Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll

What's magic about template namespace?
Assume for the sake of argument that for the time being user boxes indicating interest or affiliation will continue to be allowed on user pages. What is the problem with keeping templates for user boxes shared by some group of users in template namespace? I think the namespace should be freely used for the convenience of WP editors. -- Meyer 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Userboxes expressing beliefs or affiliations have been used in attempts to recruit editors for vote-stacking in AfDs and other debates. Any userboxes distributed as templates can be used for such purposes. There are a number of us firmly opposed to allowing any such userboxes as templates, and we urge everyone to subst such userboxes if they must have them on their pages. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by vote-stacking? And how are user box templates exploitd for such recruiting schemes? -- Meyer 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When userboxes are distributed as templates, anyone can see who is using the box via 'What links here'. Also, if a userbox places an entry in a category, that can also be used to identify holders of a particular view or affiliation. There have been cases where users sent messages to editors displaying a particular affiliation userbox in order to recruit them to overwhelm a discussion. I've seen this done in Article for Deletion discussions and in a discussion on whether to delete a blatantly POV-pushing project. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. It raises some more questions:
 * Since the AfD process is not a vote but a consensus-building discussion, do numbers carry that much weight? Surely arguments like "I say delete/keep for exactly the reasons N. wrote above" or "I say delete/keep because the article's POV opposes/agrees with my own" are obviously irrelevant when the AfD discussion is evaluated. Aren't there rules already in place to deal with one or more participants trying to unfairly subvert a discussion? On the other hand, if everyone is making meaningful contributions to the discussion, is there a problem with getting a large number of people involved in an AfD process?
 * If we assume for the sake of the argument that getting a large number of editors involved in an AfD process can cause problems, when an editor invites others to participate in an AfD process is there a way to differentiate when this action is problematic "vote-stacking" and when it is harmlessly bringing a possibly interesting issue to another's attention?
 * Assuming both that a large number of participants can be harmful to an AfD process and that we can identify editors making contact with others for the purpose of unfairly subverting discussions, does moving user box templates out of template namespace improve the situation? Even if we move user box templates to user namespace, "What links here" can still be used to identify users. Besides, as you mentioned, Wikipedian categories can be used to identify pools of potentially like-minded editors. There's also user namespace search available. is powerless against those last two methods. I can see very little benefit to moving the user box templates to balance the lost convenience of keeping them in template namespace.
 * I guess I am seeing less and less problem with user boxes in the first place, and WP:GUS as no solution. -- Meyer 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would note here that userboxes moved to user space per WP:GUS still have a "what links here" function. And, to offer my two cents, the main problem I see with userboxes is that they are controversial, and seem to get all kinds of editors worked up. If moving them to user space is what it takes to stop that, then that is a solution to me. — Mi ra  08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Potential abuse of 'What links here' is one reason why users have been urged to subst all potentially controversial userboxes on their pages. Note that this also protects userboxes on user pages from changing every time someone edits (or deletes) the template. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  11:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It also prevents userboxes from changing when they are updated pluses vs. minuses. --NThurston 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but I prefer WP:GUS. The code produced by substing is bulky and hard to work with. — Mi ra  20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Namespace
I'm not sure how the whole Wiki system works, but if possible, wouldn't a completely different namespace such as Userbox:Userboxes be sensible for keeping userboxes in? Is this solution of introducing a new namespace for things like this completely unfeasible, or is it just discouraged? Cheers, --mdmanser 07:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:MUPP was basically the same thing you just proposed. — Mi ra  07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pegboard tally
Votes in the first row of a section are added to all other rows to get the true vote (eg- Bable would be 17+12=19 votes for template space).

Languages
Note: I took out double votes. Voting for the top category means the who thing. A second vote is not needed. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Life, status and situation
* With exceptions or split votes.
 * Double votes discounted as above. Just add the top number to every cat to get the whole vote. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics, opinions and beliefs

 * Double votes discounted as above. Add top cat to other to get full result. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Interests and tastes
* indicates split vote
 * Double votes discounted as above. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-related
* indicates split vote
 * Double votes discounted as above. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Other userboxes
Feel free to correct any errors. &mdash;Andux␅ 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Double votes discounted as above. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
I have tagged this article as needing clean-up. It has gotten too long and unwieldly to effectively serve its purpose. The instructions for voting in the straw poll are not clear, and it is actually quite difficult and time-consuming to cast a vote. --NThurston 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I urge you to not actually attempt this until there has been adequate discussion. -- Donald Albury 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even know where to start cleaning it up, so let's start discussing. --NThurston 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it has already served its purpose, needs no clean-up, should be restored to the original name and marked as historical/closed. GRBerry 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just voted with no issues or problems whatsoever. The Show Preview Button is great for this. -- BlueSquadron Raven 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop fiddling with this without prior discussion
NThurston, your changes here could be interpreted as an attempt to muddle the results of this strawpoll. Moving the page to a new title and then removing the old shortcut could also be interpreted as an attempt to obscure the the location of the strawpoll. Again, I ask that you stop unilaterally making changes to this page. Propose changes on the talk page and wait to see what consensus developes. -- Donald Albury 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad on removing the old shortcut. I misunderstood the instructions about double-redirects, and didn't realize that shortcuts and single redirects are OK even if there is nothing to link to them.  Once someone finally explained this to me (instead of ABF and rv'ing everything), I am good to go.  I am not attempting to "muddle the results," (whatever that means) rather make the straw poll more visible, easier to find, and more user friendly so that it can more accurately reflect the views of more editors.  Making changes in general doesn't require debate on a talk page, per WP:Bold.  If you have issues with specific changes, you will find that I am easy to work with, however, I do not subscribe to the "wait until everyone has a chance to comment" theory of Wiki editing.  Here's to more AGF happy collaboration!  --NThurston 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a strawpoll, not an article. Changing the structure or presentation of a straw poll after polling has started is bad form. Whatever your feelings about structure and presentation of the strawpoll, changing in the middle of the poll would cause confusion about who supported what. Once the poll has closed, it needs to be preserved in the same form as a historical reecord. Personally, I think moving the page in the middle of polling was also a bad move, and I would have moved it back if I had the power to. Please do not make any more changes to this strawpoll. -- Donald Albury 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles aren't the only pages that can be messy. I am not talking about a major re-do of the poll, such as changing the options of what to vote for.  Rather, it just needs some cleaning up to make it easier for people to vote.  I am convinced that there are many newbies that don't even attempt to vote because they can't figure out how.  It took me several tries to actually vote for everything that I wanted to and in the right columns, which must be a deterrent for some, and I am to this date still not sure I did it right.
 * Being in this line of work, I can tell you that it's perfectly fine to correct problems with a poll or survey as you proceed. In fact, it's the best way of doing it, otherwise you will be preserving biased information, and what's the point in that?  As for preserving a historical record, you're in luck, because every page has a "history" tab.  I also believe that putting it under GUS was creating a bias in the first place, so moving it to a more visible and content-neutral location can only be an improvement.  Finally, your comments suggest that you think that I have ulterior motives.  I recommend you spend some time at WP:AGF. --NThurston 15:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was created under GUS because it was intended primarily to figure out where and for what the active community would support GUS, or alternatively, what GUS should look like on the English language Wikipedia, as opposed to the German language Wikipedia. (To be certain, you'd have to ask the creator.) I'm surprised nobody slapped the historical tag on this yet. GRBerry 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Valid
There are problems with this straw poll which prevent me from accepting it as legitimate, which is sad because I actually thought that some of us were interested in working on a consensus. It has become apparent to me that this is a bully-pulpit for the deletionists. --NThurston 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How so? CameoAppearance 05:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is apparent to me that the location and structure of the straw poll creates a bias towards those who are active in proposing and supporting the GUS (and this is not just because the poll results are headed that way). Here are the specific issues that I have: a) its location - as a subpage of the GUS, it is arguable that most people would infer that it only relates to how to implement GUS.  This is likely to create a bias towards those that are active in the discussion of GUS (pro or con), and as with any project, this attracts more pro people than con people.  b) its structure - it is extremely difficult to place votes in its current form.  Those who are interested in userboxes, but don't know or care much about GUS as a compromise are likely to be deterred by the complexity.  c) some admins are using it incorrectly to justify consensus.  I have seen other proposals on this issue labelled "rejected" (see MUPP) because there weren't close enough to 80% or more.  Yet, people are moving forward using even unfavorable straw poll votes to justify doing stuff.  d) Any attempt I have proposed to make the straw poll more accessible or available to the broader userbox community has been quickly opposed and usually reverted, and for reasons I cannot fathom, people keep claiming that that I am only proposing this due to my biases?!  It was a long time ago that I agreed to work with the GUS to help find consensus and a workable solution (biases aside), but now I see that certain deletionists are not interested in consensus and have created a bull-dozer to push their point of view.  Hence, I no longer see the straw poll as a valid tool for informing decisions or justifying actions. --NThurston 12:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

People with GUS are not deletionists. We at GUS are trying to SAVE the userboxes, not just declare that userbox are sacred like you did! GUS is a comprimise, we get to keep the userboxes, and their not in the de facto wikipedia endourced template space. You complain because you don't like GUS, use the preview button! It's true that GUS ISN'T policy, but Jimbo has endourced it, Cyde has, and Tony has, so it is ALL we have. You are one of the very few that blatently objects to GUS. It doesn't matter what you do. The userboxes will all eventually be moved out of template space (except the bable/location/encyclopedic knowledge ones-that mean things like "this user is a lawyer"). -Royalguard11TalkDesk 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not everyone with GUS is a deletionist. I am "with GUS" (meaning I have agreed to help seek consensus as to how to implement it), and I am definitely not a deletionist. However, a few deletionists are trying to use GUS to their advantage, notwithstanding what GUS actually says, and notwithstanding a lack of consensus per talk pages and the straw poll. As for the straw poll, I still feel that the currently posted results do not reflect the broader opinion of those affected for the reasons given above, and would not recommend using them for decision-making. Beyond that, even if they are assumed to be valid somehow, I cannot see that there is consensus on very much at all. Grammar shows a 20-4 vote, which is barely over 80% (apparently a typical standard for straw poll consensus). Interests and tastes are running around 75% for userspace, which is not generally considered consensus. Education is running at around 50-50% which again suggest a lack of consensus, hence we are prevented from doing much at all, per GUS. So, I can't see why you can claim "The userboxes will all eventually be moved out of template space (except the bable/location/encyclopedic knowledge ones-that mean things like "this user is a lawyer")." which in itself is not consistent with GUS as currently written. --NThurston 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of Date
If I am understanding things correctly, they cannot check ISP address after 4 weeks. That means that this poll as it stands is no longer useful, since anyone who voted a month ago, could vote again with a sock puppet.

Also, the "belief" section has become moot per WP:JOU.

I suggest that we name this historical, and start again. - Jc37 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why start over? Are you claiming the results aren't valid? If so, what are your reasons? -- Donald Albury 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we only count opinions from the first month, the poll's results would be "no concensus". All opinions after that are apparently not verifiable as I mentioned above. As this is apparently the only place where concensus is attempting to be reached, if we are to continue the discussion, we would require a new poll, to "start fresh", in order to guarantee accuracy. - Jc37 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see User:Dalbury/Pegboard, which is the tally as of July 19, 27 days after the poll opened. That looks like much the same pattern as the current tally, with the non-encyclopedic userboxes consigned to userspace by approximately two-thirds of the participants. Note that this is not a typical straw poll, but an attempt to see where Wkipedians think different kinds of userboxes should be kept. I don't think there is any question that non-encyclopedic userboxes would not be moved out of template space, it's just been a question of when, and just where do we draw the line between userboxes that contribute to building an encyclopedia and those that don't. -- Donald Albury 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I interpreted this pegboard as a resounding and suprising defeat of GUS, but now I just realized how utterly confusing this pegboard is - does a peg in the "main" overarching box count the same as one in each subcategory? —AySz88\ ^ - ^  06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wanted all userboxes in a higher category to go in one space, you added your name at the top. If you wanted userboxes in different sub-categories to go in different spaces, you indicated that for each sub-category. I thought the instructions were pretty clear, and only two or three participants in the straw poll added their names in both a higher category and it's sub-categories. Those cases have been accounted for in the various tallies that have been posted. -- Donald Albury 09:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the instructions do say "Place your username ...in any cell for which you think it is the best match ...", which can be interpreted as every best match in every row. It's also a lot more than "one or two" (I count about five on a glance) but if it's already accounted for.... *shrugs* —AySz88\ ^ - ^  12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

discouraged by format
I'm betting a lot of users have been discouraged by the confusing format of the straw poll (as in, when you go to add your name). It took me forever just to vote for what little I did. I'm not sure how useful the data we get off these polls will be. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's a complete waste of time figuring out how to cast a vote. Does anyone actually still care about this issue? Although I'd prefer template namespace, I care less everyday. --WikiSlasher 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said in August, I am surprised that nobody has slapped the historical tag on it. So I will do so.  If we find reason to poll again, a new poll should be done.  GRBerry 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)