User:Zenexer/Templates/policy tree

We seem to have gone off track, because I see angry mastodons. Discussions are meant to be objective, not personal. I'm creating this area for bulleted, specific facts. I plan to enforce objectivity in this section. Participation is obviously optional, but your contributions will help newcomers quickly pull out the facts.

Each relevant policy should have a bullet. Under each policy's bullet will be a sub-list describing the ways in which the policy applies. Such descriptions can have further sub-bullets giving concrete examples (for example, specific references that are problematic). Do not sign the bullets; these are not comments. Avoid using shortcuts for policy bullets without adding descriptive text. Information on relevance should be short and sweet.

Example:

* Policy 1
 * How it applies
 * Another application
 * Policy 2
 * Relevance
 * Concrete example 1
 * Concrete example 2
 * Concrete example 3

A personal remark discredits a fact. Any personal or biased comments should be removed, and a note should be left on the author's talk page. Be sure to retain any objective material. Try to salvage as much as possible. Do not add any new information or change any existing information; you should be removing only, without changing the meaning of anything. Do not add your signature. If the meaning of the contribution must change to make it acceptable, remove it entirely.

If an edit war occurs, any controversial text should be enclosed in a strikethrough  tag, unless the text is clearly true and objective, particularly to third parties. Further discussion should occur only on the |talk page.

You should not be drawing any conclusions within this section. Such analysis is left to the reader. There is one exception: there can be a "Serious problems" pseudo-policy bullet which addresses issues not outlined by a policy. For example, if a large number of zero-edit users suddenly support an AfD, that is a serious problem. Serious means serious: these are problems that must be addressed by bureaucrats, and cannot logically be solved through discussion, or that outright break the discussion process.

''Before responding, please review No angry mastodons. This will prevent the majority of problems.''