Userboxes have been widely used by editors as one of many means to express themselves in Wikipedia. Although most userboxes contain mostly neutral and trivial information, some contain expressions and assertions which other editors may disagree on. These disagreements may sometimes turn into heated debates, creating divisiveness within the community. There have been several discussions on interpretations of policies and guidelines over these userboxes, both in keeping and deleting them altogether, or keeping some while deleting others.

This RFC has been opened to create a centralized and civil discussion on past experiences and current opinions in order to try establishing discernible consensus, which could be used for making future decisions on this matter. While this RFC was not created to reach a final decision on these debates, I hope we can present fair arguments and suggestions to help editors create and manage their userboxes, as well as for administrators in resolving disputes and deletion discussions. For more information, see the Miscellany for Deletion discussion which sparked this request for comment. Thanks for your time. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes, particularly its Content restrictions section, states:[1]

• All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
  • Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
  • Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes, and vice versa.

If you're talking about something like this:

It's already covered under current policy.

If you're talking about something like this:

etcetera, Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Don't be oversensitive and accept the fact that you're going to come across things that may offend you or that you might not like, such as the boobs on Breast or the butts on Buttocks or the word shag on Ball washer. Part of being a responsible editor involves being mature enough to not be bothered by these kinds of things.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen, please view my third comment below. It directly argues against your suggestions. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen, what about stuff like this?
User:Tedius Zanarukando/Userboxes/User notrousers4women
And if you check his page (User:Tedius Zanarukando) he's pretty much got the whole barefoot and pregnant theme going. Aside from warning me that the user is a wingnut, what purpose does it serve on Wikipedia?

What about this one: User:Jw21/deUBdomain/"supports" bush invasion

Legotech (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning you that a user is a wingnut is not a valid encyclopedic purpose? —Random832 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh...ok Random, I'll give you that one...but what about this one:

Does anyone REALLY need to know that about another user?Legotech (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one about skirts made me chuckle. Its purpose is to make Wikipedia more fun. As for the second one, that's a violation of WP:CIVILITY, because of the words "damn gay liberals. Even under current policy, you can't go tossing bigoted epithets around, so that user should be reported. As another example, if there are theoretically any userboxes like this:

Those can and should be easily removed, under existing policy.

Anything beyond that is censorship. For instance, these do not violate policy:

As much as I despise radical leftists like A.N.S.W.E.R. and as much as I despise Ann Coulter's fanbase (see Stormfront ) or Nick Griffin's fanbase if you're British, all people with radical political beliefs on Wikipedia deserve freedom of speech, provided that they are civil and act in accordance with policy. As for circumcision, who cares? It's not like they posted a picture. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the pro-Iraq userbox above with speedy delete. It should be removed fairly quickly. As for the one on circumcision, I looked into it, and it appears that there isn't even a user named User:CutUncut, so anyone could likely remove that as well with a speedy delete tag and without attempting to move Wikipedia in the direction of censorship. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen I would agree that the one about skirts could be funny, but the guy that made it didn't do it as a joke...here's whats on his userpage:

"Dislikes: video game censorship and its proponents, strict authorities, oppressive regimes, feminist ideology, female superiority, chip music, female fashion that does not comply with male wishes (or tomboy fashion), persecution of femininity, union of church and state, matriarchy, anything offensive to the male sex, having an intimate relationship, manufacturing in the People's Republic of China for non-Chinese companies, greedy business practices, bogus or draconian laws, prudery, fundamentalism or oppressive religious groups, sepia photography, destructive cultures, fascism, racism, ableism"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tedius_Zanarukando

Which is why, in context, its just not funny.Legotech (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, the text above is meant as a joke as well. Why don't you ask him? And even if he's serious, if it's not reflected in his editing or comments to others, so what? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, an admin censored deleted the userbox with the comment "(please, no) " DGG (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate the anti-opinion guys here... I'll have to comment that my userbox, the '"support" Bush invasion' one, is in a sarcastic tone, and is supposed to be sarcastic. Notice the userbox title is User:Jw21/deUBdomain/"supports" bush invasion. I even requested a nomination for deletion for my own userbox, so I can observe what this community has to say about issues related to this.

Oh yeah, what's wrong with disliking "video game censorship", "strict authorities" or "oppressive regimes"? Disliking "feminist ideology" doesn't automatically make you anti-feminist/pro-masculinist, especially when this user dislikes "persecution of femininity". To banish a user that is against the "union of church and state" isn't really an example of an online community of equal and balanced members. We do need conservatives as much as liberals.

And please sign your name with that signature button, everyone. This forum's getting real messy already. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|25-17-4} 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a better way to spark debate than to create a userbox that you know is against policy [not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point] Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point...and [be a dick]Don't be a dick.

Also, "persecution of femininity" is not persecution of femisists...the first says he doesn't like anything that takes away from being girly girl, the second says you don't like people who are haters.Legotech (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia is not the place for advocacy then that pretty much eliminates all the political userboxes. I'd be fine nukin' 'em all. Most userboxes can get off on the technicality that they have a chance at aiding in encyclopedic collaboration, since one can tell which topics a user might be interested-in, or knowledgeable-about, based on posted userboxes. However, boxes that just state a viewpoint on an issue, rather than just an interest in a topic, are not only excluded from that technicality, but can also have a negative effect. Advertising POV userboxes can enable people to more easily choose collaborators that hold the same POV, which can more easily slant the articles they collaborate on. Simply put, they make it easier for the community to divide. Boxes that simply state a positive interest (like "I like this TV show") don't have that potential effect. On a personal note, I see Wikipedia as a place where we leave our POVs at home and come together to write unbiased articles. Reminding each other that we disagree on political issues is just not necessary, carries no benefit, and has too much potential for negativity. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:17, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Legotech (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke them all from orbit, that's the only way to be sure. WilyD 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you nuke politics, you have to nuke religion too. It's a very thin line between this user supports Israel or This user is a Zionist and This user is Jewish. It's also a thin line between this user supports country X and this user is a member of Wikiproject country X. Are you really supporting nuking all of that from user space? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between "This user hates dirty hippies" and "This user is a member of Wikiproject:Counterculture". One is "collaboration - relevant" and one ain't. I could be a member of Wikiproject:Canada because I'm Canadian, interested in Canada, think highly or lowly of it, or just have some expertise that allows me to comment. Similarly, anything else that's "This user is somehow knowledgable about or useful to articles on X" is still worthwhile - I may be a member of Wikiproject:Intelligent Design because I'm a creationist Intelligent Designer or a Scientist interested in public outreach, which means I could be from either side of the debate. "I'm interested in/knowledge about/have access to resources on the Politics of Ontario is relevant to encyclopaedia writing and encourages collaboration". "I'm a conservative with a capital L" does none of these things - it's divisive commentary that actively hinders collaboration between people of different biases and encourages the formation of cliques, bands & so forth.

In conclusion - yeah, from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. WilyD 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link with this user is a member of Wikiproject X might suggest that they have passionate feelings about X, but in controversial subjects like politics and religion it's just as likely to be passion for opposition as passion for support. I see the links between the other examples you give but I don't think this one is entirely legitimate. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's it's even more tenuous - I might join some wikiproject because I have access to some kind of difficult to get resource on the subject, or relevant expertise, rather than any passion'd feelings. Having a university subscription to the subscription only journal "American Journal of Medieval Orthography" would be an excellent reason to join Wikiproject Medieval Orthography, even if you can't give two shits about the subject. It's relevant to collaboration. WilyD 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life an WP isn't about everything being positive, there is negative in this world and user's should be allowed to say that. If positive user opinion/belief is allowed then so should negative (within common-sense constraints). There's too much political correctness as it is. At this rate the WP logo should have a rose-coloured tint. So long as there is a human element to WP then good/bad, positive/negative, light/dark will always come to the surface. One cannot hope to stop it, all we can do is give a framework that utilises realism based common-sense rather than idealism. It is human nature to express opinion and belief systems. You won't ever stop it. To attempt to do so is a recipe for either frustration, disaster or futility. There are going to be editors who disagree, there are going to be editors that are inflamed. You cannot serve all the people all the time. Life isn't like that and neither should Wikipedia. People have to learn to deal with offensiveness in the real world, let them deal with it here too. --WebHamster 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about positive versus negative per se, although steering clear of negativity is one of the things Wikipedia does try to do in terms of communication between its editors. It's more about beneficial vs. non-beneficial, to the end-goal. To Kendrick, I don't see any thin line between declaring support for a country or a wikiproject. One lets people know what you're thinking and the other is just letting people know what you're doing on the encyclopedia. Same goes for "this user supports this" or "this user is a [something]-ist" -- these publicize your thoughts but have nothing to do with your role in the encyclopedia. Declaring your religion is iffy, but is something that can be dealt with separately -- they could be considered political and may warrant deletion as well. Anyway, this isn't about how "politically-correct" the encyclopedia "should be" or about rosey tints etc. Those are just personal perceptions. We should focus on what's the most beneficial in the creation of a reliable source of encyclopedic information, and on policy -- not on how agreeable or attractive the resulting forum would be to us individually. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:48, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

How is it beneficial for editors not to know the POV of the editors they are collaborating with? If I'm working in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't want to have to spend an hour to try and discern an editor's opinion if they are pro one side or the other. It'll be obvious for the edit history anyway, so why not encourage editors to put their cards on the table rather than force us all to walk thru a hall of mirrors? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point exactly -- you shouldn't be looking specifically for editors that agree with your POV to collaborate on articles. It doesn't help to produce NPOV content. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:00, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Because we don't judge editors. We judge their contributions. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the pro-Israeli editors already have a whole off-wiki mailing list they use to coordinate their efforts. It's bad enough when a dozen of them show up at an article to push their POV, but my point is, this just leaves the rest of us walking around in the dark. At least now you can figure out who these people are and where they're coming from. Pushing this entirely off-wiki and creating more speakeasys isn't a great idea. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is here in the DRV of Template:Messianic Judaism where, thanks to people's user pages, it was patently obvious that members of one religion were ganging up on member of another religion and !voting in favor of the TfD. Would it be better to not to have had that be plain to see? I don't think so. I don't mean to just harp on this one group but it's one I'm familiar with, and I'm sure you could find political blocs acting in the same way, e.g. Republican trying to rid the encyclopedia of an article that makes Republicans look bad, etc. I have to insist I'd rather know than not know who editors are for exactly these sorts of issues. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think questionable behavior in some instances, outside the wiki, warrants action to "make sure" (if it would even make sure) that it occurs within the wiki, so that we can "control it" or at least "be aware of it" (using quotation marks just to mark claims I find questionable). It's not only questionable how effective such a thing would be, but it's also radical-type thinking. It's like when that shooting happened at Virginia Tech and there was talk afterward of letting all students carry handguns on campus in order to protect themselves. You're talking about solving inappropriate behavior from a relatively small group by making it easier for everyone else to get started behaving inappropriately too. I think it's better to deal with these odd instances, or even ongoing instances if that's what they are, on an individual basis, rather than using a blanket solution that has the potential to cause more trouble, possibly from people who weren't even looking for a way to start trouble in the first place. Basically, I don't think this needs to become a battle. I think we can and should maintain policies of avoiding doing things we know have the potential to create negativity and divisions, while still being able to spot and deal with negative flareups that occur externally.

A point about your examples specifically, Kendrick: These incidents you mention happened even though we currently have these political userboxes, so evidently their presence hasn't been an effective preventer. POV userboxes don't mean that people can now form advocacy groups on Wikipedia to support a POV. Such things are still forbidden, as far as I'm aware, and are still forced outside the wiki. POV userboxes don't prevent that. All they do is allow users of the same POV to float towards each other. It can only be nonconstructive. If I'm a pro-choicer and I spot a user page sporting the pro-choice badge, I'll be more likely to collaborate with him or her -- not necessarily out of any conscious compulsion to organize the cause, but out of a possibly subconscious affinity -- and together we will talk about how wrong everyone else is, convince ourselves of how surprised we are when we agree with each others' statements, and ultimately, slant articles towards our POV, when neither of us had any actual intention of doing anything wrong in the first place and just want to write an unbiased encyclopedia.

Okay, so it's been a long day. But I hope that was at least semi-coherent. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:45, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we can prevent cliquish behavior be attempting to control editors' use of userspace. So the best counterbalance I believe is encouraging a voluntary transparency, which at least gives others a chance to recognize it, rather than (perhaps) doubting their own sanity. I don't know about your gun analogy, but I suppose it's somewhat valid. If we make guns illegal only criminals will have guns. If we make political speech a policy violation, it will simply push it off wiki and encourage secretive cliques. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any userpage content can be justified on the grounds that it can help editors find someone with particular interests. Userboxes are just a lot briefer and less liable to violate policies such as WP:NOT#BLOG than, say, a page of non-Wikipedia-related polemics, so we have allowed them. But now we have a situation where some people have pages and pages of userboxes.

Personally, I would say that we should open up the userpages to allow anything but personal attacks, copyvios, and other "harmful" stuff. One could glean a lot more useful, interesting info about someone from a lengthy essay than from userboxes. Some people aren't as eloquent, though, or don't have time to explain their opnion on every subject, and may prefer to just sum up their opinion in a userbox. Admittedly, userboxes are an efficient vehicle for stating your opinions and interests in relation to a vast array of different subjects.

If we want to get rid of userbox-based opinion-expressing in general all, we could neuter the whole thing by limiting people to expressing interest, e.g. "This user is interested in abortion debates" or something. But people would probably get around it by stating their interests in a way that makes their opinion obvious. E.g., "This user is interested in the implications present day abortion restrictions could have for the future of women's rights over their own bodies."

All in all, it's going to be a big mess trying to restrict userboxes, and I think we should just leave it alone, except for the aforementioned restrictions on personal attacks, etc. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has seen various editor disputes over userboxes. These debates are based on differences of opinions on what is considered acceptable userbox content under the #Content restrictions section of Wikipedia:Userboxes, an established guideline. Recent discussions and debates have not shown a consistent interpretation within the community of this guideline's section, which has caused heated debates between editors. Some of these debates have ended without resolving the original issues, which has then caused other disputes over the same userbox, other userboxes, and over other unrelated matters, creating unnecessary divisiveness within the community.

Therefore, the section in question should be amended to reduce ambiguity and provide better, more detailed guidance to editors in creating and managing userboxes, as well as to administrators in resolving related disputes. These changes may include detailed wording on the freedom or limitation of userbox content, more examples of acceptable or unacceptable content on userboxes, and instructions on how to resolve userbox content disputes. The changes made to the section are not intended to promote any particular view or opinions on the liberties or limits of editor expression in Wikipedia, but rather to reduce future disputes, as is the purpose of many policies and guidelines.

• This is only a comment, not an endorsement: I've never seen WP:Userboxes actually referred to as a guideline, even in this last MfD, in which it might've made a difference. All people were using was CSD, in which it was pointed out more than once that the criteria that included the word "divisive" was technically not applicable since the box didn't exist in the Template space. No one came back with this guideline as an argument. That tells me that the problem isn't in this guideline's wording, but simply in the fact that people don't seem to know it exists, or at least don't realize it's a guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to stand by your point. Whether WP:UBX is a guideline (or just a how-to guide) is an important question. I assumed it was since it was tagged as such since September 2007, and it was merged from Wikipedia:Userbox policy. I removed the "established guideline" assertion, until this gets answered. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 16:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the removal of guideline status follows from people's lack of knowledge about the guideline. If the page is tagged as a guideline then there was obviously consensus to put it there. People just need to be made aware of it -- perhaps we need to increase the number of places from which it is linked. But this is no reason to remove its status as a guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:23, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, I think the fact that no-one was aware it was a guideline calls the idea that there was consensus to place the tag into serious question. —Random832 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake, when you said you were removing the guideline assertion I thought you were removing the guideline tag itself from the page. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that my suggestion for change may go in either direction. If this receives reasonable amount of support and consensus, then users should draft suggestions on which way the guideline should be directed. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The guidelines need to be changed with regard to the wording used, i.e. inflammatory and divisive. By their very nature any UBX giving an opinion or stating the user's belief could be inflammatory to someone and will always be divisive. Divisive is a particularly bad choice as it has multiple definitions. It's basic definition is to divide opinion. This will always be the case. Some will agree and some won't QED divisive. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, computer platform or choice of food, even something as inherently benign as the serial comma. Basically the criteria for allowance of UBXs needs better defining using specific terms that are not open to interpretation (or minimal interpretation), e.g. hate, overt violence, bigotry (racial, social, sexual). On the other hand this is an encyclopaedia of human knowledge, it is written by humans and should therefore allow UBXs that demonstrate a full range of human ideas, thoughts and beliefs. Additionally negatives should also be allowed but within the constrains of decency and legality. --WebHamster 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has seen various editor disputes over userboxes. These debates are based on differences of opinions on what is considered acceptable userbox content under the #Content restrictions section of Wikipedia:Userboxes, an established guideline. Some of these debates have escalated into heated discussions, which in turn has caused divisiveness of the community. While this divisiveness may or may not be caused by the userbox content per se, many disputes have been caused by not properly following our policies on civility, guidelines on discussion, and our dispute resolution process, which includes obtaining third opinions from uninvolved editors and requests for comments from the community.

When finding a userbox they disagree on or that they believe is unfit for Wikipedia, editors should assume good faith (except in obvious cases), and discuss the particular issues with the userbox creator first and foremost, in order to find common ground on appropriate content. This is not a suggestion, but rather a standard practice within Wikipedia which should be followed by all editors in all types of disputes. If discussion proves fruitless, editors are encouraged to obtain good faithed, third opinions from uninvolved editors by following the dispute resolution process. Generally, after these efforts have not yielded any results, editors may then nominate the userbox for deletion, notifying the creator of this action. However, do not use the deletion discussion to make a point, and be prepared in case the community decides to disagree with you.

Administrators should generally not delete userboxes outright except in clear cases (see WP:CSD). If the admin is unsure on whether it undoubtedly meets the CSD criteria, they should obtain consensus from appropriate forums, including WP:MFD and WP:AN. However, if the administrator simply disagrees with the userbox content on a personal level (including personal beliefs or personal interpretation of appropriate content), he/she should follow the dispute resolution process mentioned above. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies regarding user pages establishes limitations over what may and may not be included. Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia,^[1] and it is a mistake to think of it as a similar to a homepage.^[2] Users may include certain personal information in order to find other editors with common interests to facilitate collaboration and good faith, encyclopedic contributions. Adding certain personal details also fosters a healthy community, by letting other users know who they're working with. However, user pages should not be used to promote a particular point of view,^[3] or to incite or provoke other editors. While Wikipedia promotes free and open content, and the community has consistently frowned upon undue censorship of material, it is not an anarchy, and restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia.^[4] - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What this really means is: Inciting or provoking other editors who are bigots. This is just don't ask, don't tell. Don't tell the community you're X, because some editors are bigoted against editors who are X, and you're the one to blame for inciting their bigotry if you do. May not apply to forms of bigotry currently considered politically incorrect. Otherwise, let the bigots win or else you're just being divisive. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your argument? That we should then ignore any kind of restraint, let everyone do what the want, post what they want, and those who oppose or feel uncomfortable with such expressions should accept them or leave the project? Can we really expect this to help the project run smoother? We're all entitled to our views and opinions. That is inalienable and absolute. But our policies and guidelines remind us that we're here to make a neutral and unbiased encyclopedia, and sometimes it requires us to leave our own opinions at home and focus on articles in unbiased fashion. Sometimes, by including many of our views in userboxes, other users might feel offended. While we are not responsible for other's beliefs and actions, certainly we can avoid such issues altogether.

I cited policies and guidelines which are used everyday to resolving disputes and discussions, to establish an argument that what I believe has been the norm for use of userpages. I may be wrong, but then you should challenge my use and interpretation of these policies, or suggest why these do not apply to this particular issue, or suggest changes to them. I welcome any type of debate to find common ground. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited a bunch of Wikipedia policies in the style of external sources, but they aren't -- they're part of wikipedia and just as subject to constant change as the rest of the site. Policies are useful references, but they're not set in stone. You can parse any set of circumstances through the filter of wikipedia's policies, but unless you also rely on empathy and common sense, you're just playing nomic. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not clarifying earlier. I've expanded my comment above. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stop developing policy based on whether user space content is or is not inside a rectangle or other geographical shape. If this RfC is an attempt to perpetuate that kind of thinking, this is a step backwards. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace is part of Wikipedia, it has its use and purpose. Policies and guidelines exist so we can all use these and other tools jointly for the common good of improving the project. This RFC was started as a response to the debates and incidents regarding userbox content wars, which have caused serious damage to the project. It is an attempt to find common ground, whatever that may be, including defining guidance to reduce disputes within the project. Clarifying policies and guidelines on uses of tools and userspace are ways to reduce disputes, but leaving things in ambiguity for any and all interpretations and actions, when this has proved to worsen disputes, hurts the project. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And what exactly is this "serious damage" you speak of? Is it quantifiable or just a surreptitious use of hyperbole? --WebHamster 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by "serious damage" is the amount of nasty cases this has brought on. We are seeing XFD discussions boil down to personal attacks between established editors, and using XFD discussions to push a POV. We've already had some very good users leave the project over this, whether by others actions or their own mistakes. But it's still over this dispute over userbox content. I hope this explains my concern. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - soapboxing outside of userboxen should also be a no-no. WilyD 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are frequently angry disputes over policy. That doesn't establish that the policy is wrong, only that a large amount of people either don't understand it or choose to ignore it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really sure whether I wanted to comment on this issue independently or place my thoughts in an existing discussion. The more I thought about it, I realized that the initial thoughts I had about this matter are more complex than is probably appropriate for a discussion on the existing comments. Initially, this whole conflict as it arose on MfD made me ask myself, "Wasn't this issue supposed to have been solved by the German Userbox Solution?" From the linked page: "The Userbox migration involves moving controversial or unencyclopedic userbox templates into subpages of userspace." The way that I always interpreted the the spirit of this solution was that it allowed for users to have and display controversial (and yes, sometimes polarizing) opinions in their userspace (which is NOT held to a standard of neutrality) without compromising the neutrality of the project itself.

As a sort of expansion upon the ideas in the essay Editors matter, userspace is, in a way, an extension of the editor. Userboxes and the more or less free use of userspace (barring violations of WP:CIVIL, copyright, blatant advertising and the like) can provide editors with a greater sense of self within the project, making them more likely to contribute regularly and constructively. That said, editors themselves are not neutral (they cannot be, simply by nature), but their contributions to the article space (at least in theory) can be. Userboxes which are hosted in userspace and displayed on a userpage that are polarizing on a contentious issue, particularly an issue which is encyclopedic (such as the boxes which brought this issue to RfC) actually help to identify the biases that an editor may have in a given topic area. When the user him (or her) self knows his own biases and presents them transparently to others through his userspace, both he and other users are more aware of those biases and it helps everyone work toward a more neutral presentation of divisive subject matter. Promoting these goals and ideals (that userspace helps provide editors with a sense of self and that userboxes provide a concise way for editors to display their interests, abilities and biases), it seems, was the entire point of the move toward userbox migration to userspace.

The userbox that brought this entire discussion to RfC may be polarizing, it is certainly not neutral, and the language is incisive, but there is nothing inherently uncivil or trollish about it. Userspace is where it belongs; userspace is where is is kept, so there really should be no problem here. The argument that I saw most commonly referenced in the MfD was that it provides an opposite or opposing opinion to the "support the troops in Iraq" userbox. This itself is a fallacy; it is entirely possible to support troops wherever they are without supporting what they've been ordered to do, perhaps even to the extent of supporting the right of the "occupied" (for lack of a better word at the moment) to resist as a means to an end that would be mutually beneficial. In simpler terms (perhaps), it would be idealistically possible (though complex to explain, as I'm sure I just demonstrated) to hold the views expressed in both userboxes.

I hope this all makes sense. The more I think about it, the more involved and complex my views and reasoning become. If anyone would like, I can try to distill this down to a few numbered main points without all of the involved rationale attached.

I concur. Userpages shouldn't just be like corporate cubicles, obviously. Giving volunteers a piece of the rock seems like it would encourage esprit de corp. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most well-thought, descriptive, and informative argument for keeping such userboxes. This RFC benefits greatly from your reasoning. Good job. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am extraordinarily flattered. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the third paragraph, I agree that the nomination of the userbox was just plain POV on the part of the nominator, with many others following suit. There were serious arguments for and against, but these were opaqued by the sheer incivility of many users. Please see my comment below. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the intent behind the userbox migration, I don't see it as a solution to the present issue. The namespace in which a userbox resides is nothing but a technical detail. The migration was to alleviate the problem that spawned due to the perception by many that anything in the template space is somehow "official" or "condoned" by Wikipedia. But what's really changed? The boxes still say the same things and still visually reside in the same places. The "space" they reside in is a back-end issue and means little as far as how they affect the community, especially those who aren't even aware that a migration occurred. In other words, if some new user comes complaining now that there's a userbox they find offensive, we can't tell them "Don't worry. You see, this box used to reside in the template space, which would've been a problem, but now it's in the user space, so it's not." That just doesn't alleviate anyone's concerns anymore, even though at some point in the past it may have. All the arguments both for and against userboxes are still just as valid and are completely unaffected by this abstract notion we've created of "which namespace" the boxes happen to reside in.

Do POV userboxes have the potential to divide the community? Offend people? Create controversy? Well, just as much as they did in the other namespace, anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:15, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said for some more controversial or risque encyclopedic topics which have quite valid entries and illustrative images. Wikipedia is not censored, and that applies to userspace content as much as anything else. If you want a place without the potential for division, controversy or offense, then you're in the wrong reality entirely, because such a thing doesn't exist in this universe, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's going back to the argument being brought everywhere else, so you can see my comments elsewhere in response to that. I was just addressing your namespace/migration point here. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:46, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I created this RFC to try and settle this dispute, although I knew from the beginning it was quixotic, and would settle for at least obtaining a good picture on where we stand. LaMenta3 pointed to a potential "ceasefire" reached back in 2006 by employing the German Userbox Solution, in an effort to reduce disputes, and the page states that "no new policy is needed to do this, and this is not a policy proposal. Just go ahead and do it." On the other hand, we have a guideline page that still says: Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Clearly, if any of this is to be settled we need a change in the applicable guidelines, particularly the Content restrictions section of Wikipedia:Userboxes, emphasizing my first comment above. This change is either to clarify their limited use or to allow them frely (WP:CSD still applies). I propose we draft proposals after a reasonable amount of time of discussion in this RFC, and see if we can achieve consensus for change. We still need more participation from the community right now, so if current users support this we should increase notifications throughout. My experience is that once concrete proposals are suggested, more users start joining the discussion. Proposals can be made in this page with "endorse/oppose" discussion sections, and can be modified by users through discussion. It's possible no changes will be agreed upon, but it's worth a try. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think (though at this point, I'll admit I'm feeling too lazy to check...I've been at this all afternoon) that the guidelines for userboxes were written for and intended to apply to userboxes that are not in userspace, as most boxes were before WP:GUS. In other words, the guideline might be out of date given other changes in consensus and practice. It also seems that the userbox policy may be in conflict with the policies about userspace, as I've seen a number of MfD discussions about userpages that were unquestionably advocating certain points of view or beliefs (without userboxes) that were kept because users are pretty much allowed to put anything in userspace with only a few restrictions. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some history checking. WP:UBX was begun in March 2006 and GUS began just 3 months later in June 2006. UBX became a guideline well after GUS was common practice, however the manner is which it became a guideline is a bit mysterious to me. Mind you, I'm not looking to make any accusations here, but WP:UBX was tagged as a policy and then a guideline immediately afterwards by User:Jc37 ([2] & [3]), the rationale for the first policy tagging being "Wikipedia:Userbox policy was merged to this page in December 2006 (almost 9 months ago)." He fails to mention there that Wikipedia:Userbox policy was always just a proposal that didn't gain consensus, right up to its merge with WP:UBX, and was never an actual policy or even a guideline. I hate to make an argument that helps my opponents here but it seems clear to me that WP:UBX is most definitely not a guideline and should not be currently tagged as such. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:30, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That's probably not a big deal; see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a guideline. But anyway, if people are aware of a proposal and don't voice an objection, that might apply. But there's a difference between silence during a proposal and silence after an action is taken under the false pretense of there having been a demonstrated consensus. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:58, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking into that for me. It seems that my suspicions are at least part right. There is a lot more to this than even I realized. Also, I hope you don't look upon this process as one in which those on different sides of this issue are "opponents." This is supposed to be a process in which both sides can find areas where we can agree and come to a final conclusion about the issue. So far, it seems that we all agree that the userbox policies are flawed in some respect and are in conflict with other, related policies. What we must now come to an agreement on is how the policies must be altered or what otherwise should be done with them. Personally, I think it should be kept as simple as possible, applying more of the existing, core policies and guidelines than trying to legislate in minutiae. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An opponent is one who opposes. Those who oppose my argument are my opponents. And this is an argument, an argument being a discussion in which the participants disagree. Just because I consider this an argument, complete with opponents as an argument must have by definition, does not mean that I consider this a game or a fight of any kind. If I did then I wouldn't be willing to point out flaws in my own side, as I've just done above :) Equazcion •✗/C • 06:04, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That mindset and some of your other comments, however, make it appear that you are not at all interested at reaching a compromise or a mutual agreement about the issue, which is the point of this exercise. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I thought you were arguing to allow political userboxes and I was arguing not to. I didn't know your comments were more intended to reach compromise than mine were. I'll try to correct this. Also I would have thought that researching and removing the guideline tag at WP:USERBOX would have been evidence enough that I wasn't falling victim to my biases, but if it wasn't, then I apologize once more. I hope you can forgive me and that we can put this behind us. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:37, 22 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Well this one's a "good luck" to all interested. (Good luck in finding the many many piles of commentary, across a myriad of talk pages, some almost simultaneously : )

The discussions concerning userboxes had brought forth many policy proposals, and so on. At the last, one nearly had consensus, but there were concerns of it being too bureaucratic. So several people, on various "sides" of the issue debated it, and I merged the sections agreed upon to WP:UBX. (I seem to recall John Reid, Radiant, and Cyde (and others) were involved in editing/merging as well, but please feel free to double check the edit history.) The rest of the policy never found consensus. Since one of the criteria for labelling a policy/guideline page as such is the page's general "stability", I waited some time before tagging the page a policy. After I did, upon further thought (in thinking about the MoS, and other such pages), I decided that these were better labelled as guidelines, and probably shouldn't be called "policy" (at least yet), and so I reverted myself, changing them to guidelines.

If you'd like help tracking down the discussions involved, I'd be happy to help. But reverting the guideline tag due to a lack of information is probably not a good idea, especially in the middle of a discussion/debate, such as this. - jc37 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the stability of the page was the reason, I would think you'd have said that rather than citing the merge, both now and at the original tagging, because it just doesn't seem relevant. Next time it might be better to give some more explanation to the community before arbitrarily tagging a page as a guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:48, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Just this week, we've had the demonstration of the ties this community has to userbox content, whether they be ethical, moral or political. Opinions will change, and so will consensus. Whether what is accepted and what is displayed, are two different elements. We have to remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, a community, a resource, a need. By doing this, we are effectively destroying that. We're never going to receive full consensus on anything and there's no distinct line between what is postive and what isn't, but at least this RFC is a step in the right direction. People are always going to have their opinions, and base their edits on this philosophy. Behaviour surrounding the actions of some editors have I known before this RFC (and other XFD debates) has truly shocked me, and I'm reeling from the blatant disregard for the right to remain civil with comments aimed and relevant to the discussion, not on the users who participate in them. I personally agree with Equazcion, when he states that "I see Wikipedia as a place where we leave our POVs at home and come together to write unbiased articles. Reminding each other that we disagree on political issues is just not necessary, carries no benefit, and has too much potential for negativity". We're creating an encyclopedia here, and with that in mind we should act with an appropriate manner. Rudget. 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all we were doing is writing an encyclopaedia then there would be no user space. There's far more going on behind the scenes these days than the extinct philosophy of "we're just here to write an encyclopaedia". It hasn't been that way for a long time and the community aspect will only get bigger in the future. People are here for power trips, people are here for sedition, people are here for advertisement (for self and profit), people are here for a sense of community more adult than MySpace or Facebook. People are here for far more than just writing an encyclopaedia. Unless editors come to terms with that then blow ups like the one at the MfD will become the norm unless something is done to change the old way of thinking. Sort it now or pay the price later. Some things evolve with a life of their own, WP is doing just that and thinking "nostalgia isn't what is used to be" is not the way to deal with it. The WP culture and community reflects the world it is using to distil the knowledge from. There was a time when the web was text onlu black Times Roman on a grey background, there was a time when the internet was text only discussion on Usenet. Everything on the 'net evolves based on human desire and need. Wikipedia is not immune to that. Evolve or go extinct. Ask the Tyrannosaurus or the Cello web browser, they'll tell you. --WebHamster 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We need to evolve, that's the whole point of this process. Discussion = Progression. The userspace only exists as a section for self-characterisation, and yet still some users use it as a soapbox for advertisements, therefore going against policy. If we rewrite the policy as you suggest, how do we know (and can ensure for that reason) that the userbox templates will be compliant? Rudget. 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is fine tuning along the path we're already on. Common-sense goes a long way to achieving it. Part of the problem with the current guidelines is the vague subjective terms used. "Inflammatory", "divisive" specifically. They are too all encompassing. These are human beings we're talking about and each of us has our own criteria for what is inflammatory. Divisive is always going to be a problem due to the fact that any opinion will have those who agree and those who don't therefore every userbox expressing a belief no matter how benign has to have the potential to be both inflammatory and divisive and therefore disallowable. Interpretation has that problem, therefore remove it and a lot of the problem goes away too.

Any rule/law wording has to be thought about carefully and needs to be used to reduce any subjectivism to the minimum. The trick is to use objective and specific terms that can be added to as problems occur. Again common-sense will do the job, e.g. overt fomentation to violence, bigotry, racism, obviously illegal acts (illegal to international law), overt hatred (as opposed to mere dislike). Obvious advertising of products/companies etc. This isn't rocket science, all that's need is a guideline that makes specific disbarments that can be added to as things progress. --WebHamster 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is crucial that any policy be implemented fairly, without favoring one point of view over another. In other words, Wikipedia users should never be told that they can say they believe in Hulk Hogan but they can't say they believe in Jesus. Thus it would be altogether wrong to restrict politics or religion but not commercial products, and if we restrict advocacy of commercial products, we should bear in mind that these include virtually all video games and movies, sports teams, much classic literature, patented scientific procedures, and many commercial software packages in which editors like to advertise their proficiency. If we went that far perhaps it would make more sense to ban userboxes outright and restrict userpages to a handful of approved positive statements. But this would be a major change for Wikipedia, and it seems simpler to grant people wide latitude on userpages. It is possible that even openly bigoted userboxes banned under current policy might actually do us more good than harm, by identifying users whose contributions could bear a second look. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of potential for controversy, which are POV's. Stating you're a fan of Hulk Hogan isn't a POV. Stating you're pro-choice is. Someone stating they like to watch The Flintstones has never sparked controversy, while someone stating they're against gay marriage certainly has. Comparing political userboxes to TV shows or comic book heroes, and saying we must treat both the same way, is pushing the concept of equal treatment further than is practically useful. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:29, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• This only shows that you don't understand what POV actually means. Of course stating you're a fan of Hulk Hogan is a POV, stated you like jam on toast is a POV. It's stating your own particular viewpoint on one personal taste over another, and by stating it aloud one is alluding to the fact that your choice is better than the alternative, e.g. a fan of jam on toast is implicitly saying it's better than marmalade on toast. This is a POV. In userspace with user boxes it is impossible to have NPOV, this is why POV should never be a criteria for disallowing a userbox. It's irrational and makes no sense, plus it is impossible to police correctly and impartially. It's too open to interpretation (from marmalade fans) --WebHamster 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an interesting point, Wnt. I'm reminded of Philip K. Dick's complaint about the translator who created the German version of his novel Ubik. The person, apparently completely unfamiliar with the opening lines of the Gospel of John, translated Dick's borrowing of "In the beginning there was the Word" as "In the beginning there was the brand name." -- Kendrick7^talk 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you like jam on toast isn't saying you like it better than marmalade on toast; It's just saying you like jam on toast. You would've been technically correct had you said that stating you like jam on toast conflicts with those who don't like jam (instead of those who like marmalade). A point-of-view can be almost any opinion, true, but neverthelss, when we talk about avoiding POV on Wikipedia we are referring to avoiding bias in controversial subjects. Jam and marmalade aren't controversial, which again brings me back to my first point. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:30, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I said it alluded to the fact otherwise one would have a box that said I like marmalade. We tend to wax lyrical about our favourite choice, not our second favourite. It's basic logic. Secondly WP's guidelines on POV refer to article space and not userspace, and in this case the "we" you talk about is actually "you". There is no obligation for a user page or a userbox to be NPOV. The more controversial a subject is then the less likely it is to achieve NPOV. You bandy these terms about and you seem to either not understand what it is you are saying or you are just using them in the context that suits you best regardless of how appropriate they are. Userboxes are a statement by the editor therefore they are a POV, every single one of them without exception. Every single one of them will NOT be NPOV, they can't be. It makes no difference if the subject is bland or whether it is controversial. Once you get that fact lodged away you will understand that your line of argument is specious, nonsensical and totally absurd. Once you get past that you can then start to put your energies into figuring out the best way to police it whilst avioding bias. --WebHamster 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that NPOV doesn't apply to userspace, and none of my points about POV userboxes were based on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:48, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should make that clear "when we talk about avoiding POV on Wikipedia we are referring to avoiding bias in controversial subjects" says to me that you are using the WP view on POV as an argument against ubx in user space. You keep bringing up the term "POV" so often that it's a natural assumption. So let's get it straight. All userboxes are POV, all userboxes do not meet NPOV. POV and NPOV have no place in a discussion about ubx, and especially ubx in user space. --WebHamster 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really that concerned with what it says to you, per se. I'm using the term POV to describe the type of userboxes that are the subject of this discussion ("POV userboxes"), as has been the practice for many participating here. So let's get it straight: When anyone here says POV userboxes, they're not implying that any userbox violates WP:NPOV. The term POV was far from my point. Please try to focus on the spirit of the comment rather than on nitpicking the terminology used. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:22, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The terminology used is important to the point being made otherwise it wouldn't be used. I'm not nitpicking the terminology. I'm presenting a rebuttal of your points based on the fact they are flawed. Using "POV userbox" is a deceptive misnomer" as ALL userboxes are POV. If you mean controversial ones then say so. Like I said, you don't appear to fully understand the terms you are using because the way you are using them is erroneous. --WebHamster 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the whole speech I mentioned earlier seems relevant somehow, now that I've read it again.[4] -- Kendrick7^talk 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start off with the following comments (they were made during a discussion concerning WP:UM):

And no, there was never "one" solution to the debates, there were several (including the T1 speedy criteria). Not to mention innumerable proposed policy pages. The last of which was finally merged to Wikipedia:Userboxes, after much heated debate.

The only reason that userbox migration actually happened is that a few users with bots userfied en masse. It was still quite in dispute at the time. But without a dispute resolution process, what could the users do but give up in the face of the boxes being moved dispite their concerns?

Honestly, the whole page could be summed up by:

• Any userbox concerning an issue or a philosophy (including politics or religion) in template namespace should be userfied to userspace. (Followed by some statement of "just do it"...)

The rest are allowed in template space, and any that don't, likely don't belong in userspace either.

I've thought about MfDing the page for quite a while, but I think in the end, some sentence like the above would get merged to WP:UBX, and the migration pages marked as historical. Shrugs. WP:UBX already states pretty clearly what's allowed in each namespace. Do we really need a page which is essentially a statement to Be bold? Probably not.

---

That said, One of the biggest problems with the idea of the "userbox migration", is that for some reason editors suddenly felt that userfication "saves" something that may be inappropriate.

AFAIK, the only kinds of userboxes which userfication would "save" are the "This user is an X" (Such as Christian, Muslim, A Democrat, A Republican, etc.)

The question of whether advocacy (also known as "supporter/opposer of an issue") userboxes were appropriate, I think, is truly what is at question here. (The MfD'ed userbox being a key example.)

I've read statements by User:Jimbo Wales stating that "that's not what we're about here" or "that's not what we're here for". (See also WP:JOU for some specific examples.) And if that's a dictum from him, then so be it. However, if it's now up to the community to decide if such userboxes (or any other such userpage notices, since this should not be limited to the form or format of userboxes) should be allowed in userspace...

Personally, I think if we created a poll, most users would "vote" to allow them: For who among us hasn't an opinion, and who among us doesn't have the want to share that opinion. It is, after all, what is not only allowed, but wanted on other internet web sites.

The problem, of course, being the direct question of whether the community can make such a decision to decide to what level we are an encyclopedia, and how important or how disruptive, or how distracting such things can be from the central task.

What do you think the results of such a vote would be? - jc37 11:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First let me answer "who among us...doesn't want to share [their] opinion?": Me. I've got lots of opinions, and if I want to share them, I know where to go: Anywhere but Wikipedia.

If we were to hold a vote on political userboxes, the result would be to keep all. However there's a reason Wikipedia isn't a democracy: Just because people like something doesn't mean it's best for Wikipedia. What would happen if we held a vote on trivia sections? Or spoiler warnings? Or any of the perennial proposals? There are lots of things that most websites would welcome, and that internet users have come to expect a right to engage in, from nearly any web forum in which they participate. That doesn't mean we give it to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:13, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

So what's the difference between consensus and democracy then? To paraphrase someone else's words, Wikipedia is for the people by the people. It gets as close to being a democracy as any other place on the planet. --WebHamster 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONSENSUS Equazcion •✗/C • 00:45, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't what I asked, I also asked you what the difference is as you don't appear to know. It seems that once again you are just quoting WP jargon without actually knowing/realising the true meaning. I'm not sure if you realise this but the meanings of most word tend to be pretty much permanent. I only mention this as you seem to warp the definitions willy-nilly to suit your argument. As you can't seem to do anything other than quote more WP essays perhaps I should point out that for all intents and purposes. Consensus and democracy (in this context) mean the same, i.e. majority decision. These majority decisions trump everything on WP with the exception of policy. Now to address the point you raised above. Again you appear to be using erroneous criteria to make your point. "There are lots of things that most websites would welcome, and that internet users have come to expect a right to engage in, from nearly any web forum in which they participate. That doesn't mean we give it to them.". Ubx are not discussions, they aren't something that is being "engaged in", they aren't even remotely like a web forum. They are one-off indicators of a particular user's belief system. It's comparing oranges and apples. This sort of point-making looks like a standard modus operandi for you in these sort of discussions. I'm not sure if you realise this but we are currently having a discussion on a controversial topic. Are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed it based on the above premise? Now I don't know about anyone else but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You maintain we shouldn't be allowed discussion on controversy but here we are having one, yet you maintain userboxes are something that is "engaged in" (which of course it isn't... you do understand "unilateral" don't you?) and is something we shouldn't be allowed. So which is it? --WebHamster 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Jimbo had to say on userboxes two years ago, when the Great Userbox War was raging, is preserved here. I am very sad to say that his hope that Wikipedians would voluntarily give up their advocacy userboxes has not been fulfilled. I do think his comments are still pertinant. -- Donald Albury 21:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's comment:

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I agree with Jimbo there. I won't even restate it, as he's worded it as best it could ever be. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:33, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I understand those comments as essentially reflecting phase six thinking about the userbox wars, which are partially dated anyway by the end of that war via the WP:German userbox solution. My experience tells me editors being honest about their POV -- transparency -- is actually good for the project. Mind you, I would never want the pendulum to swing the other way and have a rule mandating that, Spanish Inquisition-style. But editors sharing honest information about themselves in a free exchange is never bad in my opinion, and if Jimbo still believes that I must respectfully disagree. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish people would stop quoting Jimbo. If it goes on any longer we're going to start being accused of being idolaters. Jimbo has no greater insight into this sort of thing than anyone else. Programming ability does not confer a preternatural understanding to all things WP related. You'd be best using your own arguments instead of recycling someone else's. --WebHamster 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WebHamster. I've been away from this discussion for a couple of days, so when I came back to all of this Argumentum ad Jimbonum, I was going to say something to this effect if someone else hadn't already. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's saying the statements automatically have more merit just 'cause Jimbo said them. This just happens to be a good articulation of the argument against. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:29, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Can you elucidate the arguments then?

• 1 -- "They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people." Who exactly are these people?
• 2 -- "they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." What idea is that?

I'm not getting the concept here. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1: These are the kinds of people who are more interested in Springer than Britannica. They prefer drama over a professional demeanor. I won't name names (wink).

2: The idea that we're just another internet forum. If outsiders see a bunch of people with a bunch of political POVs displayed, they may join in order that they can make their own POVs known. In other words, it sends the message that Wikipedia is a social-networking site, and does the opposite of stressing that people should come here to work on the encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:51, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That really sounds to me like the argument of "it attracts vandals and drama queens so it should be deleted" that I see so often at AfD and that has hardly ever been accepted as a valid argument. I've never seen evidence of an influx of such users that you describe as a result of the use or display of userboxes. Wikidrama happens regardless (and some of the "best" wikidrama stems from article content disputes that are as far from userboxes as you can get), and regardless of how "professional" one is, drama and disputes are like car wrecks--most people can't help but rubberneck. You speak as if getting rid of "POV userboxes" as you call them will solve a large portion of Wikipedia's ills. Most users, myself included, who use/display such userboxes do so less prominently than encyclopedia-building content and more or less just let them set and forget about them after some time. Quite the opposite of what you allege. If you can actually show evidence that this behavior due to POV boxes is endemic rather than just spouting unfounded rhetoric about it, then please do so. But I've never seen a case of someone joining, putting userboxes on their userpage and then immediately going on a POV-pushing crusade related to those userboxes. Even in such a hypothetical case, the userboxes certainly make it easier to figure out that their patterns are indeed a crusade rather than misguided edits. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The things you're claiming you've never seen are not anything I've suggested would occur (POV pushing crusades??). I also never said it would solve any "ills". This isn't something you would notice ("influx"), it's something that would happen gradually, and perhaps already has. This also isn't like an AfD for an article. This is about a general practice among users that affects the way our community runs. I haven't "alleged" anything. This is a general feeling about the direction Wikipedia is headed. You think this will affect it in a good way and I think this will affect it in a bad way. Neither of us have any evidence to prove our points, because this isn't something that would produce an acute, measurable effect; Unless you have any evidence that this transparency of biases you speak of has had a positive effect. I would also appreciate you not referring to my arguments as "spouting unfounded rhetoric"; As I've just shown, if I'm doing it, then so are you. We're both stating our abstract views here without any evidence, so let's at least try and keep it civil. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:52, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

There you go again with the "keep it civil" bollocks. You appear to think that "being civil" equates to "agree with me" or "accept I'm right". You also appear to think that it's a shield you can hide behind whenever the argument goes against you. FFS grow up. --WebHamster 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the point of Jimbo's comments that we should encourage an atmosphere of not using these POV pushing boxes (in large part by not using them ourselves) and try to avoid telling others they can't have them through polices and mass deletions. Don't we do this by the very way we react to editors with such boxes. Sometimes when I see someone behaving in what I take as an irrational manner about a particular topic, I check their Userpage. If I see boxes it may clue me in that they are just plain nuts when it comes to that particular topic (or maybe just nuts in general), so I tend to give their arguments less weight, in some cases no weight at all. I can see that I can't argue with them, so I address them the only way possible, by ignoring them. Userpages and the boxes on them, tell you a lot about other editors and what their philosophies about Wikipedia are. Lead by example and take notice of those who don't follow. I know this is largely discussed above in other forms, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion of Jimbo's comments.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy inspiring this whole debate does not read, "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." Yet, anyway. But I feel as if that is how it is being interpreted. Coke vs. Pepsi, Flintstones vs. Mutant Ninja Turtles, Hulk Hogan vs. Grim Reaper - these are all controversies in which some people may advocate and push their POV for one side or the other. It makes no sense to me that a person should be permitted to say that they enjoy watching the Flintstones but not that they enjoy reading the Tao te Ching or the Koran. Do you mean to tell me that those are bad things for an encyclopedia author to say that they approve of, and that only children's cartoons and men who stage fake fights on pay per view are worthy of being allowed? And does anyone really believe that deleting someone's userbox is going to make them more civil and less likely to make snap reversions in an ethnic edit war? Please, let's be reasonable here! Wnt (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent--the colons are making me woozy) Doug and Wnt both make very salient and coherent points. Doug seems to have hit upon what I believe to be the most rational solution to all of this: If you don't like them, don't use them, and if it helps, ignore them. (Of course, it's a little more nuanced than that, but that's the gist.) Wnt points out an interesting truth about the way that both userbox and userpage content is treated on Wikipedia. Instead of adhering more to the tenet that Wikipedia is not censored, it seems that there is a group of users who would much rather never be offended in the user namespace and insist upon the adage that one should never discuss money or politics in polite company. (Again, a simplification, but cut me a little slack here.) The whole issue just needs treatment with a big, strong dose of common sense. Wikipedia has never tried to cater to the hypersensitive in article space; why should userspace be any different? So long as we keep it civil and legal (with BLP issues, libel, copyright, international law, etc. etc.) just live and let live. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← To Doug: The request in the comment was to say people should do it voluntarily, yes. But the rationale he states is the real value of the comment -- It's the "why" that's important, not the "how". How should we go about it is another story (enforcement/encouragement/whatever), but first we need to figure out if there actually is anything that needs doing. Jimbo is stating here his opinion that political userboxes are somehow incongruous with what Wikipedia is. But what he's really saying, of course, is that political userboxes are incongruous with what Wikipedia was, and should be, according to him.

I'll try to break this down, maybe it'll simplify things. There are really four different disagreements at play here (in the entire debate, as I see it):

1. Do political userboxes affect Wikipedia in any significant way?
2. If yes, in what way?
3. What should Wikipedia be?

   Here's where I propose we ditch the notion of negative/positive effects. Assuming userboxes have an effect that we can predict, some people will think that effect is a good thing, since it agrees with their vision of what Wikipedia should be. Those who think Wikipedia should be something else will think it's a bad thing. So it's not a positive/negative argument at all, but a disagreement over the nature of Wikipedia.

4. Once we get all of that settled (g'luck), we'll know if something needs to be changed. If it does, then should that change be made through encouragement, policy, or other?

The "how" is pretty far ahead in time, if it is even realistic that we'll reach that point. In my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 22 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A technical problem, really. My understanding is that userbox support is currently implemented in some fashion as a template or in the software. This makes it possible to insert original userboxes into a page:

without the inclusion of a specific userbox from a separate page. (I'm particularly proud of the SI=666 equation.) Transclusion achieves the same result, making the added code permanent even if the subpage containing the userbox is deleted. Boxes can be done outside the userbox template as well, even if the resulting gibberish is harder to read:

As far as I can tell, this isn't about userboxes, not really. People who are strongly motivated to include these statements on their user pages will be able to find a way to get them there, as long as the capability remains in the software. Removing the templates and support for other markup codes probably runs afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Nothing short of that, coupled with a will to officiously edit other user's user pages to remove the statements that used to sit in userboxes, will actually achieve the results that are apparently desired.

There are other reasons to be against reopening this old controversy; others have pretty much covered it. So long as code remains for making userboxes of any kind, it may be used for expressive purposes on user pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a technicality, transclusion calls the template code each time the page is edited/saved. Substitution places the template code itself on the page so that even if someone changes the template itself, the page the template is displayed on won't change. I think you had things somewhat arsey-versey above. :-) And yes, you could do everything a userbox can do with plain text or some other kind of template, userboxes are just a popular package for this.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that userboxes encourage labels rather than statements and explanations. I personally find it hard to explain what I believe in six words or less. -- Donald Albury 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but Dunbar's number comes into play at some point in large online communities like this. Bumper-stickers aren't inherently shallow. It's just that if you are stuck in traffic behind a guy with two paragraphs carved into his read-end, you're probably not going to read it or care. At least on wikipedia you can essentially wave the guy over and have a nice long discussion about whatever pithy/concise statement he may have chosen to make. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALL comments are welcome, as long as they're civil and constructive. Otherwise they'll be ignored. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment: In my experience (unless the discussion is about images), those who cite "Wikipedia is not censored" in a discussion typically are trying to put forth the idea that whatever they wish to "save" which others feel is inappropriate for "some reason", should be included despite the concerns of others, because, well, "Wikipedia is not censored". The problem with that is that that guideline deals with whether an encyclopedia may cover controversial or potentially socially "taboo" topics (or in some cases, whether it's considered encyclopedic to show certain images which may cause concern). The guideline has nothing to do with allowing WP:OR (a common usage), and neither does it have anything to do with what a Wikipedian may post on their userpage. Absolutely zero. As a matter of fact, AFAICT, everything on a userpage should either support direct encyclopedic collaboration/contribution , or indirectly support it, through community-building. And I'm having a hard time seeing how statements of advocacy do either one, except to illustrate a bias of the editor in question. - jc37 11:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've participated in a few userbox wars at MFD. In my opinion, there is no difference between making a statement in a userbox versus making the same statement in plain text, except that userboxes are easier to read. Thus, if a user makes a statement in plain text saying "I believe that suicide bombers are heroes," that would be offensive and should be removed, even though it is not a userbox. If he makes the same statement in a userbox, that userbox should be deleted. I think the fears that userboxes would spark viral transmission of radical beliefs to large sectors of the wiki population, which is what templates are designed for, has not been borne out by reality. So the only question is how offensive is the message itself. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, I think the reason people use userboxes over plain text is the same reason they should be more regulated than plain text; and it's not just that userboxes are easier to see. People see them as badges of honor, as colorful uniform insignias that announce their rightful membership in something, and to declare their camaraderie with those who share their interests/POVs. Whether you're saying something offensive or not, plain text just can't be compared. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:17, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)
    • Badges of honour? When did they stop being standardised bumper stickers? : ) - jc37 10:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Badges of honor or bumper stickers, userboxes have too often gotten in the way of building an encyclopedia. I understand at least part of what's going on. When I was a new editor, I spent way too much time editing my user page. I rolled some of my own userboxes (this was back before the userbox project existed). I dumped most of those userboxes two years ago (keeping just the project memebership boxes) when I saw that some editors were putting far too much emphasis on their userbox displays, to the detriment of the project. I had hoped that the "German userbox solution" would be an improvement, and it has in part, but there are still editors who want to shove controversy in everyone's face with provocative userboxes. I'm not bothered by an editor's proclamation of belief in the great spaghetti monster; such userboxes may be silly and unproductive, but they can be funny and we do cut established editors some slack. It is the taunting userboxes and the editors who devote more energy to decorating their user pages than they do to contributing to the encyclopedia that are ruining it for everyone. -- Donald Albury 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree on that last part. People who are overly focused on their userpages are about as detrimental to the project as people who aren’t involved at all. In other words, they’re harmless. — NRen2k5 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Bumper stickers are badges of honor.)Equazcion •✗/C • 16:38, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Rubbish. Prove it or give it a rest. --WebHamster 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the comment above is correct that says we should not object over the format of the text in userboxes per se. However, there is also a namespace issue here, and commentary that should by normal guidelines be limited to userspace should be limited there whether marked up or not. That said, I think that a very relaxed attitude toward commentary on userpages is in order. Heck, I've been editing Omar Osama bin Laden recently and I'd love to have a list of people with a suicide bomber userbox to ask how well Omar is playing in Peoria, and to get some contributions citing the "specialized" Arabic literature. (I think some other people in the U.S. would have even better uses for a list like that...) That said, I understand we don't want to start any holy wars here, and also that some userboxes are more likely to be slapped pejoratively on the userpages of people who are away for a few months than to be displayed honestly by believers. But making a rule that the editors shouldn't talk about killing each other is at least a little more restrained than some of the ideas here. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User boxes that don't help the project should be removed; and if we are against censorship consider whether you would feel comfortable having userboxes to the contrary of the politically correct ones. In response to vegitarian ones: "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat"; In response to the separate church & state one: "Washington should serve the Vatican". And numerous others. They - and their opposites - add no value to the project only to divide users or unite them in wholly POV ways that is fundamentally at odds with the supposed NPOV mission of the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]