on Wikipedia: People need to quit jumping in with their own views before reading what has already been said. I don't think you're a 'lesser user', my statements are based on the aggregate not on single people... there are people I support and respect in both camps, but the oppose camp is far less experienced with Wikipedia overall. --Gmaxwell 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more I posted that 2 days and 6 hrs before you. You should try to read before jumping in with your own views next-time it keeps unnecessary sections from being started and clogging up the talk page. The fact that the oppose camp is less experienced does not mean our points are any less valid.  On here everyone is equal which means that a 2 day old user can cancel out a user with 25000 edits.  Age/edit count means nothing.   Seraphim  05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was indeed aware of your post, but didn't want to me-too... I thought my rant would have better visibility freestanding since that thread was 2 days old. :) As far as everyone being equal, you're quite wrong about that. We're equal in spite of many outside differences (our ages, our professions, etc) but our contributions, our experience, and our words are very significant. There might be a situation where a 2 day old user is considered equal to a longstanding contributor, but that would be rare indeed and I'd only expect to see it happen if the newbie gave an enlightened argument. Wikipedia is not an experiment in extreme democracy, and we don't believe that all editors are equal.--Gmaxwell 05:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unequal in some aspects doesn't mean inherently unequal in the "experience" aspect. I think "experience" especially is not something that determines how input is unequal - words, arguments, and reasoning probably yes, but edit count or account age?  Hopefully not - the opinion of someone newer shouldn't be at an inherent disadvantage (though they may be more likely to not be familiar with Wikipedia policies or norms). --AySz88 ^  -  ^  06:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First off "Your response is a perfect example of an ongoing problem we're having on Wikipedia: People need to quit jumping in with their own views before reading what has already been said." if you were aware of my thread why did you post that? It wasn't appreciated nor are your attempts at damage control. Also i'd like to point out that as far as wikipedia goes someone that's 2 days old is infact on equal footing with a longstanding contributor.  That's what makes the system unique, anyone can get an account and start editing.  Also i'd like to point out that I was talking in the sence that on this poll someone with 2 edits or 3000000 edits both get counted equally, the only person that's above the vote is Jimbo.  Also I don't know where you got your information that says "we don't believe all editors are equal" because that "we" is talking about a small majority who are going against the ideals of wikipedia.  No editors are above other editors, not even admins("Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided that they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."" From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but they should be a part of the community like anyone else").  All editors are equal, their voices are equal, their opinions are equal, mabey newbies might not be aware of some of the policies but it doesn't prevent them from typing, that's how it works here.  Seraphim  06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but it's not evidence for the merit of the proposal. If anything it suggests that the concerns of the less experienced users have been overlooked until now, possibly because there are tacit understandings among the more experienced users about how things work, which have led them to underestimate the upset this process would cause. Putting it bluntly, it could suggest that there's an elite corps who were getting out of touch with the troops. I'm not necessarily making that claim, but I'm pointing out that this sort of data is open to many interpretations, and that relying on it in any way is not a good way to argue the case. It's more likely to antagonise opponents of the policy than to make them feel their concerns are taken seriously. Metamagician3000 03:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Metamagician3000, but less tentatively. I'd like to thank Gmaxwell for the admin/non-admin breakdown, which confirms what I already suspected.  I called this civil war above, and Babajobu refered to it as a class war.  Gmaxwell's implicit thesis seconds this.  Beyond this, I have also called it a culture war, between NPOV-hardliners and, well, call us declared-bias advocates. As I say on my user page, I think the view of the NPOV-hardliners betrays a flawed understanding of NPOV, and perhaps a failure to adapt to a cultural shift. Also, the high admin support is likely in part a frustration with cleaning up after conflicts they see as facilitated by the userbox phenomenon. As I point out above, the cultural issue has been mixed with the goal of purifying namespaces, to the cost of both. StrangerInParadise 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"10.1% of opposers are Wikipedia Administrators, 40.9% of supporters are Wikipedia Administrators" - As Metamagician already said, this sort of data is open to many interpretations, even the polemical view bellow may also be offered:

Conclusion: Administrators are unconsciously predisposed to keep their power by not allowing users to organize efficiently. For this reason they are supporting policies that make organization by POV harder, (but rationalize this action by saying that it will reduce "corruption" in the voting process, etc…). --Leinad ¬ pois não? 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Generally speaking, people want power and the ability to tell others what to do.
 * 2) This is also true for administrators. (It is not necessarily selfish or anything: the person may believe he will “do the right thing” for the project...)
 * 3) Users organized by POV will likely reduce the power of the people currently in charge (i.e. administrators).

Vote to Divide Proposal
I hereby move to divide the implemention section of the proposal, so as to allow for better and more detailed concensus, creating four seperate resolutions:

Userboxes that are blatant infringements of applicable Wikipedia policy, such as No personal attacks, should be speedy deleted.

Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should not be immediately deleted. These should be substituted onto user pages, or users notified to substitute them onto their user pages. These templates should be deleted after a period of four weeks grace or once all instances have been substituted.

Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the project'.

Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements may be copied onto some special pages, from which they may be cut and paste (hard-coded) onto userpages as desired.

-- Wiki e Zach|  talk   04:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be good to split the criteria too. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea to vote on the different parts of the proposed policy seperately. A comment on your first proposed resolution: what is to be done when a userbox blatantly infringes on WP:NPOV ?  At least in the original proposal POV userboxes are explicitly allowed in personal user space, which is why I've voted to support the proposal. -- noosphere 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarification:
 * The first point must make it clear that WP:NPOV is not "applicable Wikipedia policy" for the purpose of that provision.
 * The second point must add that all deleted templates which do not violate the first point shall be undeleted (returning to the status quo ante vandalism). (This needs to be added in the same point, rather than as a separate point, or voting becomes entirely too conditional.)
 * The fourth point should have "may" replaced by "shall".
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose
A lot of people are giving Strong Oppose. Does that make any difference over just Oppose? Gerard Foley 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Insofar as consensus is to be demonstrated, the difference is qualitative. StrangerInParadise 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand any of that. Gerard Foley 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The only difference is to judge how strong the opposition is, i.e. the difference between a "no" and a "hell, no". --AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Shall we now have a contest to see which side can add the most adjectives to their statements of opinion? --  Donald Albury (Dalbury) ( Talk ) 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But does it make a difference to the result? Gerard Foley 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Tony Sidaway (above) only the opinion of administrators and (experienced users) matters ever since they lost this poll.--God Ω War 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let each side call forth their champions! The matter can only be decided in a face-off between,
 * Strongly Oppose so much that it can even be lethal, versus
 * Inflammable super strong extreme lesbian support

...and I confess to being less than sanguine about the outcome! =]

StrangerInParadise 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are all missing the point of consensus-building. There aren't sides.  People should give their honest views, and then someone puts together everything (including view strength and reasoning) and gives their guess on whether there's a rough consensus.  That's how it's done on AfD at least, but it's a hard job here. -- SCZenz 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta analysis
Updated as of 06:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)




 * 50% of supporters have fewer than 3649 edits, while 50% of opposers have fewer than 920 edits.
 * Supporters have an average of 2.42 total edits per article edit, while opposers have an average of 3.14 total edits per article edit.
 * Supporters have, on average, used Wikipedia for 3.3 months (108 days, vs 90 on the last stats run) longer than opposers.
 * Opposers have, on average, edited 795 distinct Wikipedia articles while supporters have edited 1557 distinct Wikipedia articles.
 * 10.1% of opposers are Wikipedia Administrators, 40.9% of supporters are Wikipedia Administrators.
 * 56.1% of opposers have a userpage which trancludes a template matching the regular expression ^[Uu]ser_[^-]{3,}.*$, while 44.3% of supporters transclude such templates in their userpages. The regular expression is designed to match most userboxes but exclude the babel boxes. A table showing the userboxes most frequently used by voters is available.
 * On average, opposers use 20.2 distinct three or more character userboxes, while supporters use 6.1 on average.
 * In the past 34 days opposers have made an average of 5.2 article edits per day, while supporters have made 11.2 article edits per day.
 * These numbers are incorrect. Someone needs to go over them and fix them. "Supporters have an average of 2.42 total edits per article edit, while opposers have an average of 3.14 total edits per article edit. " combined with "Opposers have, on average, edited 795 distinct Wikipedia articles while supporters have edited 1557 distinct Wikipedia articles. " make the statement "50% of supporters have fewer than 3649 edits, while 50% of opposers have fewer than 920 edits. " impossible. If 50% of opposers have fewer then 920 edits, 50% have above it therefore the average edits by opposers is 920 edits.  Opposers have an average of 3.14 edits per page and have edited on average 795 pages, 3.14*795 = 2493. 16 as the correct average edits for opposers, not 920.  Nobody should consider these numbers valid they are biased towards supporters. (If you do the same calculation average edits per page vs average amount of pages edited for supporters you get 3767.94 average edits per supporter which is close to the 3649 number he has posted and can be explained by rounding errors, however the difference between 2493 actual avg edits for opposers vs the 920 listed is too large to be simple error, especially when the same discrepencies were in the older numbers posted)  Seraphim  19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your analysis of the analysis is mathematically defective. Please refer yourself to any book on elementary statistics to understand why "If 50% of opposers have fewer then 920 edits, 50% have above it therefore the average edits by opposers is 920 edits" is invalid.  Kelly Martin (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the mean and the median are so different for the group in question. Haukur 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You could have pointed out her error and linked to median and mean without being so insulting. Also, mean and median should probably both be listed explicitly. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I read it wrong. It says alot about the bias of the editor that he chose to list the median which has a significantly larger disparity then the mean, but not even mention the mean.  The fact that the opposers have more edits per page, and obviously due to the disparity of the median and the mean have a large block of editors with very high edit counts, shows that it's not simply unexperienced users not backing the article. I think the most important number for people to notice is that the opposers have a lower number of administrators (who have a large number of their edits as simple administrative edits) and tend to grab onto a single page instead of just randomly going around spell checking pages or running bots.  Seraphim  23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Insulting? Just stepping in and crapping on the data is insulting. You could have just pinged me and I would have explained that the median is not the mean. If you want the raw data, you're welcome to it. The numbers are accurate. The mean is a less informative metric in this case because strong outliers like SPUI make the mean somewhat non-representative. If there are 100 people in a neighborhood, 99 have $100 in the bank, and one has $1,000,000 would we be correct to say that the average person has $10,099? This is why I provided the CDF graph. The disparity of the mean is pretty large as well, this is reflected in the average article edits / 34 days. I thought it would be silly to state what is effectively very simmlar data twice (means of article edits/day and mean of total edits) Since you're being a twit about it: The means for total edits are 2831.2022 and 5560.7584 (same data as the most recent graphs). --Gmaxwell 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and BTW. "More edits per page" doesn't always mean "grab onto a single page", often it means they don't use preview. In anycase, avg(art_edits/distinct_articles) is only 2.4 for support 2.1 per oppose, and I don't think thats a big enough difference to mention. If I compute the "average time between edits to the same article" for each group, I promise that it would be vastly lower for the oppose group, since I've measured that in the past and it was strongly related to time on the site and number of total edits.--Gmaxwell 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)




 * Question: does this graph account for the userboxes burned by vandals and recreated by users? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by StrangerInParadise (talk &bull; contribs).
 * "Burned by the vandals"? ... why haven't we banned you yet? Assume some fucking good faith, dickhead. --Gmaxwell 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who else would burn a userbox, and how would good faith apply? Or do you deny this sort of thing ever happened? BTW, where was your assumption of good faith in my question? I'm a bit of a fan of this meta-analysis. StrangerInParadise 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiki isn't paper. It doesn't burn. :) I'm not failing to assume good faith, I'm sure you have the best intentions while you crap on the project and that you can't help being a divisive dick. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it. --Gmaxwell 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Though it was too biased for the vote page, I have supported your analysis. How is it that you, who are trying to statistically split respondants into two quality groups are less divisive than me, who has spent considerable effort including as many people as possible, defending Wikipedia against many acts of vandalism against a broad spectrum of pages and patiently answering (sometimes foul-mouthed) detractors?  How am I crapping on the project simply because I disagree with you?  For your language, how will you not be banned? StrangerInParadise 06:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "*10.1% of opposers are Wikipedia Administrators, 40.9% of supporters are Wikipedia Administrators." is a fact, I'm just reporting on it. Your 'vandal admins burning userboxes! stop the terror!' is divisive. I'm not shocked that you can't tell the difference, since you didn't see why your talk page spamming was wrong.--Gmaxwell 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Those who burn userboxes are vandals", is a fact. That admins were doing it (or that it might bear a resemblance to terrorism) was not relevant to my question about your statistic, which you have yet to answer.  "Vandal", signifies only the wrongful removal which would skew your results towards newness (as opposed to the volutary removal and replacement).  Your thesis is divisive, but not terribly inflammatory (perhaps because few have read the inherent elitism in it). I don't have a problem with it, so long as it is on the talk page.  I do have a problem with your hostility, language, and of course massive assumption of bad faith because I disagree wih you. StrangerInParadise 16:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I certainly remember people pointing in previous discussions that many of these apparently "new" userboxes where actually older boxes that were moved to new names by copy and paste (with the loss of their edit history). But I don’t know if this statement is accurate. --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] pois não? 06:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite a few of the boxes used to be combined using switch, but then were split into new templates due to the now-defunct Avoid meta-templates. I'm not sure which peak that corresponds to, or exactly how many have its origins from that. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

More meta
I found it interesting that both people supporting and opposing this policy make widespread use of userboxes. That made me wonder if there is a difference in the character of the userboxes they use. I've provided a table below with the top 50 userboxes used by voters. The userboxes with only two characters like User_en and User_fr-1 were excluded in the percentage numbers I gave, but I've included them here. --Gmaxwell 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)