Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes/Archive 1

Opening comments

I have no dog in this fight (other than an inordinate love of my own userboxes), but I want to drop in my two cents: if the templates were just done away with altogether and replaced (easily done, via subst: before deletion) with a listing of the code that creates the box on the Userbox project page, this would be a dead issue. What users decide to put on thier userpages, within reason, is thier business and nobody elses (obviously a userbox stating a desire to behead Jimbo would be blockable, but not an "I'm a Republican" box individually coded (i.e., not a template, but the actual code inserted on the page)). There is absoultely no need to have a thousand templates created when it is just as easy to list the code on the Userbox project's list pages and let people who want to use it, add it. I have at least a dozen boxes on my page, I'm responsible for creating a number of popular boxes, and I've never created a template for any of them, nor is there a single userbox template (other than the generic {{userbox}} template that creates the box format) on my page.

As for the categorization, that's a completely different issue. -- Essjay · Talk 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There's one big flaw in that theory. A lot of people are probably going to want to use a similar userbox. I don't see anything wrong with having some default userboxes for common interests - I thought that was one of the purposes of Wikipedia:Userboxes in the first place. one generic userbox just ain't gonna do the job. --Cjmarsicano 05:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. What I'm saying is, instead of having the pages as they are now, with links to the templates, have the very same pages, but with the code to insert the box showing.

As it is now, if you want to add the admin template, you type something like {{admin userbox}}. What I'm proposing is, delete that template, and replace its listing on the Userbox WikiProject's page with the actual code that you would enter, {{userbox||#FFFFFF|[[Image:Admin_mop.PNG|40px]]|This user is an '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator]]'''.}}. There would no longer be any templates to argue over, but everybody who pasted that code, which would be listed where the template is now, would have the exact same userbox, just as if they had inserted a template. -- Essjay · Talk 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start -- it'd certainly cut down on the server overhead. Of course people trying to put images labeled as "fair use" onto their talk pages would stll be violating policy (and the law, but a few people are in denial about that, so I will stick with policy) DreamGuy 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it would not change a thing on the bandwidth cost, but it would actually make the database even larger since you're created multiple instances of the same string. TCorp 14:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

But some userboxes are useful for actual encylopedia-writing-related purposes, precisely because you can go to the template and click "What links here" and find a list of people who might know something about the topic with which the userbox is affiliated. See my statements about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes. (diff) So I do think template status is justified for some userboxes, specifically and especially those related to user knowledge/editing interests (for example, Template:User religion interest and Template:User LGBT interest). Also, if we want to limit the use of fair-use images on userpages, this will probably be a lot easier if we keep userboxes templatized, since all we have to do then is make sure the templates don't use fair-use images... I'm just sayin'. I'm not necessarily against encouraging people to use code rather than templates, I just think there are some issues that need to be addressed. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Images in Userboxes ARE Fair Use!

According to this link from The US Copyright Office's website, Fair use entails any of the following:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It also says:

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

With all that mind, all that says to me is that the use of images in userboxes IS INDEED COVERED IN FAIR USE. --Cjmarsicano 05:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is allowable under US law does not mean that Wikipedia has to accept it. Our main goal is to make a free encyclopedia that everyone and anyone can use. Not only that we do this by making it free to read and edit, but we also try to contribute materials released in the public domain or under free licensese like GNU or Creative Commons. And, the only time we should have to use fair use is when it is a dire need to illustrate an article (part of test number one). If the image is purely for decoration on a userbox template that serves no purpose except to decorate a user page, then I do not see it passing the first test at all. Plus, many userboxes have icons that are under free-licenses: it is mostly the ones that deal with political parties or sports teams that seem to be the hardest. But, frankly, we should keep fair use images to a minimun so we can make the goal of a freely licensed encyclopedia possible. And, in order to do that, we have to be strict about our image licensing guidelines and, thus, not have fair use icons decorate userboxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And it is NOT alllowable under US law, because user pages do not meet Fair Use criteria in any way, shape or form. And we already have policy saying that even if they did (remember, they don't) that we STILL wouldn't use them. So give it all a rest. DreamGuy 06:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User pages and userboxes are social commentary and/or satire, depending on the box. Both are covered under fair use. Conclusion: Your bucket has a hole in it. --Cjmarsicano 06:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually studied copyright law back in the days when I was a law student. Rest assured that your conclusions are incorrect. Your user page probably does not qualify as either "social commentary" or "satire" under the terms of 17 USC 107. In any case, the use of unlicensed image content on Wikipedia for any purpose other than to illustrate an article (and not any other sort of page) about the subject of image in question is flatly prohibited by our "fair use" policy. The use of nonfree images on user pages is flatly prohibited -- even in those cases where it is not prohibited by copyright law itself. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I should further point out that the 1961 report you quote is based on old law and is quite possibly less than valid today. The entire copyright law of the United States was completely rewritten in 1976. Citations to a treatise on the state of the law prior to 1976 must be accompanied by a clear explanation of why the holding presented are still valid despite the changes adopted in 1976 and implemented in 1978. (As it happens, the courts have interpreted 17 USC 107 to be substantially continuous in doctrine with the prior common law principles of "fair use", but there have been cases since 1978 that have touched on the boundaries of fair use -- such as Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. -- and so relying on a 1961 statement of the law from a nonauthoritative source is, at its best, folly.) Kelly Martin (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, Wikipedia guidelines overrule US Copyright Law, 17 USC 107 included? I don't think so. Yet another defective bucket litters the floor. --Cjmarsicano 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, in this case, goes beyond the bare requirements of United States copyright law, yes. This does not mean that it overrides the law, merely that we have elected to impose a stricter policy. Fair use is a complicated doctrine with no clear lines. We have therefore decided to scribe a boundary that is well clear of the gray areas in the doctrine. If you want to play with the boundaries of the fair use doctrine, I suggest you do it on your own website. Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, nor is it a place to test the boundaries of copyright law. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a free speech forum..."... another red herring. Must have fallen out of your defective bucket. At the rate things are going, ma'am (and I use the term very loosely), Wikipedia could very well end up being a place to test the boundaries of copyright law. And no, I am not threatening legal action (don't even flatter yourself — you seem to have done enough of that today), but I am asking the opinions of someone who's been through their own hell concerning free speech issues. --Cjmarsicano 07:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a guideline on fair use; why not follow it? If it is more stringent than required by US law, well, so are pretty much all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. US law doesn't require us to use NPOV, or avoid original research, but we still do. In this case, why can't we just say, "Better safe than sorry", and replace the images that need replacing? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say that the images should be changed? Who wants to enforce such a ridiculous double standard? Well, maybe — although long before the week is out, that could change to definitely — some of these policies need to be rethoughtout or shitcanned entirely, depending on the case. Less is more. --CJ Marsicano07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer your second question: I will. I been doing this for the past few days and I will keep on continuing to replace the FU icons with either free photos or just plain ol' text. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you have some ARTICLES that you could be fixing, rather than messing with items that are going on individual Wikipedian's talk pages?!? --07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I do: got two peer reviews going and started up two forks from one of those peer review articles. Plus, you would not believe how easy it is to change half of these icons. All I had to do was a brief search on the Commons to find an image, or I just made it myself. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion would be better held at WP:FU's talk page. For now, I suggest using language in the userbox policy which defers (and indeed points the reader) to WP:FU. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of what is or is not fair use there is also the issue that in some other nations, than the USA, there is no such legal reality as fair use. If we want Wikipedia to be available to the child in Africa, or wherever, then the content of Wikipedia needs to meet a standard that is acceptalbe world wide. We want to avoid creating content that is legal in USA but illegal in Japan, for example. This is why Wikipedia has to have a stricter standard than what we might see in one nation's laws. People have gone to jail for posting stuff on the Internet that was legal where they live, but not legal where other people located, who were able to access it. User:AlMac|^(talk) 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the big freaking template at the top of the WP:FU page that states that it is a guideline and not policy? And call me ignorant or whatever name you choose, but how many people are actually going to take Wikipedia to court over an image smaller than a postage stamp picturing a hammer and sickle or the republican elephant on it? Not I. But perhaps I'm just a rebellious little sophomore who looks too deep into the logic of something. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted images may not be used outside of article space on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States law. Deal with it. Rob Church ^Talk 10:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we put aside the POV and make this work?

Far be it for me to dictate how to address other personas here.. So here goes; This proposed policy should satisfy the complaints put forth in the god-forsaken RfC against Kelly Martin, which among many, many things resulted in the creation of this proposed policy. Anyone that has been upset by those actions brought up in that RfC should keep in mind that this is the right way to do it.. Right here. This talk page, this proposed policy. So perhaps we can all strap on a NPOV smile and calmly debate the topic at hand, and skip the bucket and ma'am comments? Mceder 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's debate!

Enough of discussing the related Kelly Martin RfC - it's got enough to work with (over 100kb at present). So, I'd like to propose that there be some guidelines as to what areas should be covered by userboxes. I look at this list of areas covered by userboxes, and ask, Why can't we just completely delete all entries under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours, or why we encourage people to waste server space with Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny? I'm all for Wikipedia:User page's guidelines, but wonder why someone can't simply write in prose (we're Wikipedia, we love prose, remember?) that they live in Australia and their timezone is GMT+11 (I think)? Currently, they can do this through Wikipedia:Userboxes/Timezones and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location, and I just don't see the point.

I'd like the community to seriously consider why we need to use up the server space with so many userboxes, when a majority don't need a userbox. I quote myself from the world's biggest RfC debate: "People wonder why Wikipedia always want more money from donations; well, using up server space with boxes declaring you like chocolate and support an obscure sub-branch of a political ideology probably aren't the best use of that space." Am I right, or am I right? Let's get down to business and make ourselves a policy. Harro5 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The amount of database space userboxes take up is highly overrated and not the current issue. TCorp 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree wholly with TCorp. The userboxes take up very little space comparted to your average Wikipedia article, so the argument that the userboxes are taking up "valuable service space" is either a red herring or something brown and lumpy, depending on how one with a true NPOV looks at it. --CJ Marsicano 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree lots of the userboxes are pretty stupid, but a)they really don't take up much space, especially once they have been "subst"'d, and b) they enable users to enhance their contributions, starting with their user page. My knowledge of HTML has increased 100fold since I started using userboxes. Furthermore, they enable other users to view someone's views (and see what a joker they are) quickly and easily without having to trawl through text. That's the basis of my proposed policy anyway (I would link it... but it's too long. It's the "liberal" one). Deano (Talk) 16:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The userboxes take up virtually no space; they look cooler than text; and it's fun to be able to find other people who live near you, or share your interests, opinions etc. I know we're writing an encyclopedia, but as long as that isn't harmed, what's wrong with having fun in our userspaces on the side? Yeltensic42.618 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No policy.

Userboxes aren't important enough to make a policy about. No policy is needed. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, let's build the encyclopedia already instead of wasting our time with instruction creep. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and besides, if you make rules against userboxes saying someone loves Pepsi or Coca-Cola, you'll just end up having people flat out saying it on their userpages (and ditto for people wishing to state their religious or political affiliations). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! They won't be using up Wikipedia pages making templates to say what they could with a few words in a bio on their userpage. It's not about censorship, it's about common sense and making it a bit easier to build an encyclopedia without the servers being down for hours every few months. Harro5 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this will probably be easier on everyone, since Harro is right, it takes less effort on the servers to spit out text than metatemplates. And, plus, we do not have to worry about FU icons since the templates will not longer exist. Why I am still baffled by what caused the recent fap-fest over userboxes, but eventually, people will take it too far and sooner or later, userboxes will just be another relic of Wikipedia faddom. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Somehow using up Wikipedia pages making anti-template policy proposals is better? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One page of hearty discussion, or hundreds filled with images and code serving little real purpose? Isn't this more fun? Harro5 09:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - if we removed all templates, then the fair-use is still a problem, just unmanageable, since I know of no-one who wants to go to every userpage and remove their fair-use images (policy applies to userpages direct insertation as well as templates), it just creates more hastle. Ian¹³_ID:540053 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as we have a clear manadate and admin support, i'll see what I and others can do. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Phil Welch - this is instruction creep of the worst kind. People who want to provide information on their user pages will just do it anyway; this helps it to look nicer. Stifle 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Philwelch: we should have a policy so people can stop arguing / to avoid edit/delete wars. I think the concerns stated on the project page are valid ones to consider. But I think we should be clear: Any discussion of "policy" is about templates / categories, not the use of the userbox template itself. I don't think anyone has a problem with the userbox template, other than concerns that it's less effective than making templates for each box -- everyone seems to agree that using the userbox template on a user page is OK as long as it doesn't violate established policies on fair use, civility, etc. So the range of policy we might formulate here is the templates and categories themselves. As discussed in the section How do we define userbox?, I think it's wise to try to establish some guidelines now to try to avoid such contention over user namespace content in the future. --Tetraminoe 14:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have policies regarding POV edit wars, and for many discussions, the userboxes/cats are a useful way of informing editors of it (eg, for this discussion, it makes sense to tell the people on the threatened cats. Yeltensic42.618 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN

This is never going to go anywhere. Might as well send it to mfd or bjoadn now. karmafist 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Why should userboxes, a small part of a userpage, have a policy. Next it will be Small side tags to be listed at the bottom of user talk pages for the purpose of making that user smile proposed policy. I say let the work 60 people are trying to do at the WikiProject continue (was more, but people pulled out over "mass-deletions"), since there is huge effort to prevent Wikipedia policy on fair-use images and meta templates in progress, and then just nominate what specific users don't like for deletion. Is this really all nessary? Ian¹³_ID:540053 12:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I proposed this policy at the village pump, but this isn't exactly what I had in mind. I wanted to establish some guidelines for templates and categories intended for the user namespace in order to create concensus on what should be kept and what should be deleted, providing both sides—keepers and deleters (and others, for that matter)—a policy to cite when voting on TfD and CfD. I ensisioned something like a WP:NOT or a WP:UP for the user templates and categories. Unfortunately for userbox enthusiasts, a number of userbox deletionists have jumped on the bandwagon to try to implement restrictions on the user namespace. Instead, this discussion ought to remain focused on collaborative discussion and the template and category namespaces. User pages should remain free (as long as they're legal, of course); we just need to draw some lines for templpates and categories. --TantalumTelluride 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouls support a templates and catagories policy for userpage space. Having a seperate policy for userboxes is stupid (anyway, where is the definition of a userbox?). Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping the gun and creating it before you had a chance, Tantalum but I started it out using your words. I am not a fan of using (x)fD as a way to find out what the policy on x ought to be, it's too random and can lead to contentious out of band actions. What I thought I'd try to do was put up some things (levels, for example, one dimension is userbox images: none, PD only, PD and GFDL, any) that people could voice support. But if its really felt that this is a waste then maybe I should not bother? ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, creating policy for little boxes seems instruction creepy, but given recent events that I don't think I have to link here, it is clear that opinions on what is and what is not common sense regarding userboxes vary wildly and the whole sad affair has to be settled somehow. We might as well make a guideline. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If we approved the first plan, it would set a horrible precedent for our project: basically the only way to do anything is to act unilaterally against anyone or anything you dislike until others agree to meet you half way. Unfortunately, that's the way it is unofficially already. We shouldn't encourage it. karmafist 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's either this or the Kelly Martin thing drags on into an arbitration thing and no one's happy. I'd be willing to leave userboxes alone, but couldn't we consider the ones I mentioned above under "Let's Debate!" for deletion? Too many userboxes are being created all with the same non-purpose (see User:Mistress Selina Kyle's contributions for examples) and that should be at least slowed down. But the categoristaion part should be discussed and decided upon. Harro5 21:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Snide personal attacks really reflect badly on you as an admin you know. But in a way it's nice to see you proving yourself unworthy. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Poweful words from a solid contributor. If only the rest of us could be as calm and composed as her. It isnt too late for us to follow her vision of goodwill. 69.49.99.16 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I only watch about a few pages of userboxes to see if any new ones come up, and I roughly see about 10 new boxes a day, but those are the ones that are listed at the WikiProject. But, there are userboxes that are not even included there that are floating around or people are using hard code to type everything. And, as mentioned before, that leads to redundancy, and that is not really a good thing to have on here. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This now serves as a way to stop the polluting flood caused by the WP:RFC/KM debate. Maybe if we get back to consensus we can avoid an arbitration case involving possibly over 100 editors who voted on the RfC. Harro5 08:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Given the amount of interest this topic has generated, I think it is clear this is more then just a joke. --DragonHawk 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we define userbox?/Move page to Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpage templates?

I personally feel a policy for userboxes is too specific, and that it should be userpage templates, where all of the discussed would apply just as much. If it is to say here, can I ask for a definition of userbox, otherwise can we move to 'Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpage templates'?. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I seconded your proposal on the project page, and also offered the alternative locations Wikipedia:User page (templates) or Wikipedia:User page/Templates. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I third it. Deano (Talk) 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This user supports everyone's right to userboxes and will vote to stop rampant deletionism

--God_of War 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I second what God of War said :) --CJ Marsicano 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Should be make the page move? Harro5 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Larix 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue is not userboxes per se but templates (and, to an extent, categories) designed only for userpages, and the accompanying server load / unencyclopedicness / social value they add or detract. But there seems like plenty of difference between e.g. Template:user Pizza and Template:Userpage. So maybe it makes more sense to first conduct the discussion on userboxes specifically, but afterwards it would be wise to lay some guidelines on userpage templates overall. Otherwise, this debate will just arise in another form later on. We should seek to avoid frustration and wasted editors' time with broader guidelines than only userboxes. --Tetraminoe 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing from this debate

I am withdrawing from the discussion of this "proposed policy"; it is premature to hold a vote on it at this point, and what I see going on is an attempt by a vocal and organized faction of the community to ramrod its view of "policy" through without bothering to see how the broader community -- not to mention that portion of the community that is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia -- feels about it. I do not believe that this discussion will lead to community consensus, nor will it lead to a policy that benefits the encyclopedia, and I will not feel bound by any "policy" it creates if that policy does not reflect our core values. Cheers. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes feel that it would be much easier to accomplish things of partisans from both sides didn't constantly feel the need to storm off and vow to ignore whatever (if any) consensus ultimately emerges. Not to single you out, Ms. Martin: there were a number of people who opposed your proposal who were saying essentially the same thing. It makes the whole process of trying to reach consensus a little meaningless. – Seancdaug 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We're making progress with what looks like a compromise between proposals #1 and #4, so let's not give up quite yet. If people don't want to be involved in the debate, and a policy is eventually formed, then they'll have to live with and abide by that. I've been glad to see you Seancdaug "crossing the floor" as it were to try to get a result from this debate, and applaud you for that. John McCain would like you to join the Gang of 14. Harro5 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was ridiculous that y'all went to voting after less than 12 hours when there were at least four active proposals and nothing even remotely resembling consensus support for any of them, and the discussion so marred with incivility (admittedly by a small number of editors) that I want nothing to do with it. As to being stuck with it: "policy" created by false consensus is not policy and is even less binding than policy normally is on Wikipedia, which isn't much really. And the way this is proceeding, you're not going to get a true consensus, because there's no debate, no discussion, just posturing and voting.

I have some small hope that saner heads will prevail, but that's unlikely when surrounded by villagers wielding pitchforks and flaming torches. A good start would be to delete all votes from the main page and not have any voting until after (arbitrarily) January 8th. Seven days ought to be enough time to develop a true consensus. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Those who are in such a race make this a vote should take at least a cursory glance at Wikipedia:Straw polls. —Cryptic (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, it seems to be more about what is a building block and what isn't. Other than those who just want the status quo, no one is talking about having a policy by the end of the week. I'd anticipate seeing a new discussion soon centred around the few proposals with solid support (#1, #4, #7) and looking to gradually move forward. No one is trying to rush through a policy, but it doesn't seem like an issue which would get anywhere with back-and-forth arguing as it is too divided. If you have suggestions about how to approach consensus, please share them, but if you just want to damn the process, maybe wait until we get closer to a resolution to rain on the parade. I understand your views, and have tremendous respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, but don't forget that nothing on Wikipedia is permanent and we have checks and balances for policy. Harro5 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have made the decision to withdraw from the userbox debate. When this proposal began, there were two (initially one) proposals made: one concerning what was acceptable and unacceptable (Kelly Martin's proposal), and one concerning the process of removing non-abiding userboxes (my proposal)--the original Proposals #1 and 2. These policies have been slowly morphed and melded into Proposal #10, proposed by TCorp. However, along the way, there have been proposals made left, right and center which have been little more than rewordings of earlier ones, yet attracting differing opinions from the same users. In the end, I very much doubt that a true concensus will ever be reached in this, bringing us back to Square One. --JB Adder | Talk 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)