Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

(In this case specifically, there was no consensus for support (61%).)

A workable userbox or user template policy

Slightly tweaked from User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy, based on an earlier proposal by Doc glasgow.

---

Principles:

A. Foundational to Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. Jimbo has said that 'here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better declared. There being no consensus on the matter, there should be no prohibition; prohibition is, in any case, unenforceable. Users should be permitted relatively free expression on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance. They may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes). These should be limited only by the usual policies relevant to user pages, those regarding no personal attacks, civility, copyright, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost.

B. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy. As such, the main template and category space and the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia. User templates should only exist in so far as they assist in that aim.

Userbox Policy:

1. Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in A).
2. Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors. Userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded.
   • This provision should be interpreted fairly liberally, and would likely include templates related to language, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, and wiki-tasking (mediator etc.).
   • 'Editing interest' would allow templates that specify an interest in US politics, for example, but not membership or support of a particular party. For example, 'user Christian theology' but not 'user Christian believer', 'user abortion articles' but not 'pro-life', or 'scientology article editor' but not pro- or anti-.
   • All userboxes that define a point of view, belief, extra-wiki affiliation, user-specific subject, or joke would be allowed unimpeded in the user namespace. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This would be subject to the caveats of principles A and B.
3. Categories of users should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating the encyclopaedia, interpreted as per above, and explicitly excluding categorizing by POV.

Implementation:

1. Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease, except as follows:
   1. Userboxes that are blatant infringements of applicable Wikipedia policy, such as No personal attacks, should be speedy deleted.
   2. Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should not be immediately deleted. These should be substituted onto user pages, or users notified to substitute them onto their user pages. These templates should be deleted after a period of four weeks grace or once all instances have been substituted.
   3. Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the project'.
   4. Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements may be copied onto some special pages, from which they may be cut and paste (hard-coded) onto userpages as desired.
2. If Jimbo is in agreement, WP:CSD T1 (at least for userbox templates) might be replaced with userbox templates that obviously do not conform to the agreed userbox policy.

As some people seem a little confused as to what this might mean for userboxes, I've offered a little commentary here.--Doc ^ask? 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification:
This section only attempts to clarify the meaning and end-result of previously added words. This has been discussed on the talk page. No changes to the above policy are found in this section.

1. Users will be free to place whatever they wish on their user pages; this proposal makes no restrictions on this.
2. All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'.
3. Templates that are deemed helpful to the encyclopedia will be kept.
4. Nothing in this policy prohibits a list of userboxes, like Wikipedia:Userboxes, which is used for copying, rather than transclusion.

Poll

The following poll is closed as of 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC). Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

61% of users voted in favor of this poll. However, since this poll proposes a major policy, 61% is not a supermajority. I am therefore closing this poll as NO CONSENSUS. Ashibaka tock 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As of 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC), the tally* was (163/102/6/6/4).

Support

1. Compared to the chaos out there now this seems extremely level headed. Would still like to see T1 cleaned up to be objective rather than subjective as it is now. --StuffOfInterest 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - people seem to have calmed down since all the political ones were speedied anyway. This is good. DJR (Talk) 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
3. I think the new proposed policy is wonderful, but holding a straw poll at this stage is not good. If people have objections to aspects of the new proposal, let us change the proposal to address those objections (it's a wiki!) and not cement the thing in its current form by holding a premature poll. I move that we abandon this poll and just see how things progress over the next few days. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Setting aside my qualms for now. Let's go with what we've got. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Very good start on a compromise for the situation, strong support. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support – finally we seem to be getting somewhere with the mess this userbox issue has caused. Definitely the best proposal I've seen – Gurch 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Do it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Thank god something I can agree with has come up. I'd like to suggest that we have a "staggered" period of enforcement. That people can become accustomed to the rules. Discussion before speedies as a courtesy -- on the judgement of the admin, being extra supercareful not to re-ignite the mob. Otherwise, I think this is entirely workable if everyone puts on their best behavior and tries hard not to piss people off. ... aa:talk 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support for the current version above. --日本穣 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support to quell the fire before all hell breaks lose. We can always refine slightly if we need to in the future. Ian13/talk 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support the current version. Would solve the problem and be acceptable to both sides methinks (well, with the exception of anyone who still doesn't understand that WP:NPOV doesn't apply to userpages). However I would suggest that in addition we ban images from being used in POV/advocacy userboxes, because otherwise the 'what links here' for the image will be used for the same vote-stuffing operations that categories are currently used for. Cynical 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Mostly support (as co-proposer). I'd like more time for discussion before a poll, but I suppose the proposed policy can be tweaked anytime after being accepted. Although Jimbo Wales has reacted favourably to this proposal, I'd also prefer he at least implicitly support of the policy, as it's designed to implement and interpret his decision. Nevertheless, I fully support the proposal in it's current form. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Makes sense to me. Herostratus 22:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Doesn't solve all the problems, but it's a good compromise to build on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support rational compromise, sure it isn't perfect, but it is better than where we are --Doc ^ask? 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
15. YES, oh yes. Also because this encourages the healthy habit of template substing -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes! - We've been waiting for such a level-headed and reasonable proposal for a while: now we've got one! --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Aye Hiding talk 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Sure, whatever. Let's just agree on something. This can always be tweaked later, like any other policy. Haukur 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
19. It's always nice when someone says everything you have already said but better. - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and voting is eeevil. - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I wish we'd had this vote back in early January. Voting is a lot less evil than civil war. Haukur 00:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
20. I wish that this went further, but I support this measure as is. silsor 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Yes It's pretty much what I've wanted for a while, now. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - Practical, rational, equitable.— Jeff | (talk) | 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Deeply agree and support - I really like this idea. Good work, good idea, etc... JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (Copying from Pathoschild's page)
24. Strong support Wisely moderate. Xoloz 03:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support; seems reasonable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Yes (let's end this) because it is similar enough to my proposal (here). One thing I would like to add is that we should delete all userbox information in the wiki space (in addition to template space) that doeesn't aid the project (I'm thinking of listing the directories of boxes for deletion because they don't aid the project in any way and they help people evangelize their beliefs by listing their boxes there. It is my belief that that page is what caused this whole mess, by giving people a place to share their boxes.). BrokenSegue 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

    I oppose this suggestion, however; contrary to the letter and spirit of the proposed policy. Septentrionalis 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

27. Support - A good step. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support but I'm glad I won't be arbitrating over userboxes that test the grey areas of the policy. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Absolute support. Beats admin fiat deciding what is divisive hands-down. Stifle 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support.  Grue  11:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Been following discussion on Wikipedia-en email list. Think is best solution. Good communication and respect for all users needs to be a top priority to make this work. FloNight ^talk 12:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support in most of the points, though I'm worried about about "joke" boxes which do have an established tradition, but since the idea is to userfy rather than abolish, I'm all for it. I'm all for "I belong to this group, so I know a thing or two about it" boxes, not for "I belong to this group, so here I am, pushing POV" boxes. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Absolutely support. This gets userboxes out of template space while still allowing users flexibility in how they lay out their user page. Solid stuff. JDoorjam Talk 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. If there's any tweaking to be done, it can be done later. I think userboxes are lame, but as long as they aren't in the article namespace, I don't care. Just end the madness. Proto||type 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Finally! CG 17:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Just for some resolution. Cary Bass 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
37. /me joins the other mindless sheep :-) Definitely needs some tweaking though, unless there's already a clear-cut way to define "utility to the project". Bi 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support strongly. Just as long as "More Cowbell" can stay ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Sensible solution. Now let's get working on more important stuff. Junes 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Oh Ghod. Yes please. - David Gerard 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Sure, sounds worth a whirl. older ≠ wiser 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong Support. Please let's put this userbox conflict behind us and get on with building the Pedia.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - The primary object I have to userboxes is the way they can and have been used for POV-pushing and "ballot stuffing". If userboxes are not allowed to advocate a position, merely declare an interest in a topic, this limits that capability drastically, and reduces it to where it can probably be managed via normal, unofficial processes. Michael Ralston 05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, whatever stops this madness once and for all. — Feb. 24, '06 [06:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
45. Support - Seems reasonable. - cohesion★talk 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Strong support although one point should be removed in my opinion. It's the fact that users' subpages (subboxes?) not substed by others will be treated equally with templates. Hey, they're not templates! But I think I'll live with it. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comment they might not be templates, but the 'what links here' can still be used for vote-stuffing, so they are templates in all but name Cynical 23:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, I know. It's just that I'm still not convinced that vote stacking is a serious problem. I've been displaying my boxes for quite a long time now and I've never been invited to AfD because of my beliefs. But then I'm not spending that much time at AfD... Also, I rather tend to think that the possiblility of getting more people involved in a discussion is a good thing. But then again, maybe I don't yet know this part of Wikipedia well... Misza13 ^(Talk) 13:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

47. Support, but the proposed text really needs to be edited to clarify the concepts of "userbox" (as visible on the page), "transclusion" (from any namespace) and "template namespace". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Sure, why not, just make this stupid argument go away. — Phil Welch 22:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
49. I don't know. I think mass speedies, arguments with admins, and personal attacks get more done about this problem. NOT! Support --D-Day ^{Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody!Click to view my evil userboxes} 23:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
50. So, the idea is to stop all personal attacks, but still allow us to have userboxes in the userspace as long as they aren't personal attacks? If that's the case, and we'll still be allowed to have Wikipedia:Userboxes or something like it, I support. Dtm142 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect that Jimbo may himself make policy on Wikipedia:Userboxes, which gives the impression that the userboxes are sanctioned or supported by Wikipedia as a whole. There shouldn't be a problem with people adopting (userfying) the subpages and these could be linked from Wikipedia:Userboxes as long as it was made clear that they are the responsibility of individual users who undertake to ensure that they comply with Wikipedia policy on use of userspace. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Ok, then I'll support!Dtm142 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

51. Reluctant support for the reasons discussed ad nauseam and recorded on the talk page. I wish this policy was not necessary, and ideally the implementation part should be tweaked further to strengthen and clarify it. Metamagician3000 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support, please let's resolve this issue! jacoplane 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support, seems like a sensible compromise which addresses most of my concerns. Users who insist on having blatantly Pov userboxes on their user pages do so at the risk of their WikiReputation. Physchim62 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, I think its eminiently level-headed. — Catherine\^talk 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Support a nice, reasonable compromise. Good work folks.--Alhutch 04:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I think this proposal is good enough, and more importantly, would allow us to move on. Henrik 07:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Everyone has to eat some spinach but then we all get pudding. People may not be getting everything they want but they're getting what they need and we can get past this. Rx StrangeLove 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Support People can still express their POV - the Wikipedia technology should simply not be used to categorize people by POV. Excellent proposal. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 10:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
59. Support Yes! Please! What a great idea! Banez 11:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
60. support This looks good. It could still use some refining, but "great job!" to the writers. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. Absolutely beautiful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. I think this is a very good policy. Good job! --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 15:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Most of what is presented in the policy is ideal; and other areas do make sense. Niffweed17 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. I hate the "No images in the userbox ID" part (They look pretty) but I will support this regardless. Billyjoekoepsel 19:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. This may not qualify as perfect, but it's damned close. It appears, in fact, that some of my own suggestions were taken as valid steppingstones; if so, I am pleased and honored. RadioKirk talk to me 20:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Though i think Implementation 1.3 should be rewritten Discuss--Wedian 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. This seems to be a sensible compromise. pschemp | talk 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Support It's not perfect, but it creates a far more civil atmosphere than the existing situation. --Interiot 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
70. Inflammable super strong extreme lesbian support. I said I wasn't going to be involved with userboxes at all for a week, but I'm going to have to break that pledge on day 3 to vote in favor of this excellent proposal. And now I go back into my remaining week of self-imposed userbox Wikibreak. --Cyde Weys 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Strong Support --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Super fun happy Support! BillyH 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, just make this idiotic "problem" go away. Boy, Wikipedians argue about the dumbest things. Tuf-Kat 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. A fair compromise. LordViD 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Support - • The Giant Puffin • 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
76. Support, a sensible proposal, as it does not abolish userboxes, but makes sure that those that are completely useless and problematic are dealt with. It also codifies clear guidelines for administrators to check when deciding to speedy delete or not, which will make the decision less dependent on individual philosophical interpretations (which have been the cause of most of this problem). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
77. Support. gren グレン 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
78. Support A wikipedian should not use Wikipedia's popularity as a soapbox. If you wish to make a political or controversial statement, then make your own website. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Support --James 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Fair compromise, it makes sure that not all the userboxes are removed except for those that have no use and that can become controversial --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. I hate what userboxes have become and would prefer that Pandora's Userbox had never been opened. Given that they're here to stay, this seems like a good damage control option. If nothing else we need a written policy quickly so that there will be some organization to the mess, even if it is quickly amended to something else. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. Aren't I Obscure? 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 06:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) On second thought, nay. There's got to be a better way. —Nightstallion (?) 16:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

83. Hear hear. The Land 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
84. Support. Workable, and gives most people ehat they want. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
85. Support --Bletch 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
86. Support MartinRe 16:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
87. Support PJB 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)(Talkin' to me?)
88. Support. This seems to be a very sensible and workable compromise. The only quibble that I have is that before it is made policy, a few links should be added to educate the technically clueless (such as myself) about the meaning and significance of "transclusion" (a term I was unfamiliar with before today, despite not being a newbie). See Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll#Suggestion for clarification of proposal, for the benefit of the technically clueless. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. Ral315 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. Tarret 22:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
91. Support. Actually, I'd like to see all of user-space restricted to things peripherally associated with creating an encyclopedia (after all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox), but something is better than nothing policy-wise. —donhalcon^〒 01:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
92. Support. This is sensible. GoodSirJava 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
93. Support. Looks good to me. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
94. Support to reduce electioneering. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
95. Support This would provide a basis to challenge the draconian speedying that Jimbo has expressly opposed. Septentrionalis 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
96. Stong support per everyone else. Finally, some progress! --CJ Marsicano 05:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
97. Hell yes. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:39 UTC (2006-02-28)
98. Support It's a start. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
99. Support because we need a policy, any policy, yesterday and this one is quite acceptable (I'd even say surprisingly lenient). -- grm_wnr Esc 14:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
100. Support. Way too lenient to the point that I'm not sure it will be helpful, but it's something. We are an encyclopedia project and everything should focus on that. - Taxman ^Talk 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
101. Support. I would really prefer something more restrictive but this will do. David | Talk 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
102. Support. This policy may not be perfect, but if it isn't, it can be tweaked later. All of the advocacy, POV, and generally frivolous userboxes make user pages look like MySpace or LiveJournal sometimes. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
103. Support - these things scare me. 'Neutrality is the only thing holding the Wikipedia together.' -Litefantastic 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
104. Support. Seems fair to me. -- SCZenz 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
105. Support. I too would prefer something a little more restrictive. good start though. --Quiddity 07:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
106. Support. Not ideal but acceptable. Zocky | picture popups 13:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
107. Support. Fine. Ashibaka tock 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
108. Support. Seems like an appropriate policy; nobody is censored and POV user material stays in user space. Remy B 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
109. Support. Users have the right to do whatever they want to their own user pages.--FelineFanatic13 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
110. Support Good start towards an acceptable compromise. Users should be able to talk about themselves without offending others deliberately and userboxes are an efficient method of communicating via a webpage. There's no need to do away with them entirely.  (aeropagitica)  22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
111. Support, let's do this. Babajobu 10:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
112. Support. It looks to me like a compromise that will properly leave both sides a little unhappy... although it's interesting to me that the opposes are almost exclusively from pro-userbox folk. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

     Actually, I didn't even have a userpage until I saw this nonsense in the works. My objection to it is the false notion that undermining declarations of difference and alignment somehow improve NPOV. They won't. The strength of NPOV and Wikipedia is that it provides an institutional culture in which conspicuously different people can find a common ground in which to explore differences. This proposal ruins that. StrangerInParadise 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

113. Support. Perhaps doesn't go far enough, but better than the status quo. android79 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
114. Support. I agree it does not go far enough, on the other hand this might at least make them less devisive. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
115. Support a reasonable compromise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
116. Support. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
117. Support. This looks like a workable way to allow users to continue declaring POV while eliminating the exploit of simplified canvassing/ballot stuffing/bloc building that I've noticed from time to time. Well written and well reasoned: I'll stand behind it. Durova 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
118. Support. It's really funny to see the userbox craze here at the English Wikipedia. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
119. Me joins the mindless sheep and most likely gets eaten by a Grue, but hey, life's short, so I support. Hey, that rhymed.

     I think that, in my opinion, userboxes are fine. There is no NPOV; if you're convinced, is the glass half full or half empty? Huh? Oh, is it 50/50? Then which comes first? Half full and half empty? Then your POV is that it's half full, but as an afterthought for the sake of the NPOV you added "half empty". So there, there is no NPOV; we can only get closer and closer, and userboxes have friggin' nothing to do with it. People can just type out their message in plain text, or even just copy the source code to the userbox and paste in in their userpage if they're really sneaky; there's no use finding a way to stop the tide. There is no way to stop the tide. All you can do is prepare for it and make way, and wait for it to go away. You can stand in the shallows and defy it, but the tide doesn't care. Flameviper12 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

     Surely you realize that this proposal BANS the use of templates for USERBOXES. They are promoting it as "freedom of expression", but it actually bans a medium which would make expression easier, as if you said "you may have freedom of speech, as long as you don't use nouns". --Kaz 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

     PS: And remember what was most likely said at some point in history by some mindless sheep as it was eaten by a Grue: "YAHEUHRFDJFJDHRFJENGJIRGMIRNHGNVITNHRTNGUORNHOIGNOSRIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"

     Comment: You mean "Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk", surely! --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

120. Strong support. Several of the oppose voters don't even seem to have read the proposal. the wub "?!" 22:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
121. Support --Inge-Lyubov 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
122. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
123. Support --Prodego ^talk 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
124. Support. Alr 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

     Support. Banning political userboxes stifles free expression, and limits the ability of editors to determine the general stance of others in certain situations. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

125. Support. I've tried my best to stay out of the userbox mess, but this seems like a reasonable, acceptable proposal that meets the concerns of both sides of the argument. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
126. Support. If we're going to have the damned things, this seems like a good idea. --ajn (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
127. Support. Userspace should cater for it's own indulgences, and not use spaces designed for encylopaedic use. At the same time if users wish to summarise their no doubt complex opinions in a few words and 10,000 or so pixels they should be allowed to do so. BTW who created the first userbox? I think they should be shamed for their divisiveness and then hired by the CIA for being so brilliant ;) |→ Spaully°τ 01:05, 5 March 2006

     I have heard it was User:Jdforrester, and he is very sorry indeed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

128. Support - Don't like this compromise but it seems workable and clearer than what we've had before. Striking neutral and changing to support. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
129. Support Seems like a reasonable way to preserve the useful aspect of userboxes (locating fellow editors with expertise in given subjects) without using them to further organized faction. Choess 07:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
130. Support Seems like a reasonable comprimise. RicDod 11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
131. Support I guess I have to settle for this...although it will be interesting what arguments unfold over what is helpful to the project and what isn't as far as userboxes go...I see that the vast majority of them do zero to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 13:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
132. Strong Support User pages are important for declaring bias. Declaring individual neutrality on all issues is misleading. --Sumthingweird 13:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
133. Strong support - Images used solely for divisive user boxes should be speedy deleted as well: - wikipedia is no free webspace. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
134. Strong Support - This would discourage users from overloading their user pages with userboxes, and even I have had to resist the temptation to do so when I tour the userboxes pages. In addition, first impressions are important - so if user A sees a userbox on user B's page that user A doesn't like/agree with, the chances of harmony and cooperation between A and B could very well take a dive. In addition, I believe this would also put a quick end to this seemingly endless debate, so we can have more time to focus on Wikipedia's true purpose - writing an encyclopedia. --TML1988 16:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
135. Support - I'd be happy with even more restrictions on user boxes, but this is acceptable. I'm all for free speech and free expression, but people who demand it on web pages owned by other people always make me laugh (not saying that everyone who disagrees with me falls into ths category). -Polotet 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
136. Late bandwagon support  ALKIVAR™ 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
137. Support Matatigre36 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
138. Support --Martyman-(talk) 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
139. Support - This seems an excellent solution to me. RaelImperialAerosolKid 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
140. Support - This proposal protects POV userboxes in userspace, which is why it gets my support. Losing POV userboxes in template space is a reasonable compromise. -- noosphere 06:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
141. A satisfactory solution to the problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
142. Support - Reasonable guidelines, and definitely an improvement upon the current situation. -- uberpenguin 06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
143. Support; good start, workable, sane. Antandrus (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
144. Support - Just get this miserable affair out of the way. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
145. Support Wikipedia needs to set an example to prevent other less experienced projects from doing incredibly stupid things, like deleting the babel system [1]. JeffBurdges 11:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
146. Support. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
147. Support. Avenue 15:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
148. I've been a real lazy ass about this, mostly because I was afraid the proposed policy would be some piece of crap and because I have no more interest in dealing with this crap. Fortunately I was wrong on both calls -- I have enough interest to support this proposal. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
149. Support. Btw almost identical policy (with the force recommandation) - both in principles and in results, not wording, was adopted on cs: wikipeda some time ago. I think it may serve as an interesting approval - same problem leads to same solution, if you start from same basic principles of NPOV, freedom on userpages a Wikipedia beeing an encyclopedia --Wikimol 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
150. Support. Let us do remember the clause "not bringing wikipedia into disrepute" and that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Jkelly 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
151. Weak Support. This proposal will never work. It's quite an interesting compromise: you can be interested in political causes, but not support them ... it sort of reminds of me of the rule that you can possess and smoke pot, but you can't buy it. Users will nonetheless continue to profess their beliefs with self-made userboxes on their pages, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Some argue that all users must be completely neutral with all their work on Wikipedia, but I disagree with that--the best way to arrive at NPOV is by having two opposing POV's working together on the same article, and by making your beliefs known to others they can recognize your personal bias on certain issues and respond appropriately. But I support the proposal because it will bring an end to this "book burning" of userboxes with which certain users don't agree. We simply need a compromise to end this ridiculous debate, and if that means getting rid of userboxes that support certain causes then that's fine with me ... I can make my own, though I really don't see what the big deal is. P.S. Doesn't it seem somewhat strange to list supporting comments before any others in the debate? I read the proposal and then 149 arguments in support of it .. and only then do I get to see any arguments against it. It's too late now, but for the next proposal consider listing opposition first. AmiDaniel 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
152. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
153. Support Seems like a fair compromise to me Renatta 05:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
154. Support. Sixty-four, for example, is a lot of userboxes, especially when you've got pro-choice and stuff like that. ericg ✈ 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
155. Support. Including the idea by conditional supporters of having a list of userboxes kept by wikiproject userboxes (but my support is not conditional to that). ChaTo 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
156. Support. Bumper stickers belong on bumpers. --phh 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
157. Support. A reasoned and balanced proposal. Jtmichcock 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
158. Support. --Carnildo 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
159. Support --Constantine Evans 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
160. Support: templates essentially adding user pages to user categories are messy, see also Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Programming#Template_cleanup. Omniplex  08:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
161. Support The proposal looks fair enough. -- EJ 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
162. Support Aw, go on then --Dunstan 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
163. Supppot. Reasonable compromise even if wording a bit funny. Martinp 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
164. Supppot

Conditional Support

1. Conditional Support - I would support the proposal ONLY if Wikiproject Userboxes will be allowed to maintain a comprehensive listing of userboxes that users can contribute and place with hard-code onto their userpages. This listing would be inclusive, full of all the personal POV users desire (including political parties, and religious advocacy, etc.), and not be open to deletion, except per WP:NPA WP:CIV and WP:COPY.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   What about automatically listing those users who have a given userbox? StrangerInParadise 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   I don't know how to auto list a user's userbox as they make them (since they wouldn't be templates), or whether that would be desirable. The user may not want to list it.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   I think that seems rather fair. It would solve concerns of 'grouping' and possible what-links-here abuse. Since it is not a template, and since users are intitled to put POV comments (or userbox code) onto their userpage, a listing would not be an issue in my view. Ian13/talk 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   For that matter, I don't think this policy proposal would be able to limit this (I am not fully sure). It would not be part of Template: and the page would be intended for manual input into userpage. Of course, any user could do this at any stage in their userspace aswell (however I strongly oppose the user of things such as User:Boxes). Ian13/talk 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what to make of the last part of the last sentence, in parentheses.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   ("user" should probably be "use", i.e. he doesn't want a list of userboxes at some userpage like "User:Boxes") --AySz88^-^ 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   That might be a good explanation if it weren't for the fact that he supports the idea. :-/    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   Also note that User:Boxes seems to be a role account. --AySz88^-^ 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry - I mean that surely any user would be able to make their own code listing anyway, and I don't believe this policy prohibits one being kept in the Wikipedia: space. I also was trying to say that although I am making this point - I do happen to strongly oppose User:Boxes etc, becase, like AySz88 said, they are role accounts. I hope this clears things up :P Ian13/talk 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

   No, no, no. I want no userboxes in the wikipedia or template space. These boxes should exist only in the usespace. Keeping lists like this effectively sidesteps this policy and by any reasonable interpretation would not be allowed under it. BrokenSegue 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree with the previous poster. Keeping a list of userboxen in the Wikipedia (or Wikipedia_Talk) space is not a violation of the stated policy, as long as they can't be included, but only copied. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

   One could always register User:Box and put them there... Just zis Guy you know? 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   We shouldn't have POV content anywhere in the Wikipedia or article namespace. That is my main principle. Having the code for the boxes at some gathering point violates my principle and (I believe) this compromise. What is the purpose of this compromise if people would just copy the code instead of just copying the name? the point was to make it so that people would A) Write there own userboxes and not just reuse others [which makes them more usefull] B)The commonly distributed userboxes would be non-inflamatory C) Reduce server lag D)Stop people from bickering. If people are just copying the code then lots of inflamatory, useless and non-original userboxes will still spread across the user pages. If there is to be a repository of code for templates, then there will inevitably be arguments about which ones are too inflamtory to be listed. We don't want that. Stop it before it starts. Rant over. BrokenSegue 01:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   Why do you want to shoot down the very thing that could make this policy agreeable to almost everybody (except yourself, of course)? Do you want the war to continue?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   I didn't get the sense that the sticking point was the prohibition of lists of userboxes.... --AySz88^-^ 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   Wouldn't this be oppose? This is calling for rewritting the enire proposal. If it doesn't pass we can vote on something else, but I'm against rewritting the proposal a week and a half into the vote --T-rex 21:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

   Possibly, but not necessarily. I think that it's possible that whoever renders judgement may be able to say the policy passes AND this addendum/clarification passes.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

   It's relatively simple. Merely change "may" to "will" in Implementation 1-4. I don't consider those contradictory, although User:BrokenSegue seems to think they are incompatible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Conditional support per user:Guðsþegn. I'm pretty new to this whole userbox thing, but this seems to be a sensible solution. --Red Penguin 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Conditional support as per user:Guðsþegn, but I am willing to allow some regulation as to strongly offensive userboxes even then. Ultimaga 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
4. This policy is a very good compromise. I conditional support per Guðsþegn, preferably listing userboxes on the already-extant Wikipedia:Userboxes. That initial page could clearly outline the policy. Subpages would list the allowed templates, as well as code (not templates) for other userboxes. Allowing contrasting points of view dispells fear that these userboxes would suggest Wikipedia pushes any one point of view. --Fang Aili 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, on second thought, I don't know about having a semi-official page for userbox code. Such a page could get untenable really quickly, because of the sheer number of boxes or their messages. It might require more policing than its worth. *still pondering* --Fang Aili 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

   There would not be any more policing required than currently (probably less), and there would be a heck of a lot less TFDs and speedy deletes.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

   No this is a horriable idea, one that would cause most support votes to switch to oppose. If you don't like this policy, just vote oppose and be done with it--T-rex 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

   There is a sub-poll on the talk page about this if you want your views heard.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think that moving advocate userboxes to userpages solves nothing about the real problem, advocacy in userboxes (and user pages) in the first place. I also think that use of the generic {{userbox}} should be allowed as not-a-template (since using that template doesn't reveal its contents through WhatLinksHere or anything). (This may also be somewhat of a selfish vote because I want some time for my own idea, which I think is how (non-advocate) POV userboxes can be utilized in an encyclopedia-helping way.) --AySz88^-^ 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   Advocacy in userboxes can't be done away with without silly (you can write what you want but not in user boxes) or onerous (you can't write what you want) restrictions on speech on user pages. BrokenSegue 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   Restricting userboxes is not a silly restriction. Userboxes can make the POV advocacy seem accepted in the community and can cause some to think that POV-vs-counter-POV fighting is okay (instead of pushing people towards NPOV). If the language of userboxes is restricted a bit to avoid advocacy, the userbox turns into a NPOV-promotion device, instead of an advocating pro-POV device, by making oneself and others aware of biases. --AySz88^-^ 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   Why is someones's opinion in a box any worse that someone's opinion as raw text? My problem with the boxes was that they were in the template space. Using you standard, the defintion of a userbox would be critical. Is a userbox any text in a box? Any text in a small box? Hardcoded userboxes are rather poorly defined (especially if they don't use the user box creation template). If I was god-king I would banish all userboxes because I think they are ugly and unprofessional, but this is a fair compromise. BrokenSegue 05:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   Continuing this at talk page. --AySz88^-^ 18:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

2. This proposal only opens the door to more bickering, by declaring that all POV, and all political POV and/or advocacy, will be banished from userboxdom. On the other hand idenfitication will be "okay" (so long as it is not a partisan political affiliation). The problem is that identification itself is always going to be a POV decision. That may or may not start out a political matter, but it certainly can be. And it certainly can become political - especially when you don't allow people to just be up front.

   In that case, what you're going to find is that there is no real way to get around POV. There are any number of ways to subvert this rule if it is instituted:

   • Sublimation: Instead of identifying with an illegalized overt political cause (e.g. Irish Republicanism) or the party associated with that cause (e.g., Sinn Fein), one can simply choose an appropriate "front" userbox (e.g., Celtic F.C.).
   • Politicized national/regional identification: People who live on the same geographic coordinates are going to express their political sentiments simply by identifying with one way over the other. Who is going to state their homeland is Burma, versus who is going to say it is Myanmar? And is that not a POV and "political" decision?
   • Existential controversies: A simple question - do you want people to be allowed to identify as gay? If you do, then you end up pissing off a good number of people who think that no such identification exists. You are going to also get a number of people who will bring up such identification as advocacy for "the gay agenda." Do you really want to deal with that kind of headache, and even if you do is it any better than the current state of affairs? --Daniel 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   You'd be able to identify as anything you want in your userspace and create a (hard coded) userbox for it. But any template would have to be something like 'this user is edits sexuality related articles' - because that would be an editing interest regardless of POV. You can say you support the IRA on your userpage (ina box), but any template would be 'user edits Irish politics', you can put your team colours in a box, but the template would be 'edits football related articles'. --Doc ^ask? 01:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   My point is twofold, Doc. It is that 1) Userbox freedom has its virtues. Chiefly, that political expressions are up front, where you can see them - there is no cabal element, everything is above ground. If one dislikes a userbox, one is free not to use it or make an opposing userbox. It's a live and let live thing. 2) A restrictive userbox policy, on the other hand, becomes a lose-lose proposition. If you hate having to patrol POV in userboxes, you're going to get even more headaches: first, because the threshold for a violation is so low; second, because the potential for people reading between the lines, introducing POV and politics into userboxes, becomes quite high. --Daniel 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   This proposal increases "userbox freedom" by offering a resolution to the conflict, and reminding people that putting political expressions on userpages is perfectly find and acceptable. This proposal puts in a restrictive template policy, effefively requiring that templates be made only for groups of people working on the encyclopedia. I can't see how that's a particularly "low" threshold. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   This is not offering a resolution to the conflict. It just dilly dallies around it, then by some sleight of hand, by lowering the threshold from having a POV that inflames some honcho to simply stating any POV in a userbox. In other words, we're going from dealing with this through an Orwellian bureaucracy to dealing with it through Kafkaesque bureaucracy. There is simply no bureaucratic solution, and I wish that Jimbo et al would stop thinking there is. --Daniel 15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose First a user box is just fancy html, there really is no such thing as a 'userbox' Besides that I will have to oppose until I can get some clarification on 2C. I have a userbox on a subpage, and I would want to be able to keep it there to keep the code on my userpage clean. At the same time this page isn't meant to be used by anyone else, but theoretically it could be. I suggest that 2C be changed to Users are not allowed to use other users subpages as templates, so you could use your own, but not somebody elses. This would allow them to stay, and remove all possible abuse of "what links here" --T-rex 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   The rest of this discssion has been moved to the talk page. please contribute to it here --T-rex 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

4. All of the userbox templates and userbox pages deleted thanks to Jimbo should be restored. Everyone has a right to express their political views. The idea that there should be no political userboxes is completely and totally outrageous. Jimbo Wales' propositions play out like those of a selfish child who thinks that if he cannot have a toy, then no one else may have that toy. A neutral point of view is one thing, but I will not stand for ignorance. (Ibaranoff24 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

   Note that this proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." Claiming to oppose it because "everyone has a right to express their political views" seems to be a major misunderstanding. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The policy seems to say no to advocacy/POV userboxes but yes to belief-related userboxes, so that is confusing. Anyway, my position is "no limits" to userboxes in the user space except for especially disruptive efforts, such as personal attacks. This is not only a collective work, but a social group. And for the sake of dealing with each other honestly, I think it is, on balance, a healthy thing when we reveal our biases. I certainly agree that if userboxes are used to beat up on others, it's a bad thing, but simply revealing one's biases/affiliations on their user page with the possibility of meeting others of like mind is a really good thing. Let's not trash the social potential of the Wikipedia--otherwise, you may find that the Wikipedia dies over a "little" issue like this--killing freedom over a matter of personal distaste could indeed be the beginning of a slippery slope. I'd prefer that the Wikipedia embrace freedom. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   If your "position is "no limits" to userboxes in the user space except for especially disruptive efforts" wouldn't you be agreeing with this proposal, which says that users "may arrange [their user space] as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." Please clarify. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   This statement in the proposal seems to completely contradict my position: "Userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping. Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   So your position is not ""no limits" to userboxes in the user space", but instead, "no limits" to userboxes in the Template space. You can see how this was easy to misunderstand. However, your position is now clear, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

   My position is "no limits" to userboxes in the user space, not "no limits" in the template space. Here's the bottom line: This proposal just isn't clear, and I refuse to support policies that aren't crystal-clear. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose As I see it, the idea of userboxes is that people wishing to express the same belief/opinion/skill/project membership/whatever can do so in a uniform way. In other words, everyone wanting to have an "I love bananas" userbox would have the same "I love bananas" userbox. The only reliable way to achieve such uniformity, and to have a central repository of standard userboxes to search, is to use templates. Waggers 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   A quick point of order: isn't this the voting section? Surely the discussion should take place elsewhere - you're more than welcome to discuss my views on my user talk page. Waggers 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   • Isn't it rather tautological to demand uniformity of self expression? What is so evil about someone wishing to express his love of bananas in his own words? And what is so good about someone putting an "I like bananas" bumper sticker on his page when really he's absolutely crazy about bananas? --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   As a summary of things like wikiprojects and Babel, uniformity is good for at-a-glance recognition. I'm not sure whether there's an advantage to uniformity with POV boxes though. --AySz88^-^ 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   People are lazy, and will just copy and paste anyhow. And if you want your userboxes to look the same as somebody elses, you still can (nothing is stopping you from conforming) --T-rex 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   If people want to find an existing userbox to express something, it's much easier and more efficient to search a central repostitory rather than trawl through thousands of user pages looking for someone who has already created one. And if disk space is an issue, surely it's more efficient to have one instance of a user box (template) with several hundred pages pointing to it, rather than several hundred repeats of the same code. Waggers 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   You're right, it would be easier to trawl through a central repository and paste template code onto your userpage, which is exactly why we're not doing it. Why? Because userboxes are bad, especially the polemical ones. It shouldn't be easy for people to use them. And I don't know where you brought up this disk space issue; in fact, I challenge you to provide even one diff link where that has even come up regarding userboxes. It's a strawman. Nobody's arguing disk usage. What people are arguing is that templates and categories should be for encyclopedic content, not userspace POV stuff. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Did I say it was "evil" to express his love of bananas in his own words? No. My point is that if people want to use a standard template for a user box, what's so "evil" about that? Waggers 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to express ourselves in a uniform way; generally, it is considered that having indepependent(i.e. not uniform) opinions held by the editors of wikipedia is a good and helpful thing in writing the encyclopedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   You're missing the point. It's not the opinions that are uniform. All I'm saying is that if lots of people want to put the same user box on their page, the easiest way to do it is to use a template. If expressing ourselves isn't part of Wikipedia, what are we doing right now? Why does every article have a discussion page? Why does userspace exist at all? The answer is that self expression is a vital part of collaborations like Wikipedia, and it saves a lot of time and effort if we can declare our points of view openly, up front, and in a consistent (therefore recognisable and easy to read) way. And that's exactly what having userboxes as templates enables us to do. Waggers 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   The discussion page mainly helps to clarify points of fact, it's not there to facilitate "I believe this, you believe that, he believes something else blah blah blah" personal opinion rantage. Bi 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   Great, but surely the voting page isn't for that either. Surely that's what userspace is for. Waggers 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

   Userspace is, of course, for putting information about yourself -- which doesn't really need to mean your opinions. I think it's still useful for someone to know, say, that I can write Java, without me having to breathe down everyone's neck about how Java Is The Best Language In The World or how Java Is The Spawn Of Osama Bin Laden. Then again, this proposal isn't about censoring all opinions, so this is moot anyway. Bi 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Completely unnecessary to limit use of userboxes! Migdejong 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   Would you expand on why? The proposal goes into some detail on why it is useful and important; what part of the arguments given do you disagree with? JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree with the policy that user boxes should be relevant. They shouldn't have to be. What I disagree with most is the kissing up to the China government that is going on. China is a country run by an incompetent and corrupt governtment, we shouldn't care about them, they are the enemy (the government, that is). Ofcourse they oppose free information: the more free information, the worse it is for the Chinese government. Migdejong 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the information, but I see that you yourself are kissing up to the evil dictatorial governments of Myanmar, North Korea, Vietnam, ... since you aren't protesting those. *sigh* Bi 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree with a lot of things, I hope I don't have to put them all on my userpage. I disagree with the US government on most issues as well, but at the moment I disagree most with the reaching out to thc Chinese government by Jimbo.

   Well, didn't you say the more free information, the worse is it for dictatorships? By refusing to put any "free information" about the evil dictatorial governments of Myanmar, North Korea, Vietnam, etc., to the point of even defending your stand of not putting any free information about them, you're implicitly condoning these regimes. Wasn't that your own argument? Jeez. Bi 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

   So, in other words, for every government that I know of I'd have to state how much I disagree with them in order not to agree with them? Isn't that rediculous? Every time I'd state that I disagree with something I's have to state everything else I disagree with. That's just stupid. Migdejong 20:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose This proposal is an excellent step forward out of the murk that came before it, but it's still hasty and ill-defined and fails to address some key underlying issues. It implies a new definition of userboxes, (as an HTML object, whereas it used to be a template,) which must be stated for clarity. There is no urgent need for this policy; much of its quick support seems to come from fatigue of the debates. Keep in mind that userboxes are not really the central issue, this is just the tip of an iceberg of troubles that had been building for some time. Jimbo has too much influence, admins are not held sufficiently accountable, there is no systematic way to combat vote-stuffing, no policy on conflict of interest, and users want democratic power in exchange for their investment of time. We must strive for justice and fairness every step of the way in order to get universal buy-in to Wikipedia. This proposed policy is a quick band-aid that requires judgements of what is an interest and what is a bias, and that risks prolonging the bitterness. But you know what, I'm just going to delete my one userbox and go back to building an encyclopedia.--Yannick 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Absolultey strong Oppose This is Censorship. Just becuase we edit wikipedia does not mean that our lives consist solely of our actions on wikipedia, the userspace was never indended to conform to encyclopedic goals. AdamJacobMuller 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   (Repeat from above, as it is still equally aplicable.) Note that this proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." Claiming to oppose it because "userspace was never indended to conform to encyclopedic goals" seems to be a major misunderstanding. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (Copied 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

   Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia hence, you are proposing limiting userboxes to those that conform to encyclopedic goals. AdamJacobMuller 11:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   Just FYI, the templates on my userpage that have been subst'ed in the past few days, after putting together this list I am coming to realize just how this is occuring, what's occuring here is EXTREMELY POV and is, IMHO extreme censorship. AdamJacobMuller 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   1. This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted.
   2. This user supports the ACLU
   3. This user says, "Who you calling an 'illegal immigrant', Pilgrim?!"
   4. This user supports Hugo Chávez
   5. This user supports the U.S. Democratic Party
   6. This user supports People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
   7. This user believes that the death penalty should never be used.
   8. This user supports the legalization of all drugs for adults
   9. This user is in favor of gun control
   10. This user supports the United Nations
   11. This user opposes oligarchy by supporting the progressive tax and public education.
   12. This user is pro-choice
   13. This user supports voluntary eugenics

   Before substitution, the above statements were there. After substitution, the above statements are still there. Where's the "censorship" again? Bi 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Userboxes concerning personal beliefs of users were kept by overwhelming consensus - Keep 185, Delete 28 - You shouldn't censore userboxes just because they have a small chance of being divisive. It is a weak argument and is unsupported. What is divisive is userbox deletion and censorship of POV opinions. Userboxes are nothing more than an extension of userspace where POV is allowed.--God of War 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    Nothing is being censored. The proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." Claiming to oppose it because of "you shouldn't censore" seems to be a major misunderstanding. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (Copied with minor changes JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

11. Oppose - The old system worked fine and dandy until admins created a fuss over it, much like the U.S. government created the issue of Iraqi WMD's out of nothing. Oh my, did I state an opinion out loud? Shame on me! Coolgamer 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." Claiming to oppose it because it would restrict free expression seems to be a major misunderstanding. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (Copied with minor changes JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

12. Strong Oppose - Simply put, I see this like taking cigarettes out of stores, but putting all the raw materials in the store and going "roll your own cigarretts." (i don't smoke.) I also view this not only as an encyclopedia, but a community. You should be able to express things that you feel. Not EVERY SINGLE THING has to be related to the encyclopedia. That's what userpages are for. Recon0 22:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I see no problem with allowing statements of POV, humor, etc. which are not clearly meant to be blatantly inflammatory to be transcluded from user subpages. Banning POV userboxes and categories because they might be used for POV-pushing is contrary to WP:AGF. —Andux^␅ 00:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal "does not prohibit the use of transclusion by a user of pages in their userspace." While it apparently has been misread to imply such, this is not either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    I understand that, but my concerns relate to the inclusion of boxes from user subpages by other users. —Andux^␅ 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose - User pages are (partly) for the exposition of opinion. All opinions are potentially divisive. I agree with User:Coolgamer that the old system worked "fine and dandy". The only userboxes which should be deleted are those which are personal attacks (that is, "I hate John Smith", BUT NOT "I hate the French" or which incite people to crimes which are malum in se. Simple illegality changes with country and almost anything is illegal somewhere. Things like paedophilia are inherently wrong and user boxes advocating them should be put up for deletion where 99.99% of editors would be happy to see them deleted. Avalon

    It is precisely because "user pages are (partly) for the exposition of opinion" that this proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." This proposal says nothing about legality, so that's not relevant. Claiming to oppose it on the grounds of expressing opinion seems to be a major misunderstanding. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (Copied with minor changes - JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

15. Oppose - If the goal is to remove divisiveness/bias/pov from userspace, this is an ineffective way to do it. Any policy in this regard should NOT be restricted to userbox-templates. It should apply the the entire userspace or nothing at all. ---J.Smith 10:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Well, but that's not the goal of this proposal; the goal of this proposal is expressed here: "the main template and category space and the server resources involved in transclusion should only be used to further the encyclopaedia." That's the goal; as the proposal says, "Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better declared." I hope you can agree that the actual goal of this proposal (as expressed above) is worthwhile, and useful; we should work on the problems you mention, but this is not the proposal for that. I look forward to your response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you for your response. I think those arguments are a red-herring. It also ignores the WHY Jimbo has been pushing so hard for this. If the real goal is to remove userboxes from the main space, then the proposal would be actually addressing that. The proposal brings up the issue of the extra load incurred because of the inclusions, but I have yet to see -any- study that shows the userspace load is any more then negigible. The stated reasons are red-herrings and it does nothing to address the real reasons this whole issue has been pushed. ---J.Smith 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose as per Andux above.Habsfannova 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal "does not prohibit the use of transclusion by a user of pages in their userspace." While it apparently has been misread to imply such, this is not either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose, a much simpler solution is to move all userboxes to a Userbox: namespace. I will give the politically correct boo-hoo brigade no quarter. God of War is spot on. This poll had better be up for at least two weeks or else it is a clear case of vote stacking. I only found out about it today in an unrelated MfD discussion. I have yet to see many of the major userbox supporters opine, so I do not believe this represents any form of consensus as of today. --Dragon695 03:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Agree with Dragon - I only found this poll recently. Something is odd with the voting here.--God of War 06:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Just because it isn't going your way doesn't mean that there's something wrong with it. You probably just got used to the skewed vote numbers on the DRV page because most people couldn't be bothered to vote on userboxes day after day. Now, all they have to do is vote once to set policy. So you're getting a lot more of the moderates out in force. --Cyde Weys 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    And I think the creation of a Userbox namespace is ridiculous. Please, look at all of the current namespaces ... (main), talk, Wikipedia, template, category, portal, ... do you see a pattern here? They all exist to help build the encyclopedia. We're not going to add an entire new namespace so the 1% of users who actually bother with userboxes can have free reign on displaying POV on their userpage. --Cyde Weys 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    Actually that would be two namespaces - Userbox: and Userbox talk:, which makes the solution even worse. Misza13 ^(Talk) 10:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose. This is just going to cause a lot of useless debate over which boxes count as POV and which ones don't, as well as creating a big headache for heaps of users who want to express the same religious or political POV but have to each create the userbox individually because it was deleted. Think about it. What is going to cause more trouble for the Wikipedia community: tolerating one little userbox template that says "This user is a Catholic" or making hundreds of Catholics each create the same userbox with all the strain on the servers that that entails? People are going to express their points of view on their userpages, and they're going to use userboxes for that purpose. There is no reason for this arbitrary restriction on userboxes, which is just going to rile people up far more than letting people make POV userbox templates will. — Ливай 11:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. My opposition is based on a few points,
    • The very notion of valid and invalid groupings is both impractical and repugnant
    • Userboxes are so fundamental a means of association that all could reasonably be a userbox namespace, Userbox: Christian believer, Userbox: Unreconstructed lefty, Userbox: Britney fan, Userbox:fr-3, etc., which would behave like pages and categories (i.e. having appearance content and showing all userspaces to which affixed)
    • User self-description and group-identification should be encouraged
    • It is fundamental that Wikipedians be understood as an actual diversity of people, silliness and all
    • The continuum from self-description to group-identification is indivisible
    • Bias of any kind is better declared
    • The notion of Wikipedians all shrouded in the black robes of NPOV is not as desireable as it seems
    • The notion that a Wikipedian figuratively dons that black robe with each act on behalf of an article is non-negotiable, but this proposal trivializes that obligation

    StrangerInParadise 13:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment If userboxes as "so fundamental a means of association" I have to wonder why, according to an extensive survey that I carried out, only 10% of Wikipedians have any political, polemical or religious userboxes at all, and how on earth Wikipedia managed to get this far, for the first four years of existence at least, without userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that's the sense of "fundamental" he means. --AySz88^-^ 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose for one simple reason. It has always been standard practice to use subpages of one's user page to simplify user page code. Any policy that does not recognize this, and that treats user subpages as templates, is broken. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal "does not prohibit the use of transclusion by a user of pages in their userspace." While it apparently has been misread to imply such, this is not either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    "Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'." This makes it necessary for me to police whether other users are using my subpages as templates to keep them from being deleted. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, it does not. While I can't promise that this would always be the way it would be interpreted, if I found people transcluding another user's subpages, I would simply subst the transcluion, and warn the users that this was not the right way to do what they were trying to do. I would see no reason to delete the pages, particularly if the user in question actually transcluded them on their pages. It is also important to note that no-one who is not trolling is either going to transclude another user's navbox subpage, or delete such a page if it was transcluded. Anyone making such a claim is making a straw man argument. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Are you saying that these users are trolling? (I have substed it on my user page to avoid losing it if it is deleted.) --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Just to clarify the context for this: the page SPUI is referring to is a brightly colored box with the letters OMG next to the image Image:Pastelbox.gif, which is a box which blinks various pastel shades and contains the text: "Look at me! I'm an annoying little pastel box". JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

21. Oppose per SPUI and also because of the prohibition against POV-oriented categories for user pages. It is commonly argued that "Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopedia, not a social networking site." However, there are many who participate in Wikipedia PRIMARILY to participate in the community and consider the encyclopedia as simply a means to that end. And as long as they're good editors, why should we care WHY someone is here? If someone wants to come here to find others of like mind, how does that hurt anything? As long as his articlespace edits are good, his primary motivation for being here is irrelevant. If we ban one particular mechanism of this social-networking, we risk losing these good editors. This is not a good idea. Kurt Weber 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal "does not prohibit the use of transclusion by a user of pages in their userspace." While it apparently has been misread to imply such, this is not either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

22. oppose. The proposal is mostly nice middle ground, but I oppose the idea of treating transclusion of user subpages as if they are in the template namespace. Transclusion is a useful mechanism for arranging pages so that they can be edited in a centralized fasion. To respond to the reasons I assume this is proposed: We already know that the server strain from userboxes is negligible. Even without the what links here feature, it would be easy to find users with {{subst}}'d templates of a certain sort using google, so this provides essentially no protection against vote stacking (but also makes it annoyingly inconvenient to browse others with similar interests for the non-sinister purposes of socializing and making contacts—an activity many find quite fun and interesting). — brighterorange (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal "does not prohibit the use of transclusion by a user of pages in their userspace." While it apparently has been misread to imply such, this is not either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    I understand that; but the proposal does say that transcluded pages are treated as templates no matter what namespace they live in. The implication is that one would not be able to create "I am an Inclusionist" userboxes intended for sharing among other inclusionists in userspace where POV is allowed (indeed by this very proposal). This is a bizarre restriction for the reasons I outlined above. For what it's worth, I'd support the proposal if not for this. (Also, if you'd like to respond to my opinion, I would appreciate it if you didn't just paste the same response you're pasting everywhere else. It makes me feel like you're not actually reading what I said.) — brighterorange (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    I apologize for the paste. I did read what you wrote, but I failed to respond before other people had voted based on your understanding, and so I wanted to reply to all of them. Again, I apologize. Now regarding the case you suggest - inclusionism is a boarderline case - there is a long-established Association of Inclusionists, so a userbox template for them would probably be accepted in any case. But , take a more clear example - creating a "This user is male" userbox template as a user subpage. It would of course be totally acceptable for any number of users to have the text "This user is male" in whatever sort of box or decoration they prefered, either identical or different from each other, on their pages. As for putting such a template on a seperate page and suggesting that people transclude User:JesseW/User male to their page, rather than copying the code directly... there's considerable difference of opinion about that. I personally would not object particularly, although I would strongly suggest that people subst the box simply as a way to keep their statement of their sexual identity from changing without their awareness. ;-) Hope this explains things further. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose. I don't think that userboxes do any harm. I'm rather new and not sure how important or rare that template space is; however, having tons of hard-coded copies (as they are still allowed according to this) would need a lot of extra space, so on the whole it would not be much better, I think. So if both options have disadvantages, I'd prefer the one that's easier to use, and that's definitively the template version.
    Concerning POVs I think that as they are explicitely allowed in userboxes and used by many users, there is no reason to banish them from template space, unless they are too offensive.
    Last but not least I personally like the overviewpage, just because it's interesting to browse the available template userboxes and get some new ideas. It would be a pity if only the boring ones were left. Shir Khan 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. Oppose, switched from support. A number of comments above convinced me this was a bad idea, one of them being Brighterorange's. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this proposal "does not prohibit the use of transclusion by a user of pages in their userspace." While it apparently has been misread to imply such, this is not either the spirit or the letter of the proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Um, that quote actually doesn't appear in the proposed policy anywhere, though it does say "...a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'..." and I think probably should be amended to explictly say that it doesn't prohibit any intra-userspace transclusions by a single person, since it's apparently not very clear about that. --AySz88^-^ 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    If it were changed to that I would likly change my vote to support --T-rex 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    You are correct; while it is and was not the intent of the creators of this proposal to make any such restrictions, the wording is open to that interpretation. The answer is simply to make sure that such an interpreation is not applied, and support amendments that would clarify it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

24. Nay. There's got be some better way, although this proposal could be a start. —Nightstallion (?) 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Wait a sec. You're opposing this proposal because it "could be a start"? Wouldn't that lead you to "support" it? Could you expand on what about this "start" is so unacceptable that it should not "be a start"? Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Er, policies in effect should, logically, be at or close to its final product, not near the "start", no? --AySz88^-^ 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

25. oppose. This seems to prohibit disclosure of bias, which is useful information to have and seems like required disclosure in many situations. Also seems to have the strange idea that making it a bit harder to do that on a user page will prevent people from finding like-minded people. The use of links to like-minded people to recruit for factional votes and debates, is, of course, lamentable. Jamesday 18:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    I think that's not true. You can still disclose your bias on your userpage with this policy, you just can't make it into a template. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    This absolutly does not prohibit disclosure of bias. It does not restrict what content users can put on their user pages. (Although some content such as libel is already forbidden, see Wikipedia:Userpage) Please provide a quote from the proposal that implies this. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

26. Opose It is sad that a few admins are allowing zeal to get in the way of a sensible debate. Either Wikipedia supports this form of expression, in which case these templates are a legitimate pagemaking tool, or it doesn't, in which case they're not. The current schizophrenia needs to be resolved before action is taken. Recent deletions are not condoned by CSD:T1. Andy 00:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Wikipedia supports the freedom of users to put (nearly) anything they want on their user pages; Wikipedia does not support all the various permuations of expression that any user may think some other user might want to express. A large part of the "current schizophrenia" (about whose existance I completly agree with you) is due to userbox templates which are both: personal expression of users, meant for their personal user pages, and public, community pages owned and assumed to be endorsed by anyone and everyone, and not personal at all. Requiring that all personal (not related to writing or improving the encyclopedia) expressions be located only on user pages is an important step toward curing this "schizophrenia". JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

27. Oppose per Jamesday and Andrewpayneaqa Brian | (Talk) 05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose Robust Physique 06:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong Oppose - what will I do without all those pretty userboxes? ems 14:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. This proposal will not stop you from having any userbox on your userpage, so long as that box is not a template. That goes for everyone else opposing this becuase they think they will lose the ability to place userboxes on their userpage. This is not the case. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Oppose - This is silly. This will not end advocacy. The more serious offenders often have blank user pages. A userbox on my page does not make me an automaton. I suspect this is grounded in anti-religeous bias. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Do you have evidence for that last assertion? Or are you just assuming bad faith and using ad homium attacks for the sake of it? As joint-author if this, I can assure you that you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not sure what type of religion encourages you to believe the worst of those with whom disageee. --Doc ^ask? 18:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Perhaps you debating me in the Oppose section is the best evidence? I see that a few people with stong feelings about obliterating text by people self-identifying their faith are trying to make this a crusade. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

32. Strong oppose - Users should be free to express their political opinions through user boxes including if they belong to a particular group or religion. Cedars 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    Users will remain totally free to "express their political opinions through user boxes including if they belong to a particular group or religion". This proposal does not restrict what users may write on their user pages. Please clarify your objection. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    But it does restrict their ability to convey those opinions through userboxes and categories. I don't see the harm of having userboxes and categories that are significant enough to gain use by a number Wikipedians and are not overtly offensive or inflamatory. Another problem with the proposal is that it restricts categories that stem from userboxes. Under this proposal it seems the [[Category:Christian Wikipedians]] is going to be deleted, thus restricting the ability of Christian Wikipedians to find other Christian Wikipedians and throttling the community spirit. Also what would happen to the MBTI userbox templates would they be in or out under this proposal? And what about categories such as "distrust Jimbo", or "for Wikipedian (edit) religion categories", would they be in or out under this proposal? Finally, would this proposal get rid of the "trusts Jimbo" category and "trusts Jimbo" userbox? Cedars 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for responding. It is true that this proposal would restrict some methods for wikipedians to convey opinions unrelated to writing or improving the encyclopedia. Regarding Christian Wikipedians; have you looked into Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity - it's specifically organized for Wikipedians who want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity to find each other. MBTI userboxes, like (nearly) all other userboxes, would still be allowed under this proposal. Would they be have a category? Probably not, although those who wished could join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychopathology and meet others who wanted to work on Wikipedia's coverage of MBTI there. A Category of users who "distrust Jimbo" would be a boarderline case, as it's clearly Wikipedia related, but at also 'iffy - if they don't trust Jimbo, why should they trust him not to mess with their Category? ;-) I'm not sure what you mean by the "for religion categories" - I'd point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. The "trusts Jimbo" userbox, like (nearly) all other userboxes would be allowed, but I would be very surprised if it was a template, or had a category, mainly because I suspect that the users who want to put a "trusts Jimbo" userbox on their page would have already removed it after Jimbo's requests in that area(as they claim to trust him), and would have removed the category for the same reasons. If you have further questions, please ask. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

33. Strong oppose Having our biases public and open is more likely to reduce POV than worsen it. It puts newbies on an equal footing, and prevents a gang of editors who know they share a pov from acting as a group to bully their opponents since their opponents are also able to act. A bit like Mutual assured destruction. Userboxes prevent POV by creating a situation of total stalemate. Perhaps that is why some of the most POV editors are so adamantly opposed to them. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose unless modified. The status quo ante Jimbo's rant was better than the present proposal or the status quo. Further discussion on the talk page. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Minimal modifications required:

    Userbox Policy 2 or 2C must specify that userbox subpages which are to be subst'd or copied into user space (such as by a <noinclude> tag) are not considered templates, even if they live in the Template: section.

    Implementation 1.4 must be changed from may to shall.

    Implementation policy 1.5, more or less as follows, must be added:

    5. Userbox templates that were speedy deleted shall be recreated in user space (as in 1.4) unless the userbox itself would be speedied as a user page, such as as a breach of no personal attacks, civility, copyright, legal considerations, not bringing wikipedia into disrepute, no deliberate trolling, and the caveat that wikipedia is not a free webhost.

    (They may be brought up for deletion under AfD or TfD, but not speedied under the old or new CSD T1.)

    If those changes are made it would be acceptable.

    — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

35. Oppose. People will still be free to say "I'm a Christian" on their user page anyway, so what's wrong with a little template for it? I would consider Templates beginning with User to be different to other templates as they are only used on user pages. Gerard Foley 21:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Things in Template: space are usually held to a higher standard than the namespaces they're included in, because templates get copied to many different pages. For instance, though it's acceptable to say "fuck" on an article page, it's generally discouraged unless it's really necessary, so as a result, almost no template uses the word "fuck". Similarly, while most things are allowed in User: space, and we don't want to limit most free expression, there are still things that are discouraged, and those things are moved out of Template: space, if only to encouarge editors to think a bit more before putting content on pages. --Interiot 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

36. Strong Oppose per Gerard Foley. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 22:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong Oppose per User:-Ril-'s comment (#32). Use of template space facilitates the use of more homogeneous userboxen, and therefore is more likely to be helpful when trying to spot potential POV issues. Userfying is a solution that I have resorted to when some of my "more divisive" ubx have been deleted, but such ubx are not nearly as helpful for the most valid uses of userboxes, i.e., seeking additional perspectives on wording/content. Dick Clark 22:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose. This has become a divisive issue because certain admins have heavy-handedly mandated a policy without even bothering to ask the community, assumed bad faith, and otherwise denigrated anyone who disagreed with them. I will support userboxes being deleted if they also give up their sysop status as an exchange. -- Jbamb 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Oppose. The User namespace should not be NPOV; a user page is a user's page (or so I understand; I've asked on the talk page of WP:OWN), and they should be allowed to say what they want to, any way they want to. Personally, I don't use a lot of userboxes, just language boxes, the admin box, and a box saying that I'm male. But I'm not going around speedy-deleting (or editing down) other people's user pages just so that they don't look stupid, cluttered, or what have you. Also, even though I'm an administrator myself, I don't trust other admins' judgment with regards to what is POV and what isn't, any more than I trust anyone's judgment about it in article space. A general problem at the core of evaluating POV vs. NPOV, or what constitutes an NPA violation, is that people often fail to see their own biases as being biases, while saying that those who disagree with them are biased against them. This scenario comes up in politics quite frequently, and probably in Wiki politics too, in the form of inclusionist/deletionist debates and so forth. While admins have been trained in policy, there are still some who have acted out of line with regards to policy, and if anything policies of this nature should be keeping admins in line rather than letting them be above the law when they want to be. Therefore, allowing speedy deletion of userboxes perceived as "biased" opens up admins to acting unilaterally, and it gives us a policy which allows admins to act unilaterally in this case. This is different from simple speedy deletions of patent nonsense or short articles with little or no context, as there is meaningful content here which is, in most cases, used by legitimate users of the project. Admins acting unilaterally with regards to userboxes has already led to RfC's, RfAr's, and the like. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Really Strong Oppose per Gerard Foley. --CFIF (talk to me) 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose, there is no reason why userboxes should be allowed as code directly on userpages but not as templates. The current system is far more convenient than the system that would be created by this proposed policy. Yeltensic42 don't panic 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
42. I stand in oposition to this proposed policy, I think that wikipedia should allow any kind of user box as long as it's not directly attacking someone or their beliefs and is not directly insulting, like a box saying "This user thinks Jimbo Wales is a big douche." would be wrong, but "This user thinks Jimbo Wales should not decree policy." would be good. Allowing people to find one another in an easier manner will allow for much more benefit than anyone's paranoid fears about how they may cause problems. Janizary 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose, "All template space userboxes that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time." Not directly related to wikipedia? That would mean that a simple "I'm Female" userbox or a "I have kids" userbox would be deleted, but a "I edit only the Abortion Pages" userbox would beable to stay. That just seems silly. Seraphim 10:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    It was explained to me better, I still oppose it. All this is doing is giving userboxes more protection and requiring people to have them in their own userspace. It doesn't fix my major problem with them which is people using them to grab support during votes. (1 user uploads an image to their userspace that says something like "I'm pro abortion" and then everyone else just links to that image from their userpage) All it does is move the stuff from one namespace and into another. Seraphim 10:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

44. Oppose - It's not a bad proposal, but I don't see it as being all that good either. I don't see it conserving webspace and I think the use of Template space to create and use harmless userboxes that make some people enjoy Wikipedia that bit more is not a bad thing. - Hayter 12:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong Oppose - For starters, this policy proposal is too long and written in legalese. Secondly, I share the concerns of Seraphim, Janizary, Yeltensic, Idont Havaname, Jbamb, and Cedars. A more peaceful resolution would be to de-sys-op the sys-ops who have caused this crisis by enforcing their deletionist POV on content that other Wikipedians wish to share in a mututally convenient location for use only on their user spaces. A435(m) 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Check out my "conditional support" proposal and tell me what you think.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hear, hear. I'm really fucking tired of the deletionist sysops who feel free to override the overwhelming consensus of the community. I've seen far too many TFDs where there'll be few or no "delete" votes, but the userbox gets deleted anyway. For all their talk of userboxes damaging the community, it's really these deletionist sysops who are doing just that by fabricating this "crisis". The Great Userbox War they've started is the real crisis. Yeltensic42 don't panic 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

46. Oppose As per Foley, userboxes are just an extension of a userpage. --Horses In The Sky 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong Oppose. How does this solve anything? Everyone will still be able to make and display POV userboxes as long as they're in the User namespace and people subst them. I don't see a problem with POV userboxes anyway - if they are being used for mass collecting of votes, a) there is no rule against that and b) if there was such a rule, people who break it should be dealt with accordingly. This is punishing the majority for the (supposed) actions of the minority - and it's not even an effective punishment at that. Hitchhiker89^talk 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong Oppose per Hitchhiker89 and all others. Chairman S. | Talk 19:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose I want to voice my support of the userboxes. I think that organizations thrive when they promote internal cohesivness. The useboxes allow people with similar interests to congreagte in the virtual puiblic square. I don't think they should be eliminated, but some way should be found to let people with similar interests and backgrounds congregate. evrik 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
50. I oppose this proposal because I don't see the value in disallowing people to easily denote affiliation and sympathy. On the contrary I think allowing editors to do so will help build a stronger wikipedia because it allows people with interest or knowledge in specialised areas to be more easily located. Furthermore, I think disclosure of POV is informative and useful. aliceinlampyland 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
51. Oppose. Allowing interests but not beliefs? There is no difference between wrting "I am a christian" and putting it in a userbox. Deleting userboxes, or subst'ing them does not solve anything. Pengo 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Yes it does. It says that this belief is not formally endorsed by the project as being relevant to the process of creating an encyclopaedia. And actually Christianity might well stay; if you want the Christian perspective on an issue, you would need to find a Christian, it's like Babel in that respect. But there would be no "official" template for users who worship the cult of Jimbo, which is no bad thing. Just zis Guy you know? 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Er, if Christianity could stay on this basis almost anything could stay. You'd need to find a Republican perspective on American politics, an atheistic perspective on Christianity itself, a Creationist perspective on evolutionary biology, etc, etc. I don't think that's what the policy envisages. Metamagician3000 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, and if I'm reading the policy right, 'This user is a Christian' would not be allowed, however 'This user is interested in editing Christianity-related articles' would be. The former is a declaration of POV, while the latter is a statement of fact which is relevant to the building of an encyclopedia. Cynical 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose Without explicit text on Wikipedia:Userboxes, the war will continue. It matters less which explict text than that there should be one. Septentrionalis 17:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Strawpoll on Talk does seem to provide some position on this Septentrionalis 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

52. Oppose NPOV is not a bona fide requirement on userpages except in extreme circumstances. These are userpages meant to declare our bias/preferences, and while I believe "Syriana was a crappy movie", that doesn't mean it's offensive for somebody else to like it Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Oppose. Banning political userboxes stifles free expression, and limits the ability of editors to determine the general stance of others in certain situations. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong Oppose. This unofficial and sneaky redirect/userboxes "burning campaing" has allready started and it is driving me mad. Over-eager "Inquisitors" are deleting/burning all the userboxes they can find, even while the whole matter is still being debated. I am quite undecided about "userboxes about political issues" but it appears to me that the burning campaign is running out of control as even userboxes about books ! are being deleted/burned. Flamarande 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Oppose. I honestly don't see what the problem is with userboxes, even ones expressing a POV, existing in template space. So the template space is intended to be solely to help build the encyclopedia, and has to be NPOV. Why? So what? If these userboxes are never going to be used in articles, what does it matter if they're in template space? If these templates expressing a POV are only ever going to be used on pages where POVs are explicitly allowed, why does it matter if they have a POV? Reveilled 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
56. Oppose, like some of the alleged supporters probably would, but they're probably being fooled by misleading wording.
    • It strikes me that the proposal is worded in such a way that anyone skimming the text might get the impression that it OPPOSES the censorship of templates, when in fact it is codifying the existing censorship. If anyone actually had the time, someone should go back and ask each "support" voter whose comment is unclear, and find out if they actually realized they were supporting the censorship of templates.
    • To reiterate; the wording of the proposal seems to emphasize PREVENTING censorship, but it actually establishes censorship. It continues this ridiculous, unsupportable premise that, somehow, magically, making it easier to declare one's viewpoints through a universal template would cause some kind of harm and should be banned.
    • That, by the way, is a premise which reminds me of why people distrust mainstream media today. It's not that they think "alternative media" is more objective...it's that the latter are honest about their viewpoints and biases. There is this insane premise in mainstream media that hiding your bias somehow makes you objective. Ask anchorman X for whom he voted for president, and he'll say "I can't tell you that, because it would compromise my objectivity". But, in fact, keeping it secret is what compromises his objectivity, by keeping people from understanding where he's coming from. His viewpoint still effects what he reports, but we don't get to know HOW it effected it.
    • The same is true of user pages, including userbox templates. Trying to retard the expression of an editor's viewpoint through userboxes doesn't make wikipedia more objective...it makes it LESS objective and trustworthy, by making the viewpoint, which exists either way, more secret. --Kaz 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
57. Strong Oppose We can have whatever we want on our userpage as long as it Isn't derogitory to Jimbo, Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or another Wikipedian, Profoundly Obscene, or Illegal --Z.Spy 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Please clarify your opposition, as this proposal adds no limits to what you can put on your user page. Currently, there is a lack of guidelines in this area; this is a proposal to make one, so that "we can have whatever we want on our userpage". I look forward your response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    No, the proposal censors user pages, by banning the use of templates on them. "You're allowed to say anything you want, as long as you don't use this list of words to do it" is not free expression. --Kaz 17:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

58. Super strong oppose we cannot let this stupidity continue. our user pages are practically sacred. we have no porno or nazi simbols or things like that. User boxes are our way to express ourselves. Richardkselby 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Please clarify what stupidity you are referring to (there's so much, in this whole issue... ;-) ). This proposal is specifically designed to allow free expression, including user boxes, on user pages, please clarify what you object to regarding this proposal. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    That is absolutely false. It does not allow free expression, any more than "you may say anything you wish, unless you use a printing press, in which case it must be something the government considers neutral" is free expression. You ban a convenient utility, TEMPLATES, which people wish to use for their "expression". You have clad it in "may say anything they want", but you're Henry Ford, with the model-T which comes in "any color the customer wants, as long as they want black". --Kaz 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

59. Oppose Gilgamesh he 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Oppose 1/ the technical limitations argument is specious 2/ If "political" userboxes go, then all the 9/11 and US war in Iraq related userboxes have to go 3/ This proposal would offer aid and comfort to those deleting user categories which has already happened as part of the action against userboxes (come to my talk page and ask if you want an example). Alex Law 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

61. Oppose per Trisreed Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)=
62. Oppose I do see some generally well placed ideas here, and I acknowledge it. However, userboxes with POV are better stated then ignored: that way, bias can be better corrected by others. This new policy will eventually effect religious userboxes, which have every right to be placed on pages, political userboxes which should be stated for obvious reasons '(show a user's potential bias)', and the fact that now, people will go 'Userbox Crazy', and begin to put tons of userboxes up for deletion. '(I would appreciate one thing though: has this policy already taken effect? Or is this still in the process of being voted for or against? Because I've already seen people using this as a reason to delete boxes, something getting on my nerves)' --Nomader^{Talk to me} 01:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Oppose. Userboxes and user categories would be harmless if people would stop trying to delete them. —Guanaco 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Oppose --Terence Ong 04:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Oppose. I see little harm in allowing userboxes to allow personal expression. Virgil61 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
66. Oppose Apart from personal attacks, which are not just POV, they are made with the single purpose of creating hurt, in userboxes I think that having a stated POV on your user page, which is technically separate to the encyclopedic content of wikipedia, at least gives people a place to declare these things. Take them away and people will likely resort to putting their POV on encyclopedic pages to get their ideas out. Ansell 07:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Weak oppose As a relative newbie, I hate having to replace my nice, simple, {{User:agnostic2}} code with a long and confusing string of what looks to me like gibberish. I think userbox templates are a simple way to attract people who are not willing to spend a lot of time creating userboxes, but who want to have a personalized userpage. I can say that I love my userpage; it's the focus of all my work at Wikipedia. And userboxes are a great way of individualizing pages. Also, I enjoy glimpses into the personalities of other editors. It's great to find a user who you agree with politically, but even better when you see that a user who you respect has views opposite to yours. Userbox templates are perfect for allowing both of these things to happen. I think all userboxes should be kept in template space, or else moved to a separate userbox: space (see Oppose #16). Also per BrokenSegue (Oppose #1), Waggers (O#6), brighterorange (O#21), Shir Khan (O#22), Jamesday (O#24), Arthur (O#33), Gerard (O#34), Trisreed (O#61), Username132 (O#65). I'm only a weak oppose, though, because of good arguments in support by Interiot (O#34), aa (Support #7), Bunchofgrapes (S#111). TheJabberwock 20:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    No offense meant, but I think part of the problem is that people have come to consider their user pages, as you say, the 'focus of all my work at Wikipedia'. That's not what Wikipedia should be about. I can't blame you for wanting a nice userpage and I certainly don't want to discourage you from putting time into it. But, like userboxes, userpages are ultimately a means rather than an end in itself. Junes 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    That's definitely true; focus was probably the wrong word to use. What I meant is that my userpage is like a portal for me, with my To Do list, my talk page, and my watchlist. I think that userboxes actually reduce the amound of time I spend on my userpage by making customization much quicker and easier. TheJabberwock 05:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    (The first oppose vote is by me, not BrokenSegue - do you mean that vote or his response to it...?) --AySz88^-^ 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

68. Oppose as there remains subjective definitions of what is and is not acceptable. Several administrators have proven themselves incapable of accepting that their POV about userboxes is (a) not shared by all Wikipedians, (b) does not override consensus and (c) is not enforceable by speedy deletion. Until objective criteria for what is and is not acceptable are agreed on by all interested Wikipedians and CSD T1 is made to apply only to templates that unquestionably meet this objective criteria, I cannot vote in favour. Thryduulf 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Oppose. Human is unique. Human wants to be unique. Human has a POV. Userpage (and userboxes) is a place for them to express themselves, so their POV stays out of the article namespace. Kirils 23:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    In addition, I Strongly Oppose the manner in which my user page was edited before a consensus was reached. Spaceriqui 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

70. Strongly Oppose. The POV userboxes help users in communicating and understanding the others' point of view. They are not part of the main interface as they are in the user pages, and even so it is clear that they are merely representation of the user and not an encyclopaedic take on the topic at hand. --Bora Nesic 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
71. Strong Oppose As per above. The thought that an editor will be unable to look past their opinions and experiences and edit fairly is ridiculous. Changing this policy will do nothing to improve consistency of NPOV throughout the project and serves only to hinder the free speech on what is presumed to be one's own webspace. WesleyPinkham 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
72. Strongly Oppose so much that it can even be lethal.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
73. Oppose. Too many weasel words, and a solution to the wrong problem. Allow userboxes, but with no graphical content - image or colour - and see how long they last. Noisy | Talk 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
74. Oppose Typos 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
75. Oppose --Revolución hablar ver 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
76. Oppose for a number of reasons. First, there is little that distinguishes a userbox and a simple comment...why can I say "I like cheese" in my user page but not if I put it in a box (cheese thing just an example). Second, I think near-complete freedom of expression is, usually indirectly, key to the success of the encyclopedia. It has unexpected benefits, like allowing like-minded users to collaborate on a subject they're passionate about. Besides, who's to say what facilitates the creation of an encyclopedia and what doesn't? I had a couple of other points, but they faded from memory between the time of clicking edit and now. But in short, I oppose, and I hope we're not moving towards a general trend of making a policy for everything. Just because something offends a couple of idiots doesn't mean there should be a policy forbidding it. Responsible users should just ignore whatever doesn't help create an encyclopedia, and let's let that be that. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
77. Oppose. User group-identification should be encouraged since a declared user bias (or POV) is much better than people keeping their bias hidden. Since no individual possesses a "neutral" point of view, Wikipedia should provide users an easy way to declare their POVs and even the ability to organize themselves around these POVs in an honest and open way. I think it's the best way to achieve NPOV where it really matters (in the articles). --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
78. Oppose This whole thing is childish. Besides, being a conservative, I'm gonna have to say keep it like it's always been.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
79. Oppose I've stated my positions on UBX elsewhere. John Reid 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
80. Oppose What's so wrong about User Boxes people?! 5ii 17:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
81. Oppose I can't remember if I already voted on this or not :/. But it seems to me that userboxes shouldn't have to be able to help Wikipedia articles because their userboxes, not wikiarticleboxes :/. Homestarmy 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
82. Oppose 1. Users will be free to place whatever they wish on their user pages; this proposal makes no restrictions on this. Aren't userboxes for user pages? So wouldn't restricting user boxes restrict what users could place on their user pages? +Johnson 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    No, as has been made clear time and again, this proposal will not restrict what people can put on their userpages. it only restricts what you can put in Template: space. Cynical 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    1. I feel that restricting templates would be a loophole to limit speech. User boxes grab attention, and I'm sure many users don't know how to make user boxes (me being one of them). The templates just make it easier for users to express themselves. I don't understand how this is a problem. +Johnson 08:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
83. Oppose. I don't see the problem with userboxes being templates. Sorry. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
84. Oppose. Getting rid of POV user boxes won't change my opinions, it'll just move my opinions into the main part of my wiki userspace. I find this talk of getting rid of POV user boxes somewhat more POV than the boxes themselves... It's bad enough that anti-anarchist boxes have left us while pro-anarchist boxes remain, and that other similarly controversial userboxes (such as ones that somehow indicate I may not be in support of equal voting rights for all people - oh no! - what a travesty!) have been deleted without good reason - I'd prefer we not take this a step further. If you don't want POV anywhere on wiki, maybe it's best you have robots do the site updating... I think we should all be glad for things like userboxes, as they give us space to channel that POV so it doesnt negatively affect the site itself. Kobresia 11:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
85. Oppose This is a joke. As usual a good thing for most is destroyed by the weak few.--Looper5920 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
86. Oppose. The proposed policy is self-contradictory. Point 1 "Userboxes should generally be permitted as free expression (subject to the caveats in A)" is directly contradicted by point 2 "Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia, and are general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors." The second sentence of point 2 "Userboxes existing as templates should be those useful to declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping" is directly contradicted by the following sentence "Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." Angr/talk 12:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
87. Oppose as per Ливай above --Zoz 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
88. Oppose. I don't like it anyway, but it seems that with the userbox wars over the last few months most people have subst'ed the templates into their user pages and wouldn't be affected anyway. Tom 14:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
89. Oppose – ugen64 06:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
90. Oppose Strongly oppose the censoring of userboxes - they do not directly affect anyone, if they don't like them no ones forcing them to use them. I can't understand what is wrong with them at all?? UKWiki 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
91. Oppose It was fine before it all was changed ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
92. Oppose. Come on, it's a USER page. It's like not anyone is going to be passing by and saying "Hey! This says that the user believes Michael Moore is a loser, so it must reflect the beliefs of Wikipedia in general." Userboxes with POV make it fun. I don't see the point at all to make something about my personal opinions NPOV. The Kids Aren't Alright 02:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
93. Super SUPER strong oppose User pages need to be POV because people are POV. No matter what Wikipedia is, it can never change people. The Halo (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
94. Strong Oppose I totally agree with Username132. Userpages are places of personal expression. I should be able to put whatever I want on it. --Srikeit 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
95. Oppose. Pick any argument listed above. Spaceriqui 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
96. Oppose - I just do, because someone edited my user page. somody 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
97. Oppose Due to recent changes made to my userpage. IMHO userboxes and especially the categories that some of them create are part of the community spirit of Wikipedia and in my experience have helped to generate debate, which has lead to learning and greater awareness of different views. - Solar 11:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
98. Oppose. Userpages are about users, who people people therefore POV. Userboxes provide an easy and moderated system by which to do that. Plus, most arguments I've read above. Smeggysmeg 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
99. Strong Oppose It's my userpage and I want userboxes on it. It's my little reward for the time and effort I spend. Don't take it away from me. --Username132 00:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
100. Oppose GreatlyThis is the twenty-first century, get used to it. WikieZach| talk 20:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
101. Strongly OpposeWill
102. Oppose because it just ain't gonna work. People are going to find ways to express themselves, even with ASCII art if necessary. I agree that civility and getting along should be the order of the day, but you cannot legislate that. Username132 said it for me too. Her Pegship 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Abstain / Neutral / Comment

#I agree with Tony on all the above counts, the new proposed policy seems a good, workable compromise that does not ban POV on user pages but also addresses the valid issues around polemicality, vote stacking, and so forth. I also agree that it still needs some minor tweaking, and finally I agree that polling at this point is premature and that it be put on hiatus for a bit. I reserve the right to disagree with Tony elsewhere and elsewhen, though. (smile) ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC) #:Well, geez, agree with Tony and he moves... was it something I said? LOL. Anyway I still think it's premature but not strongly enough to Oppose. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Stricken and changed to support ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't care any more. I quit. All my user boxes are deleted. I have better things to do with my time. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
2. I desperately want to support this, but I am thoroughly confused by the sentence, "Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." All userboxes declare a point of view. "I am a physician" declares that the user has the point of view of a physician. "I am a Spanish speaker" declares that the user has the point of view of a Spanish speaker. Does "POV" here mean something other than "point of view"?

   Somehow, the term "POV" has turned into a synonym for "bias" or "belief" or something like that here. It means nothing of the sort. We all come to Wikipedia with our own points of view. The beauty of Wikipedia and the NPOV policy is that person A, coming from his point of view, adds statement X to the Wikipedia, neutral with regards to other points of view and hopefully as neutral as A can make it to his own point of view. Person B reviews statement X to see if it is neutral with regards to her own point of view, and so does person C, and D, and so on. Sometimes person L decides that statement X is not neutral with regards to his point of view, and edits the statement to make it more so. And so on, iteratively, always collaboratively reaching for but never attaining perfect neutrality to point of view.

   No individual possesses a neutral point of view. Neutrality is a goal, not a state of being. This sentence should be changed to reflect the fact that every statement of self is also a statement of one's point of view. As presently stated, the sentence reduces the policy to meaninglessness, or worse, capriciousness, as we try to divine which points of view are "POV" and which are merely "points of view". --TreyHarris 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

   You bring up a good point. I've just added the suggestion to change that sentence to "Advocacy or declarations of bias, rather than declarations of skill or interest, are specifically excluded." AFAIK, the intent of that sentence is to exclude statements like "Physicians are the only people who should think about sickness", or "I believe that all those dirty Americans should only speak pure Castilian Spanish." Assuming the suggested change is supported, I hope you will change your mind. Nice explanation of NPOV, btw. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Abstain. I have articles to write. -Zero^Talk 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. In general I think this proposal sort of goes in the right direction and I think we need some sort of policy here. But I find the proposal muddily formulated and I am unclear about what implications it would have. See my questions on the talk page for the kind of unclarity I find. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. CSD T1 is to vague and subjective. Everyone seems to have a differant opinion about what falls under T1 and what is acceptable. IMO, T1 has been abused on more than one occation by more than one admin. But I do like the rest of the proposal, so I will neither support nor oppose. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Nuetral. I believe in userboxes, and I believe that users should be allowed to express what they will by userboxes. However, I also believe that the use of subst: should be recommended. I disagree with the idea that userboxes expressing a PoV should be considered unacceptable, but I also respect that this proposal isn't strictly out to nuke them. The issues balance out for me, and I find I can neither accept nor oppose this proposal. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
7. I really hate simplifying situations by being so righteous as to say what "we all should do". But in this situation, I really think we should all just get back to writing an encyclopedia. -- Krash (Talk) 15:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

   (I counted this as an abstain.) --AySz88^-^ 15:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

8. Abstain I'm going to stay out of this arguement, as I don't wish to make rivals. I must comment that I think userboxes should be subpages on userpages. Computerjoe 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Comment Many claim that userboxes and user categories are "disruptive". However, no actual evidence of this has been presented. The only real "disruption" I've seen relating to userboxes and POV user categories is people claiming they are disruptive. The solution to this is not to remove POV userboxes or user categories but for these people to stop claiming they are disruptive when they aren't. "Disruption" has become synonomous with "OMG I DON'T LIKE THIS GET RID OF IT NOW OH TEH NOES!!!!!!!!!111111111" Kurt Weber 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   I beg your pardon! There have been a number of pointers in these discussions to incidents in which recruiting through userboes and/or categories has been used in attempts to impose a POV outcome on discussions. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Note the references in that page to earlier attempts to stack votes using POV userboxes and/or categories. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Janizary vote recruitment from userbox template. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

   Your link to vote recruitment is broken. Ansell 07:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

10. neutral I see no reason to take sides.--Acebrock 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Why do we even need to have userboxes anyway, there are other ways to express ourselves on our userpages. --JFred 07:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
12. comment. I like my userboxes, so do a lot of people...I won't try to stop anyone who obliterates standardized userboxes, but I will make my own afterward. People who have userboxes with insinuating opinions won't get rid of their POV once you take away their right to have them. In fact, I'm guessing it might reinforce their belief that their ideas are being oppressed. Userboxes are just as POV as the opinions written in plain text on the userpage, and they're more colorful to the page. If you want to really eliminate POV, get rid of userpages altogether or limit the number of kb that can be spent on a userpage, and if you really want to eliminate POV, assign a username to each user instead of letting them pick their own.--ikiroid | (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    P.S. I'm not trying to sound snotty or sarcastic, I really think we should consider limiting userpages and usernames.--ikiroid | (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

13. Neutral - I don't get why people are making such a big deal about this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a blog. I have some userboxes, but I won't really care if they go away. Userboxes were more of a novelty thing that I liked as a new user. I'm against censorship of articles, but userboxes? So trivial. DrIdiot 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Comment For those of you on the fence, here's an example of why the proposal would be good policy: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_rights_in_Iraq. The nominator searched the category of Roman Catholic editors and canvassed for votes on a bad faith nomination by misrepresenting the content of the article. [2], [3], [4]. One editor who did some sleuthing found that 57 Wikipedians got spammed. Under this proposal people would still be free to express themselves on their userpages. The difference is that those expressions of belief would no longer be searchable by people who want to exploit the discussion process. Durova 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Good point, although there are other methods by which the same voter fraud could be accomplished. In the case of contacting Christians, spamming members of Portal:Christianity comes to mind. Also, one could still seach userspace for Christian or This user is a Christian/This user is Christian. TheJabberwock 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    I think that is a good thing, personally. Userboxes enabling vote-stacking spam will actually reduce it - with userboxes everywhere it results in stalemate for vote-stackers - all sides are equally able to vote stack, knowing supporters of their view, wheras at the moment votestacking is somewhat one-sided - one group tend to know of other editors supporting their pov while the other group have no idea.

    For example one could search for This user is not a Christian/This user is an atheist/This user hates Christians as much as one could find Christians, thus rendering any attempt at vote stacking unlikely to result in any effect as the other side is equally able to vote stack, and hence removing vote stacking altogether. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't follow that argumentation. People do bad things, but other people can do equally bad things, so it cancels out? We should discourage vote stacking, because it's a bad faith tactic. If vote stacking takes on epidemic forms, then people will start to distrust each other. Wikipedia will no longer be about content, but only about polling and whose side 'wins'. And in response to TheJabberwock: it seems silly to say that the use of userboxes should not be limited because vote stacking can be accomplished by other means. Of course it can, but that doesn't mean we should encourage it. Should a shopkeeper not have cameras because you can still steal stuff if you're clever enough? Junes 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    The point is, this closes one major loophole for people who are bent on gaming the system. This proposal goes a long way toward preserving the openness and assumption of good faith we all need. Durova 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

15. Question - What's a "userbox"?? --Rebroad 18:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Userboxes. TheJabberwock 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    It's a form of free speech limited to userpages.--God Ω War 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

16. Comment We could also just supress the "What links here" for POV templates (see talk). JeffBurdges 18:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Abstain. This whole matter is an exercise in instruction creep. We already have mechanisms for dealing with disruptions, & disruptive people will always find ways to cause problems. -- llywrch 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Abstain Not enough teeth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page. Suggested amendments should be made on the talk page, and only included if consensus is reached.