Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll/Archive 4

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Poll closure

User:God of War, a major opponent of the poll, has taken it on himself to "close" the poll (and to declare the policy failed, an action that does not follow) immediately after the polling deadline. I consider this a transparently bad faith action, and reccomend that everyone wait for an uninvolved third party (like I was before I stepped in here - I in fact, came to the page to start the process of closing the poll) to vet the various voters and reach a decision. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Just because I disagree with the poll does not mean that I acted in bad faith. I have followed all the rules exactly. The poll was closed at the time it should be closed. Some people think that 2/3 = consensus, others think 80% equals consensus. Regardless, the support for the poll did not meet either standard. If it had been closer to being accepted I would be more hesitant to close it. However, as it is, the support for this poll is so far from consensus that there should be no dispute about the closure of this poll.--God Ω War 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Did you check for sockpuppets?
  2. Did you disregard solicited votes?
  3. Did you make notes of which votes you accepted and rejected?
  4. Did you evaluate the discussion?
  5. Did you make notes of your evaluations somewhere so they can be reviewed?
Alternatively, did you just determine that you had "won" and thus declared the policy rejected (out of process, by the way - the failure of the poll to find consensus was not a rejection of the proposal.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you give us a list of your other poll closing experience? What other policy decisions have you taken part in? Provide diffs, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If he were to disregard "solicited" votes, he should also disregard Admin votes, because those requested on the Admin boards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Alerting people via a neutral message in an incredibly widely read place is far, far different than alerting people via a misleading and biased message sent only to people who you believe would support your position. One is notification, the other is soliciation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Not true, a certain demographic of people read the WP:ANB and are more likely to vote a certain way. Posting a message there will swing the voting patterns in a paticular direction.--God Ω War 21:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. However, "Alerting people via a neutral message in an incredibly widely read place is far, far different than alerting people via a misleading and biased message sent only to people who you believe would support your position." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, Go ahead and evaluate the poll yourself. It's not a BIG DEAL to revert the closing of the poll. So if you look through all the votes and come to a different conclusion than NO Consensus, which it obviously is, then please post your conclusion here. For the time being, the poll is most certainly closed.--God Ω War 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not see consensus here, as much as I'd like to. However, God of War might not have been the best person to close that poll. In fact, I think that this poll is of such a scale that no single admin should close it. What that means in practice I'm unsure of - we certainly can't make another poll to get consensus on whether this poll has consensus or not. I'm stumped. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK there is no Wikipedia policy against, or even definition of, "solicited votes". Nowhere does it say a vote is to be discounted merely because the voter was informed about the poll by someone else. Votes by sockpuppets, by anons, and by newbies may be discounted. Votes by people who voted after being informed that a poll was going on are just as valid as anyone else's. Angr/talk 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You are not correct. In either case, my marking of votes as "solicited" does not in any way do anything to remove them. I will stop removing them from the count, and will instead put them in a seperate section below, with a seperate total. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If I am not correct, please point me to the Wikipedia policy in which solicited votes are defined and it is stated that they may be removed from consideration. Angr/talk 21:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
<This comment has been self-censored to remove excess levels of sarcasm and/or cynicism.> // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What will be the next step? A separate list for people who happens to enjoy classical music? This procedure regarding "solicited" votes strikes me as nonsensical - and as repugnant if it implies that these votes are in any way less valid. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You should certainly consider that strongly implied. It is repugnant indeed that someone would disrupt the operation of Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn’t this discrimination between "solicited" and "unsolicited" votes (putting them arbitrarily in separate lists in the vote page) precisely an example of "disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point"? --Leinad ¬ pois não? 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't blame the ones solicited for that. By the way, be aware that there is a person who actually voted suport after being solicited: User:Sumthingweird. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course I do not blame the solicited, and I will mark Sumthingweird's vote as solicited now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Solicited votes??? Any user that is informed that the vote is taking place and doesn't stumble on it themselves is technically a solicited vote. Any user that found the link to this page on AN/I, Policy Pump, Surveys, Irc, whatever is a solicited vote. Informing users that will be affected by the vote that the vote is taking place is completly valid, the idea of not counting votes simply because someone informed them that the vote was taking place would require you to throw out every single vote on this poll outside of the original creator of this page, since everyone else had to be informed this page existed. For example I found out about this vote on the IRC channel, I wouldn't have found out about it any other way, am I a solicited vote? Absolutely. The idea that a single user can invalidate a survey by informing other legal voting users that the poll is taking place shows that the poll's consensus is limited to a small section of users and does not accurately show the opinion of the vast majority of wikipedians. A secret poll does not generate or test for consensus beyond the group that is aware of the poll. Seraphim 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Simply being informed, or even being informed with a degree of bias by the informer, doesn't necessitate that the voter's interpretation and opinion of the issue is at all influenced. Smeggysmeg 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not appropriate. This is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony's notice, which Hipocrite thinks is appropriate, deserves an NPOV tag. (If I'd seen it there, I would have attached one.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
H your example of an appropriate post is a great example of what your claiming it isn't. Read what tony said "Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll. An attempt to end the userbox wars. --Tony Sidaway 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)". An attempt to end the userbox wars??? This poll was no such thing. All it would accomplish is moving userboxes out of template space. Plus posting it on the Current_Surveys's page targets specifically the users that go to the current survey's page, which is a biased group, a group that enjoys voting on all polls. Simply informing users of the poll by any other method then a broadcast message(which is impossible) is solicitation since you are going after a targeted subset of users. Seraphim 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone re-close the poll for me? Tony has removed the notice but as you can see here Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Poll, the closure time has been listed for days. Even if the result is disputed no additional votes should be added at this time.--God Ω War 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

God of War was probably acting in good faith, but we don't do things this way on Wikipedia. The poll is open to anyone who wants to contribute. There is no time limit--it is an informal straw poll. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah tony's right there is no reason to close it, however after 2 weeks it's extremely obvious that there is a large group that opposes it. So obviously the proposed policy cannot be put into place claiming that it represents consensus. Seraphim 22:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony's wrong. There is a reason to close the poll, as it's clear that a positive consensus will never be obtained except by keeping it open until all opposed have forgotten about it and then stuffing the "ballot box". That's the only plausible benefit to leaving the poll open as a poll. This discussion page still may serve a purpose. (And, yes, I am WP:AGF.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to closing this poll. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The title of the page is "Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll", so it most certainly is a poll. I don't know of any relevant semantic distinction between "poll" and "vote". As for Kelly's objection, I don't understand it. The poll has been going on for two weeks now, 268 people have voted and 18 have abstained. What good will come of keeping it open indefinitely? It has been clear for over two months now that there will never be consensus on any issue relating to userboxes. Angr/talk 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to Kelly. Ashibaka tock 22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the decision to close the poll today at 20:05 was proposed a week ago at #Lets Close This Vote by User:Pathoschild and endorsed by User:Locke Cole, both supporters of the proposed policy. There were no objections to the suggestion at the time. Angr/talk 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I say close the poll as no consensus, and start working on a new policy as we usually do, until something passing as what we usually define as consensus is established. If it's Not A Poll and Only Discussion Matters, it's also irrelevant if said discussion happens in this poll or in the discussion towards an alternative proposal. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed the poll-- the arguments above are persuasive. Ashibaka tock 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind closing this poll provided that it is understood that doing so does not cause the underlying policy to be either rejected or accepted. It remains a policy under discussion. For it to be rejected, or accepted, would require a consensus, and while it appears to me that there is consensus amongst experienced Wikipedians to follow this policy, I understand that there are many people, many of whom lack experience with Wikipedia, who object to this proposed policy. Out of respect for these people, discussion should continue until either they understand the error of their ways, or some other consensus is reached. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Kelly, could you rephrase that? I don't think is was quite patronizing enough. =) StrangerInParadise 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was about to mark it "rejected" but I had similar thoughts. I'll change the proposal tag just to reflect that the poll is over. Ashibaka tock 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw sub-poll

My reluctant opposition is based solely on the indecision on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Is there actual consensus on what the proposal would do on this if accepted?

This is a quicky strawpoll, to end one hour before the main poll. The question is:

What would be the status of a list of userboxes intended to be cut-and-pasted onto user pages under the proposed policy.

Approval voting, please add choices if necessary. Please vote:

No problem

Such a list would be perfectly acceptable in WP-space.

  1. Septentrionalis 03:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. That's what my "Conditional Support" clarification is/was about. Implementation clause 1.4. seems to imply it. Hopefully that is how it will be read.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. It's fairly clear that this policy bans userbox templates, nothing else. The whole 'would ban lists' thing has been a misconception from the start. Cynical 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. It was clear to me that this policy bans only userbox templates, but this being in effect is a condition for my voting for any of the other provisions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. I don't think that the policy as written would forbid such a list. Some may argue that a list would be against the spirit of the policy, but it is not against its letter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible conditionally

Such a list would be acceptable only if it, or at least the subpages with actual bozes, are in user-space.

Unacceptable

No such list should exist anywhere

Other

I don't care

I'm against the proposal anyway.

Discussion

  • In this proposal, it (possibly intentionally) doesn't seem to say anything, but apparently some think it forbids it (based on some comments) - but the proposal doesn't seem to acknowledge the issue, which is a minus of the whole proposal. It seems to me that the proposal doesn't prohibit it (which isn't quite the same as allowing it). Also, I'm not sure why there's a vote right now, and I don't really think it should be only 17 hours' worth. --AySz88^-^ 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree it is a minus; in fact so serious a minus that it should be cleared up before the proposal is enacted. I had hoped that this would be done more directly, and would have left more time if I could; but this subpoll will be automatically extended if the main poll is. Septentrionalis 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical Amendment

Wikipedia should add a form of "page locking" which admins may use to supress the "What links here", or maybe just supress it for transclusion. POV user templates may be slowely reintroduced, but must have this "page lock" flag set by an admin.

As in the main proposal, admins will delete, instead of flag, any new POV userboxes they feel are inappropriate. Requiring the flag ensure that users can't not use "What links here" to form cliques, and that all POV userboxes must pass the approval of one admin.

Thoughts? JeffBurdges 18:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's generally a bad practice to treat the symptoms rather than the cause... of course the same could be said about the whole proposal... We shouldn't be deleting divisive userboxes, we should be blocking the users who continue to use them after we've patiently explained why they should not. --Gmaxwell 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
And what policy justifies blocking people for expressing a view on their userpage? Cynical 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What to do now

First of all, I don't see a clear consensus on this poll. I do think, if you discounted votes that were based on errors or misunderstandings of the fundamental mission of Wikipedia, that it would be close to consensus, but I do not think anyone but Jimbo himself has the clout to judge so subtle consensus in a closely-contested poll of this magnitude—and even Jimbo's decision might be bitterly disputed.

That being the case, no consensus does not mean no policy. It is not likely even to mean that the eventual policy will not be subtantively similar to this one. It means that we keep talking about what we can agree on. -- SCZenz 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is then: what amendments would add more support than they would lose? I suspect that affirming the present clarifications in unmistakable bold letters at the top of the next proposal would be a start. It would lose some of those who want a hard line, but it should gain most of the present dissentients and all of the conditional approvers (that's four, but every little bit helps).Septentrionalis 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I might be a good idea to see what we do have consensus on. I've got a draft poll at User:Arthur Rubin/UPP. (We should specify that this poll does have a time limit in advance, as we should assume that those who voted are watching the discussion, whether or not it's accurate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't suggest getting rid of user categories. Propose getting rid of only the most offensive userboxes, while protecting the political userboxes, whether you consider them "divisive" or not. I don't expect this to happen, so I'll keep voting no until someone gets some sense. --Revolución hablar ver 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Much as I, personally, would like to keep the user categories, the affiliation categories must be removed if vote stuffing is a problem. (Did that statement of principle come from Jimbo?) I haven't look at the Catholic fiasco in detail, but I'm willing to WP:AGF that there was a problem with Catholics being solicited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not vote stuffing, it is voting. I don't mean this in the sense of voting is evil, but rather that process for deciding certain types of questions is too immature, and banning user categories only masks this symptom. Consider someting more jury-based (jury-pool, advocates and voire dire). The whole problem with those who stridently call to ban userboxes and user categories, Arthur, is that they're so lacking in imagination that banning modes of association and declaration is the best they can propose- so much so that more reasonable people are willing to consider it just to placate them. They are the new fundamentalists, who, like most fundamentalists, demonstrate through their beliefs their poor grasp of the fundamentals. StrangerInParadise 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And you complain about my tone? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not complaining, I was making an observation (omitting the smiley was an error on my part). And, yes, I am laying it on a bit thick here, but it needs to be said. The difference is that you were characterizing everyone who voted against the proposal as "deserving respect until they see the error of their ways (because so many were inexperienced)". I characterized just above only those who stridently call to ban userboxen, fair(er) game, in my view. A further observation: I have been taken to task repeatedly for the supposed bias in my note to 43 UN Wikipedians and other statements, but the point is that most of the announcements, (meta)analysis, and even arguments in official fora (not to mention my AN/I alert) have been highly-biased statements passing themselves off as neutral. The difference is that I am honest in my partisanship, and do not resent the partisanship of others, except where it pretends to neutrality. One statement of mine whose neutrality I strongly allege- that burning userboxes and sabotaging categories is vandalism- seems to draw ire for some reason. StrangerInParadise 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Make sure to talk to some of the 100 people who voted no to make sure their concerns are answered in the new draft. Ashibaka tock 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that, perhaps, we could break things down Arbcom-like to see what the support is for certain principles, and then certain proposed solutions. I'm just not sure if people have enough patience for such a time-consuming procedure.
Also, the policy should probably eventually spell out why xyz is needed and what logic it's based on, so people not so familiar with the debate can understand where it's coming from. --AySz88^-^ 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The poll proposed by Arthur Rubin looks worth a try to me. I suggest that we give it until the end of the month, and meanwhile restore any of the old political or religious userboxes that have not yet been restored. Also speedily delete any new ones that are created while voting is going on. This will restore and sustain the status quo ante while a policy is developed and provide us with a basis to get consensus on something like the policy proposal that was voted on here ... or some reasonable variation of it that takes people's concerns into account. All it needs is a show of goodwill on both sides. Metamagician3000 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Scrutineering

Since we're treating this as a vote **shudder** can someone with a browser faster than mine copy all the participants into a subpage with just their names and sorted main-space edit count descending, perhaps broken up per AySz88 above? I'm queasy just saying that out load. - brenneman{T}{L} 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by breaking up participants per my post? I was talking about new polls entirely, not analysis of this one. --AySz88^-^ 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you want to rank voters? The amount of edits someone has does not change their opinion. Seraphim 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Especially since there was no established suffrage for this poll. ... aa:talk 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who's seen me around knows I'm frequently the defending very new users, but let's be pragmatic: someone with (say) ten namespace edits simply hasn't been around long enough to understand fully the implications. We've had some campaigning attatched to "welcome" messages. It's not "elitism" or "screw the n00bs" to suggest that iff it turns out that placing the cut-off at some adsurdly low number makes a difference, that we do so retroactivly. I note that there were one ot two notes about users with very low edit counts already, but didn't see if this had been done systematically, so the point may well be moot.
brenneman{T}{L} 05:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it is that if the user has found this page and decided to post on it his opinion is more valid then the other 999,800 users that didn't vote on this. Also the idea that people with very low edit counts don't grasp the situation is alittle silly, when some people with high edit counts apparently didn't fully understand what they were voting on before they voted (just going by some of the posts). Seraphim 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Like I said, it's probably moot, but I've run my "strip names" script and the results are at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll/Bare list. Doing edit counts takes me ages so I probably won't do that, but if someone with nifty pop-ups wanted to, at the very least it could allay concerns anyone might have about this being "n00b-jacked".
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
BrokenSegue went through and found 1 user with 50 edits, and 1 user with less then that. 2 users does not a noob-jacking make :) Seraphim 06:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL! - noob-jacking - thats hilarious. We should use this term more often. Oh n0es teh poll has been noob-jacked!--God Ω War 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Given the highly uncivil comments especially towards opposers, using a secondary account is no vice, provided there is no double-voting. Although I am interested in GMaxwell's analysis, it would be risky to draw hard conclusions from the ultra-low edit-count. I edited anon for years and hundreds of edits. That said, noob-jacking is hilarious. StrangerInParadise 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
"We've been noob-jacked!" ..<ROFL> that's a riot.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this raises some questions about the results. I minimum of 100 edits is very reasonable for a poll like this. -- SCZenz 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a novel poll, period. It was an attempt by the old guard to impose a new regime on new users after a period of outright provoking them, and they rightly fought back. StrangerInParadise 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It was an attempt by Wikipedians to maintain Wikipedia's focus as an encyclopedia. We will succeed in some fashion, I promise. If your position is that new users have the right to come here and make the site into something else, then you're just wrong. -- SCZenz 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't. The policy did 3 things, one move userboxes into user space (which is still wikipedia), 2 protect all non-offencive userboxes from deletion, and 3 get rid of alot of user categories. Nothing it did was to maintain wp's focus as an encyclopedia, it changes none of the visible content, just moves stuff around. The Policy failed to reach consensus because it wasn't so much a policy, but an injunction. Seraphim 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I know my IP shows atleast 200 edits or so before I registered, also like I said before, there are 999,800 users that didn't vote on this, the fact that they managed to find this poll says they are paying attention and interested. Also I haven't found the part on WP:CON that says the opinion of new users don't count. Also if your going to toss out all new users's you should also toss out the comments of the supporters that don't completly support the policy, they just voted support for the sake of getting something about userboxes passed, or posted comments that show they don't actually understand the proposal. (just a quick list #2,#4,#9,#10,#11,#13,#14,#18,#20,#26,#32,#34,#37,#43,#46,47,48,51,60,65,66,67,69,73,76,78,80,81,91,94,99,100,101,102,105,106,113,114,117,128,131,133,144,151,155 all either thought the proposal did something else or they didn't completly agree with the proposal as it currently is expecting to change it later) Seraphim 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, then we'd also have to throw out all the oppose votes that look like they thought the proposal did something else (and yes, I'm inclined to assume that all opposers saying "don't ban userboxes" did not understand it). But then, we might just scrap the poll altogether and just outright guess what the consensus on userboxes is... Anyway, I am highly doubtful that all these voter evaluating will change anything since it is perfectly clear just from having a look at the poll without any counting that there is, in fact, no consensus since large sections of both camps, including established users and newbies, have rather good reasoning. In cases like this, I'd rather put the blame on the poll and/or the proposal instead of the voters. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe people, such as I, are using their "userboxes" to express themselves so they can be better understood. Ignorance of a persons background only causes mistrust. The use of templates is a clear way to tell people what you think in a well articulated manner. making people learn HTML in order to be able to express themselves is like making them jump back into the dark ages before broadband internet. Shock Horror! Ansell 12:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's quite possible to say "I'm a moron" with plain text. User boxes aren't required.--Gmaxwell 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

ultra-low edit-count voters

These are article edit counts for users with under 60 article edits as of a day ago when I last updated the metastats. --Gmaxwell 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this just include the Oppose voters, or did you check the Support as well? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
He has both in there, the bottom user is a supporter. Seraphim 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving On

Since this failed I have come up with a solution that should make everyone happy. See Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.. I will draw this up in a policy proposal tomorrow--God Ω War 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother it won't get anywhere. I've already shown a proof of concept that shows that you can use images to achieve the same effect. Seraphim 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading, I thought about that too.--God Ω War 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, but it would be impossible to actually do. Number 1 it's a coding change, not policy ,which always takes forever, number 2 it's trivial to just edit off the flag do your thing then edit it back on, and number 3 for images there is no "what links here" button for you to disable, it just shows all the links automatically. Seraphim 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Stranger's proposal

But, hey, what about my proposal?

  • Give up on preventing association, declaration and notification, instead enable it
  • Create new namespace which has shared user templates and userlist functionality built-in (less than two weeks to do, accomplishes NPOV-ification of category and template namespaces)
  • Develop real process to deal with decision-making, based on juries, notifications, et cetera
  • Lead by example on NPOV, not by decree

Unlike the efforts of UPP proponents, this preserves Wikipedia's culture, rather than destroys it, in part by recognizing that it continues to evolve. Wikipedia is a project with a community, but that community deserves the proper tools.

StrangerInParadise 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly asking this: Is not association, declaration and notification already available, supported and encouraged through the WikiProject system? If that system isn't sufficient, what differences are you proposing? I think this may be helpful in clarifying your proposal. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it a sad sign of the times that an honest question must be preceded onto the field with a big white flag? Yes, it is an honest question, and a very good one. I wanted to think about it a bit. One way to think about it is that if the WikiProject system were sufficient, WP:Userboxes could remain unchanged. WikiProject should be about neutrality: Gun control issues, rather than Pro-gun control. The userbox and usercategory phenomena is both declared-bias and casual, two essential elements not supported by WikiProject. "...and I'll giv'em up when they pry my cold dead fingers from'em!" =) StrangerInParadise 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly is, and a shame without a doubt. The differences you mention are quite helpful. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about "if the WikiProject system were sufficient, WP:Userboxes could remain unchanged", but since I think we agree that the WikiProject system is not sufficient for what many people want to do, it's probably not a critical point. Regarding the casual aspect - that's a Really Good Point, and somthing that really ought to (and can be) be fixed in regards to the WikiProject system; your thoughts on the details of what makes Userboxes more casual than WikiProjects would be greatly appreciated. Regarding "declared-bias" - this is one (maybe even, the central) disputed point with regards to userboxes vs other systems. I'll have to think and read some before I can really lay out the various arguments that have been made on that subject; help finding them (mailing list archives, VP history, etc, are places to look) would be appreciated also. Thanks for the response. 134.10.12.23 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)

Where do we go from here

How goes the next draft? I think one of the problems of this poll was that it was too ambiguously worded. I have an idea for a much simpler version two:

The Template: and Category: namespaces are for encyclopedia-related content only. This includes encyclopedic content (e.g. infoboxes), encyclopedia maintenance (e.g. {{blocked}}), and encyclopedic collaboration (e.g. WikiProjects). All other uses of Template: and Category: are prohibited.

--Cyde Weys 15:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A common comment seemed to revolve around having hard-coded userboxes in a list at Wikipedia:Userboxes, do you want to make any reference to this?
Also I have noticed Categories being used for user purposes such as sockpuppets, the current wording would exclude this kind of use.
Otherwise it seems nice and simple, but I'm sure there'll be some opposition. |→ Spaully°τ 15:58, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
I like it. It's a pretty tough, but at least it's simple, fair and unambiguous. However, this only has the slightest chance to fly if the tradeoff is being much more lenient in userspace than the no-consensus policy proposed. By the way, sockpuppet categories are a maintenance categories. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If it's implemented, it will mean moving all the Babel boxes to some other namespace, since they are currently in Template space but don't meet your criteria. I suppose a bot could do it relatively quickly, but the question remains where to move them to. Angr/talk 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Babel would fall under encyclopedic collaboration. Actually, Cyde's proposal strikes me as not much different from Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes. —Andux␅ 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, maybe, certainly not in all. In my own case, my level of German might fall under encyclopedic collaboration since I can work on translating articles out of German into English, but my level of Lower Sorbian and Welsh have nothing to do with encyclopedic collaboration, and putting those Babel boxes on my page really is no more helpful to the encyclopedia than saying "This user likes carrots", and considerably less helpful than saying "This user is an Anglican" (which was speedy-deleted under T1 for some unfathomable reason). So where do we draw the line? For any language xx, User xx-3 and higher fall under encyclopedic collaboration, while User xx-2 and lower don't? Or what? Angr/talk 08:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The only difficulty I see with it is that the community has moved a significant part of itself— a part it finds useful and is willing to fight for— into Template/Category space, and Cyde's proposal, like the others, offers them no safe, functional place within the project to go. In A technical proposal which would make sense, Two issues confused and Stranger's proposal, I outline an alternative.
The goal should be establishing the same NPOV standard for Main, Category, Template, and Help. The result would be that one could take just those namespaces and have a functional, expandable, NPOV encyclopedia. This would protect the product, rather than try to change the collaborative culture of the community attached to the project by fiat. This would simplify the administrative model, and take administrators out of the hair-splitting business of determining what is useful for the project, what is NPOV— the vast majority would gladly self-police. Culture war here is— demonstrably— the wrong answer.
StrangerInParadise 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that this proposal really has nothing to do specifically with userboxes or userspace. It solely addresses the issue of what Template: and Category: space are for. A better name for it might be "Template and Category Policy". And I don't support the various technical "solutions" that protect userboxes in these spaces because that's just making exceptions for userboxes, making it seem like an endorsement, which is the opposite of what we should be doing. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I still want to know what your proposal has in store for the Babel boxes (the original userboxes dealing specifically with language skills, which gave rise to all the other userboxes). I don't think they meet your suggested criteria for Template and Category space, so does that mean they should be deleted, or moved to a different namespace (and if so, which), or what? Angr/talk 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Babel boxes would qualify under templates that help build the encyclopedia, so they could stay. I'd like to point out that this "helps the encyclopedia" thing is rather strict, and wouldn't allow userboxes like, "This user is XXXXXX" where XXXXXX is something POV that may tangentially be related to writing the encyclopedia because it may mean that user knows more on that topic. --Cyde Weys 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd only support this if it would not distinguish between babel templates/categories and other templates/categories. Only if the rule is is very narrowly defined do we gain anything from it. No exceptions, or we just continue fighting over the definition of "help building the encyclopedia". -- grm_wnr Esc 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As I said above, while my knowledge of German might help build the encyclopedia, my knowledge of Lower Sorbian certainly doesn't. Yet both are expressed through Babel boxes. Where do we draw the line? Angr/talk 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So you guys just think all userspace-intended templates and categories should be deleted to prevent any sort of loophole? --Cyde Weys 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement on Wikipedia is generally via humans, not bots.. thus there is no risk of loopholes. :) --Gmaxwell 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. I don't think we need to be so careful about closing possible fringe cases as to outlaw even Babel cases. We can just name them as a specific exception and be strict on all other uses of templates. Anything trying to pretend to be like a Babel box to squeak by (e.g. "This user likes English") would be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 22:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you will meet a lot of resistance if you write a policy in such a way as to treat Babel boxes as a special case. Don't forget it was the presence of Babel boxes that started the whole userbox trend in the first place. Once the Babel boxes appeared for "standard" ISO-recognized languages, it wasn't long before userboxes for various accents and dialects appeared (e.g. {{Chowdah}}, which has been around in code since August and in Template space since October. And once people started noticing the humorous language-related userboxes, they started writing other humorous userboxes for other skills, and interests, and beliefs, and soon there were hundreds of Babel boxes describing everything anyone could ever want to say about themselves. My point is, there is no clear line between what does and does not "help the encyclopedia". I am not advocating deleting the Babel boxes, but then I'm against deleting userboxes that state a person's religious or political beliefs, too. All I'm saying is the proposal you made above seems to suggest Babel boxes do not belong in Template space, but if you rewrite it in such a way as to include them but no other userboxes, (1) you will be accused of arbitrariness and/or hypocrisy, or (2) it will leave the door open for people to interpret the exception made for Babel boxes in such a way that all the userboxes you hate so much will come back, or (most likely) (3) both. Angr/talk 23:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the proposed rule is a bit on shaky ground. I can't think of any (obvious) argument about how {{user infobox}} or {{userpage}} are part of the encyclopedia or its building efforts (they are probably more part of the community), but I don't see why prohibiting them would be productive towards building an encyclopedia either. I also think the original logic would also have to apply to the Image namespace, where there are also plenty of images which aren't in the encyclopedia but don't exactly harm the project. If something is no harm to the encyclopedia but helps the community building it, it shouldn't be discouraged and there's no harm in allowing it. There wouldn't be any place to put such things if they were moved out of those namespaces.
In terms of keeping encyclopedia material and community material seperate, splitting Template/Image/Category space makes more sense, since it maintains a similar functionality and doesn't seem to discourage the aforementioned things (neutral to the encyclopedia but helpful to the community). --AySz88^-^ 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userbox_policy_poll/Archive_4&oldid=1143824377"