User talk:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian

Please review the discussion before making edits to the template.

"Teh edit warz"
What is the complaint about the NPOV version of this template? --Gmaxwell 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The template serves an obvious purpose, of which one of the primary points would be not a page long. If the namespace is a concern, then delete this template and migrate the original one to the user space, and provide a redirect. Rexmorgan 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I get the joke, as does anyone else who wondered what broke their user page. While I am not amused, I can't say I'm above such a thing and so I appreciate the humor. But let's be mature here - we all know that such a change can't seriously be intended to replace the previous one. Templates are not articles, and design and intent must be taken into consideration when working within the space of each template. The replacement satisfies all NPOV concerns, as anyone can claim to be anything without any regard to fact or view. I hope we can act like adults and leave it be. Rexmorgan 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find your condescending tone quite insulting. Can you please try to be civil? I don't see how you can try to exclude the template namespace from NPOV with a straight face.  Of course the one liner doesn't satisfy NPOV. What is a christian? By whos definition? etc. Please do not remove cited material. --Gmaxwell 08:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The link provides extensive information on "what is a Christian", which is the purpose of an article. A template is not an article on a topic. The link alone serves the entire purpose of the issues you listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexmorgan (talk • contribs) 09:17, May 11, 2006
 * Indeed it does, but it does not provide additional information about the users affiliation with Christianity. That can only be provided in the template and since the template can be used by so many people with so many differing views, we must be comprehensive. It wouldn't be acceptable to be discriminatory. Thanks for your pointers about the sized induced layout problems, I've checked about 20 pages where it's used and they all look okay now with the reduced image. --Gmaxwell 08:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that I must make another reversion in order to get a response on this page, so that I shall do. I believe it is considered to be thoughtful, even considerate perhaps, and certainly in good taste to check with peers before doing a complete overhaul of an item. The change you are making is unreasonably disruptive to the pages it is linked to. Please address this issue before proceeding and attempt to reach some semblence of a concensus. Rexmorgan 08:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I'm concerned that you may be becoming overtly uncivil. As you can see, multiple users are working on these revisions. I would appreciate it if you would relax the ultimatums, especially since they are completely unwarranted. --Gmaxwell 08:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not made any ultimatims. Please try to follow guidelines and make every reasonable effort to reach a consensus. There is a number of things you and Cyde could do to make the revision more legitimate. For example, checking with the authors of some of the pages that reference the template to see if they find it suitable. No one person's opinion of "looks okay" is more legitimate than another's, which is why we have the discussion pages. Rexmorgan 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you miss that I was the first person to ask what they found objectionable with the alterations? Right now all I can see going on here is that you are attempting to assert ownership of this template against two other editors trying to make improvements. I do hope you'll be more considerate and willing to discuss in the future. --Gmaxwell 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am discussing. I am also requesting that a consensus be reached before making such broad changes. That is not unreasonable. Rexmorgan 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You reverted the rotating crucifix. I do not understand.  That change was made to make the image more NPOV by showing it from all angles.  -- Cyde Weys  08:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde and I have been working to find a version that all can approve of, but your unilateral simple reversion to your preferred version with no attempt at compromise is disruptive. You indicated some concern about offensiveness, could you explain? --Gmaxwell 08:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the past I have found that when large changes are disputed by a significant portion of the editing group (in this case, 33%), it is better to leave the changes unmade until some consesus can be reached. Not to mention the fact that none of the authors who use this template have had time to discuss the changes (it is in the middle of the night for much of the English-speaking world right now). Specifically, Cyde, the rotating image could be perceived by some to be making fun of the crucifix, which plays a very serious and significant role in their beliefs. In all seriousness, I am disappointed that an administrator would feign conviction about such an edit. We do not make rotating animated GIFs of all the assets on Wikipedia in order to serve NPOV.


 * Please be considerate to all of the users who use this template by soliciting their feedback before making such a radical change. Rexmorgan 09:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "We do not make rotating animated GIFs of all the assets on Wikipedia in order to serve NPOV." &mdash;&mdash;  We totally should!  -- Cyde Weys  09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the impression that the users who are attached to userpages where this template is used have some special position with regard to this. This is not the case, you could make that argument if you were talking about the text on their userpage, but not a system wide template. Some of your edits appear to be religious POV pushing, and I'm worried about your perspective that we don't need to be NPOV on this template. I hope you can find space in your heart to be considerate towards people who do not share your exact views. --Gmaxwell 09:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the template is protected now so none of us can edit it. I suggest we try a request for mediation. -- Cyde Weys 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems fairly clear that this page was taken over by a handful of users who seem bent on ruining its use as a userbox, which is defined to be small. A user page can be edited to include any pertinent details, and of course there are other userboxes for particular denominations.


 * If more specific userboxes are needed, I think they should be created. This is a userbox for a Wikipedian who is a Christian; specific denominations belong elsewhere, as do other designations (e.g. "This user is an expert on the subject of Christianity" or somesuch).  Andrewski 10:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other userbox I can use to show I am Christian without specifying a particulate church/denomination (which is too divisive in my opinion)? I do not want a whole article as a userbox. To make it more weird a Catholic crucifix is not a general symbol of Christianity. And I'm not sure which Christains (if any) prefer rotating symbols of their faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I created Template:User Christian generic as a temporary (?) replacement of this userbox. I hope that no sane person can claim that admitting to being a generic Christian is POV. Friendly Neighbour 12:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in this case, we're reproducing work that was unnecessary in the first place. Your reasoning is sound, thus the userbox didn't need to be changed in the first place.  Many people already use this userbox and weren't complaining.  (Both Gmaxwell and Cyde, on the other hand, did not nor do not.)  I reiterate my suggestion as before: creating specific and different userboxes would work fine.  Andrewski 13:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Therefore in case "User Christian" template is restored to its previous glory, I plan to differentiate "User Christian generic" by changing the text to something like" "This user is a Christian but does not wish to be identified with any church" or "This user is a Christian who does not wish to disclose his church affiliation, if any". Friendly Neighbour 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to protect the userbox? Just to have it the way you want, Gmaxwell? I already said it is too long, and please be considerate to all of the users who use this template by soliciting their feedback before making such a radical change. Understood? 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granomerx (talk • contribs) 09:17, May 11, 2006

This userbox should simply say "This user is a Christian"
Messing with the content in this way is going to annoy hundreds of people who include the template on their pages. I'm taking the bold step of removing protection and putting that content into the template. I won't engage in any more editing ont his template after that, but I urge others to stop playing silly games like this. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know why people are playing silly games. Anyone with an interest here should either leave the template as "This user is a Christian" or be bold and delete it entirely as coming under T1, if that is what they think T1 allows them to do - and it will if the current attempt to reword T1 sticks. Personally, I don't think this is the best template to start with under a new T1, but I couldn't oppose it. Metamagician3000 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you did the right thing. Tom Harrison Talk 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, if people want to express their views using a template, why not just create a new one themselves? Messing around with the existing template was not so cool. I had to take off the template as it totally distorted my userpage. -- thunderboltz(TALK) 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The template namespace doesn't exist to 'express your views'. Our content there is required to be NPOV. If you wish a more succinct expression of your views there is nothing that prevents you from just putting the text directly into your page rather than asserting ownership over a system wide page. --Gmaxwell 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell is correct that the template namespace is NOT the place for "views". However, as there now seems to be a general consensus that a page-long template is extreme, I recommend something along the lines of "this user claims to be". This eliminates any potential POV in the space, and the users who place this template on their own page are doing so voluntarily, which should take care of the discrimination concern. Rexmorgan 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your proposed text is a step in the right direction, so I agree we should include it.. I don't think it solves the problem completely. As far as discrimination goes, the problem is that there are users who consider themselves to be christian, but can not accept the template without clarification. But putting this template in the template namespace and warring over a preferred version, you are discriminating against those users. --Gmaxwell 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those users who do not feel accurately represented by this userbox should be able to create their own userboxes that are more specific to their tastes, beliefs, preferences, etc. Maybe we could try it without the italics though... A third opinion? Rexmorgan 19:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's try "This user self-identifies as Christian. -- Cyde Weys  19:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that once a consensus is reached, it seems very necessary to make the same change to all other userboxes in the template namespace. I think it is fair to suggest that Gmaxwell and Cyde undertake this project since they spearheaded the project to alter this one. Rexmorgan 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's no problem. I agree with you, having text "self-identifies as" or "claims to be" is much more NPOV.  -- Cyde Weys  19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For a moment I thought I'd accidentally logged into Uncyclopedia. Leave it at Tony's version. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This userbox should simply say "This user is a Christian". Please create another one, if you don't like this one. Friendly Neighbour 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're not even willing to discuss this, then you are perfectly welcome to substitute your preferred version of the template into your userspace and let those of us who are working for the goal of NPOV handle this template. -- Cyde Weys  20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Claims to be"
Is that extra phrase necessary? If you have a "this user is Christian" userbox, aren't you claiming you are Christian? Why would this line be needed, it seems to me that it's redundant? Prodego talk  19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion in the section above. Rexmorgan 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates fundamentally differ from articles
We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users linked to their userpages (as the userbox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the fundamental difference between an article about a person/thing/idea (which can be only one) and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is simply no need for template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Outsiders"? Have you read WP:OWN? Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates aren't fundamentally different from articles at all. Templates were originally made to be used on articles and most templates are used on articles. Something like Template:Christianity absolutely does have to be NPOV. What's fundamentally different from articles is userspace, but we're not talking about userspace here, we're talking about templates. -- Cyde Weys 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually (and I hate to do this now), but where, exactly, is it stated that all items in the template namespace must adhere to NPOV? I originally saw it on the proposed policy for userboxes page and have since assumed it to be true, but after further search I cannot find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests this... Cyde or Gmax can you cite anything on this? Rexmorgan 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV ... since the primary purpose of templates is to be used in articles, they need to be NPOV too. Even all of the Wikipedia maintenance templates and such are written in a very NPOV fashion. -- Cyde Weys 20:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If "This user is a Christian" is POV, your userpage is full of POV. You claim "In real life, I am a computer science undergraduate". POV. "Coincidentally I also happen to live in Maryland". Highly opinionated POV. By the way, acording to your logic, we should delete all templates saying "user is..." or at least replace them with "user claims to be...". You probably think that what you are doing is funny. In fact, it is extremely divisive and possibly in the long run dangerous for the project. This statement was also POV. Feel free to delete it. Friendly Neighbour 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Friendly, we all know that userpages are explicitly exempt from NPOV. Rexmorgan 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "userpages are still explicitly exempt from NPOV"? The trend I observe here is unsetting. Friendly Neighbour 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Last I checked the Template namespace is far away from your userpage. No one is talking about NPOV on the userpage. No one. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So much for that
OK people, might as well pack up and move on. Once a userbox has been speedy deleted by a sysop there's about a 1 in 1000 chance it will be revived. Just stick the code on your userpage. Rexmorgan 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, better yet, discuss why they're a Christian and why it's important to them. Far more meaningful than a bumper sticker. Call it an assumption on my part, but the thousands of Christians on Wikipedia came to their faith in different ways. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not opposed to that, but some people do feel that the userbox concept is a positive and useful one, assuming some of the current difficulties could be overcome. No one should be throwing any tantrums (that's why I avoid the WP:DRVU), but I think some disappointment is a reasonable reaction. Thank you for your work. Rexmorgan 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What was the reason for deletion? — BrianSmithson 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Divisiveness", per T1 at WP:CSD. Of course, the template wasn't divisive until Gmaxwell and Cyde came along and started their joke... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we should delete the analogous Jewish, Muslim, atheist, etc. templates. — BrianSmithson 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot that you couldn't see the former page's history. Basically what happened is this: Gmaxwell and Cyde began replacing the simple statement "this user is a Christian" with longer and longer formulations of what it might or might not mean to call oneself a Christian.  By the end, the template was more than one screen long (on my screen, at least), complete with footnotes, references, and a spinning crucifix.  Their stated justification for doing this was to make the template NPOV, since different people mean different things when they self-identify as Christian.  However, they went to such ridiculous extremes that (in my view, at least) they violated WP:POINT.


 * Anyway, when people noticed that their user pages now had a massive essay with a spinning crucifix instead of a little userbox with an ΙΧΘΥΣ symbol, they understandably got upset. This caused some edit warring and flaming (some of which you can see above).  And then Mackensen deleted the template, saying that it was "clearly divisive".  (See my objection above.)


 * I think this is roughly equivalent to pushing somebody into the mud, and then condemning them for being dirty. But that's just me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and take it to DRVU. The 1 in 1000 quote is hyperbole and for something this touchy, if it doesn't hit DRVU, it's likely to get wheel warred.  I'm no process wonk, but if the debate is going to happen, I'd prefer to see it there than here or WP:AN/I. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how the "divisive" argument would apply here. If only because that would mean that joking around with a template for a while in the name of NPOV is not only allowed, it's encouraged, and as an added bonus the template will be deleted in the end. There are countless reasons why one might want a template deleted but I do not think this is one of them. I think it would be better to revive the template straight away. (I hasten to add that I do not mean to say that these editors/admins were joking around; just that this opens the door for others to do just that and get away with it.) AvB &divide; talk  22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a concern. This is the first time I've seen something like this. I doubt anyone is willing or desires to see all this happen again. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Substituted
I've substed the template on all the user pages it was transcluded onto. So as far as I care, you kids are free to play with it as much as you like -- it'll make no difference. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They couldn't anyway - (without wheel warring, that is): Mackensen had already blanked and protected it. AvB &divide; talk  23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now we just need to do this with the rest of the userboxes (to get them out of templatespace) and we're done! -- Cyde Weys 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there are countless reasons to delete user boxes. FWIW, I discarded my user boxes (mostly Babel brag tags) months ago. But this is not the way to go about it. AvB &divide; talk  23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the way to go about it then? We've tried just about everything else we could think of over the course of the past five months.  -- Cyde Weys  23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought you were joking again. OK seriously - you want them out, you figure out a way. I won't even try - reasons enough, but better people than I have tried and failed (including Jimbo) so I guess it won't be all that easy. Another problem is that you took on the User Christian tag. Looks like WP:POINT to me. But I'll shut up straight away if you go ahead and do the User Atheist user box or something similar next. (I must say the rotating crucifix was just too funny, but I'm afraid not everyone will see it that way.) AvB &divide; talk  23:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS I'll shut up straight away anyway for now - it's 1:42 here so I'd better get some sleep. AvB &divide; talk  23:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that your antics today were not as disruptive as the presence of the User Christian userbox, Cyde? Can you show me examples of where the encyclopedia suffered because of the presence of this userbox? JDoorj a m    Talk 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll admit it, maybe things got out of hand, and I apologize if I caused any disruption. But here's a good example where the encyclopedia was harmed because of the presence of this userbox: Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich (He used this userbox for vote-stacking purposes, first with talk page messages, and then later with Wikipedia email). -- Cyde Weys 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, at least you've apologised. But this kind of disruptive behaviour is not acceptable. Apart from your propensity to do things like this, you're a very valued user. But it was the feeling that you'd act this way that made some of us vote against your RfA despite your undertaking not to continue being involved in the userbox wars. You've repeatedly breached that undertaking in a way that's caused a lot of pain. Please let this issue go, or if you want to do something constructive, go and express your view about the new expanded and clarified T1. Metamagician3000 01:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If Cyde hadn't mentioned Jason, I would have. Jason drew me and other editors with this template into a number of conflicts. After realizing I could not support many of his actions I became involved in the ongoing vandal-fighting and subsequent user conduct RfC and RfAr against him. Since this user box had played a role, I immediately substed the template (like Ilmari Karonen did to all user pages with the template yesterday). Around that time Jimbo started an offensive against the use of political/religious/etc. user boxes. The net effect was a far cry from what he intended; this is still an issue and I expect more from Jimbo in the future. Cyde is definitely not alone in his opposition to user boxes.

Cyde, I'll comment a bit further on your talk page. AvB &divide; talk  12:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
Template:User Hindu does not get deleted, but Template:User Christian does? Ahhh the joys of our egalitarian wiki.


 * In fact, CSD T1, as it currently stands, does cover both of them. (Template:User atheist, as it happens, was deleted months ago.)  Since this latest incident, I've been looking into the possibility of starting a project to subst all the religious and ideological userboxes: it'd be much more efficient to do them in one pass rather than one by one, and would also avoid any bias inherent in treating some religious userboxes differently than others.
 * I don't think this is something that ought to be done rashly — but I'd also prefer that, if possible, it be done before the templates are deleted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CSD T1 says, "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." If calling oneself a Christian (or a Hindu, for that matter) is considered to be either divisive or inflammatory, then we've got a real problem somewhere along the line. BigDT 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it's been split in two now, so the reference above should actually be to CSD T2. Sorry about the confusion.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I should point out: If you read the discussion on its talk page, Template:User Hindu does seem to have been deleted, but was later restored.  Now that both Template:User atheist and Template:User Christian appear to be gone for good, it seems likely that Template:User Hindu and its double, Template:User hindu, are next. --Aquillion 06:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Listed at DRV/U
I've listed this template at Deletion review/Userbox debates. We can move the debate there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is patently silly
I'm surprised that you guys left the history in place. First, you vandalize a widely-used template to make a WP:POINT. Then it is deleted and protected without explanation, justification, or notification. There will never be a consensus to undelete it simply because the people who hang out on that forum hate userboxes. But the thing is, if it had been properly marked for deletion and taken to the proper forum for deletion, there never would have been a consensus to delete it, either. This is an abuse of admin powers. Your silliness was in bad faith and you know it. Shame on you. BigDT 18:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A steward needs to know about this! Who gave you admin powers anyway?-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny (talk)-(12:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically not a violation of WP:POINT. They weren't vandalizing the template to make a point about anything, they were vandalizing it so that there would be an excuse to delete it under the 'template causes trouble' clause.  There's a difference. MilesVorkosigan 18:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it still falls under WP:POINT because they were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's just more than WP:POINT because they sought not only to prove a point, but also to use the disruption caused by making that point (that "Christianity" is too complicated to express in a one-sentence userbox, a rather absurd and inane point to make in any case) to further an agenda. In any case, assuming the new T2 criterion for speedy-deletion sticks around, this template should be undeleted for one reason alone: so that it can be moved from user Christian to user christianity, and the text changed from "This user is a Christian." to "This user is interested in Christianity.", this making it a more valuable tool for Wikipedia-editing as it identifies an interest or specialty rather than a bias or POV. This is also much more efficient than creating a brand-new template because it will preserve this Talk page and the template's edit history, and save time and effort by not forcing us to recreate the userbox from scratch and add it to pages all over again (the same applies to the other religion templates, of course): the main reason I can see for speedy-deleting this rather than simply moving it is (1) to hide the admin abuse in the edit history from most users, and (2) to further the general agenda of deleting as many userboxes as possible, which is of more interest to many users than seeking a fair or organized way, in keeping with policy, process, and consensus, to deal with the real problems involved. The ends justify the means, and anyone who opposes them is a "process wonk" and wants to turn Wikipedia into LiveJournalMySpacepedia. Oy vey. -Silence 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice
To remind us of the consequences of our actions: The recent vandalism of this template was largely responsible for the departure of User:BigDT. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Preventing speedy-deletion
Now that this template has been restored, I strongly recommend moving it to user christianity and changing the text to "This user is interested in Christianity." to avoid another speedy-delete under the new T2 speedy deletion criterion. The exact same thing has been done for almost every other template on Userboxes/Religion, as a stop-gap measure to prevent disruptive mass-deletions while T2 is still under debate. I think this would be a productive compromise, at least for ensuring that the debates are allowed to proceed unmolested by re-deletions or edit wars. -Silence 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection, but I intend to see that the template remains available until the TfD closes, and that the TfD does not close prematurely. I would hope that, after all the blood shed over this thing, everyone would just appreciate the need for a normal, calm 5-day discussion for this very serious matter.  Religion matters to many editors, and editors matter to the encyclopedia, for goodness' sake. Xoloz 18:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm not sure that's possible. There are just too many admins with too strongly-held agendas for this template to evade speedy-deletion, in its current form, for 5 whole days. Your idealism is very admirable, but the corrosive spirit of WP:IAR is too pervasive in the editing body right now for such simple, reasonable requests to meet much success. If we don't make the move soon, you may find before long that it's too late to salvage anything at all from this mess. -Silence 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not afraid to Interpret all rules and reverse premature deletions, to the extent this is reasonable. I have no agenda, except that this discussion be given the time it needs.  This isn't even "process-wonking" -- I think the community in general now fully understands the necessity of trending carefully on the world's major religions. Xoloz 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to move this template, as other religious templates are simply reworded but not moved. I believe the reword alone can save this template from T2. Hunter 11:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the other templates have been reworded too, from the name of a religion's practitioners (Christian, Muslim, etc.) to the name of the religion itself (christianity, islam, etc.). But I agree that the text-change is more important than the move, by far. -Silence 16:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suddenly have an idea, how about reword the tempalte to: "This user is interested in Christian topics."? -Hunter 15:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused
What is wrong with the title, "This user is a Christian". I've read the comments here, and am interested in what all the controversy is over. Christianity is considered one religion so please explain. Falphin 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversy is a fabricated one. User:Gmaxwell and User:Cyde deliberately and repeatedly vandalized this template, while feigning concerns over the many different potential meanings and nuances for the term "Christian", in order to make it appear controversial and thus cause its deletion. This isn't, of course, because Gmaxwell or Cyde have a problem with Christianity, but because they have a problem with userboxes: the disruptive edit-warring over this template was specifically planned to try and spearhead a mass-deletion of all religion-related userboxes. This template was only targeted because it's a particularly widely-used template, thus making it more of a challenge to delete than many of the other userboxes. However, the speedy-deletion they provoked was eventually overturned at WP:DRV, and the template is now being further discussed at WP:TfD.


 * In the meantime, a new Criterion for Speedy Deletion, "T2", has been added. Although this criterion is a new one, and was added out-of-process with no prior discussion and without consensus support, it is being widely-used by several administrators, who claim that it is a legitimate de facto policy (for the cyclic reason that whatever administrators do is policy; "we are the law"). To prevent the sort of division and endless arguing that would inevitably be generated by yet another attempt to mass-delete userboxes, I decided to try and circumvent the problem, and the controversy, by replacing dozens of speedy-deletable templates at Userboxes/Religion with ones that don't fall under T2, thus avoiding lots of nasty arguments over deleted templates, and also making it easier to restore the templates (administrator action won't even be needed, since a simple revert and page-move is all that's necessary) should T2 be overturned at some point in the future. That's what's now been done for most of the templates at Userboxes/Religion, and the rest, including this one, are likely to soon follow. It's an unfortunate situation, but hopefully this compromise will be able to diffuse some of the tensions and infighting so we can go back to doing what we're here for: building an encyclopedia. -Silence 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then lets just remove the template. Ask the administrators to stop. Take it to a policy pump. If it fails, which is probably will looking at the debates, then they have to stop.  If they don't stop take it to an arbitration comittee to see about removing their adminstration privelages. Falphin 01:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, um, about that whole "removing their adminstration privelages" thing. The Arbitration Committee is a very conservative body.  They operate very slowly.  Niether one nor the other of these is a problem per se.  However what you're dealing with is a very fluid situation where while the boundries are quite clearly being stretched and/or manipulated they are not being overtly broken.  So I'd suggest that you listen to Silence. -  brenneman  {L} 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

template:user atheist and zen buddhist
apparently so divisive that they needed to stay deleted, yay, thank jebus for the non-divisive nature of christianity, that it can be repeatedly undeleted--64.12.117.7 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected
This template has just gone through it's latest tfd and has been deleted and/or restored 17 times. There are many ongoing disucussions as to what user template should or should not include (even if they should or should not exist). Editing of this template has gone beyond being bold and is closer to factionalization at this point. As there is no evidence of consensus of this template, I've protected it temporarily in the hopes that this discussion page will be used to come up with a better solution first. I plan on removing this protection in a few days. — xaosflux  Talk  16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Propose Status-quo
What I mean is the above, since T2 is under heavy debate (see Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates & Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion) and even disappear sometimes due to lack of consensus between the admins (See the history page). I propose to retain the current version, mainly the wordings, until some concrete policy comes out. Hunter 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm mildly amused that it was protected after the edit war had been dead for three days rather than during the heat of the battle. (User:Xaosflux, don't take this the wrong way - I have no problem with your decision whatsoever - I just got a chuckle out of the timing.)  At any rate, my opinion on the subject is that the userbox has survived WP:DRVU.  It's survived WP:TFD.  Changing the meaning of the template is just a back way of ignoring the consensus.
 * If someone wants a template that says "This user is interested in Christianity", by all means make one, but don't change this one. Edit warring isn't the way to make policy.  Even if eventually this template becomes disallowed by a new deletion policy, it needs to be substed, not changed - most of the people who use it really want to say, "this user is a Christian".  That is a completely and totally different message from "This user is interested in Christianity".  BigDT 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The timing was off a bit, put it on when I closed the latest TFD on it, then noticed the edit warring. The protection may be agaisnt the rules and certainly does not endorse any particular version.  This protection is to allow for a cooling off period only.  If anyone feels that it should be immediately unprotected pelase leave me a message on my talk page, or list on requests for unprotection.  —  xaosflux  Talk  23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should all take some time to settle down and avoid making any dramatic changes, until the discussion over T2 has reached a satisfactory conclusion. If it ends up being ratified, we should mass-subst the old version of this template to the users who had it, and replace it with an interest-based one; if it ends up being nullified, we should leave this template be and simply create a new template for "This user is interested in Christianity.", if anyone wants it. Until then, better to resolve things through discussion (and spend time working on the encyclopedia) than waste time with edit-wars. -Silence 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, don't misunderstand my meaning ... I was just pointing out the humor of the timing - kinda like Captain Kirk getting permission from Starfleet Command to divert to Vulcan for Spock's wedding on Amok Time after the whole thing was already over with. I have no problem whatsoever with your decision.  BigDT 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "This user is interested" and "This user is" serve two very different purposes. The first identifies interest - a subject where the user has knowledge that can be trusted to be reasonably accurate. You could be a Satanist and still interested in Christianity. The second identifies potential bias - if a person is a Christian, it can be reasonably assumed that any articles about blatantly anti-Christian concepts or actions which they are editing should be looked at carefully to make sure that their statements are NPOV, since even unconciously they may be injecting POV into the article. Obviously this isn't a strict rule, since not all Christians will have the same biases, but it's a valid use of the box. The user may be identifying themselves to help prevent their biases from bleeding over - if they want to do so with a userbox, let them. Rarr 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, plus the point that these users are still Christians even without the userbox. Deleting it in such a way--with a history of heavy bias against this one in particular--only trounces on them and alienates them.

(By the way, I am all for the change to "This user is interested in", but certainly not for this reason.) Andrewski 01:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And Speedily Deleted within 3 days of surviving TfD
And now this has been speedily deleted and the earth salted within 72 hours after the closure of TfD as a keep. Can anyone explain the justification for doing both? GRBerry 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides admin abuse, no. It is amazing to look at the deletion log for this template.  Over and over again it has happened.  We have to come to some sort of concensus such as the German solution or this will never end. --StuffOfInterest 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to assume good faith. I can understand the deletion although I disagree with it.  I don't understand why salting the earth would be done in these circumstances, and my question was intended more to ask about why that was done than it was about the deletion.  (And to nobody's surprise, this is up for deletion review now.)  GRBerry 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would throw WP:AGF out the window when it comes to to the userbox debate. Just look at the deletion log for this template.  Note that the person who deleted it this time deleted it before.  On any other content this would be considered abusive by both WP:POINT and Wheel Warring (don't know the shortcut for that one).  Instead of working on a concensus solution these admins have decided to impose their view of Wikipedia on everyone else.  I believe the war has heated up lately in part because Jimbo has pretty explictly endorsed the German solution (linked above) which does allow people to still use some sort of shared code.  These admins have worked hard to eliminate any shared code. --StuffOfInterest 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I offer my thoughts in the form of a userbox:

BigDT 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning label for the template
Seeing that the template has been unprotected, I have created a warning label for it:

I would suggest that we leave some kind of warning note like this on the template suggesting that the wheel warring not continue. I also suggest that we leave the "subst" suggestion on there. There are several reasons to subst it (1) one of the main concerns with the template is its use for vote stacking - this eliminates that concern (2) vandalism or deletion by admins will not cause your page to be changed if you subst the template.

BigDT 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note, I didn't unprotect this template, I deleted the WP:SALT'ed version. In so much as replacing the template with included code of null makes this change invisible to pages it is used in (potentially making the change invisible for sometime), I deleted it entirely, leaving a redlink where it used to be.  There is currently a DRV in progress on this template, and signifigant contirbutions to this may not be warranted until the DRV is complete. —  xaosflux  Talk  05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The german solution
Would someone volenteer to make a subpage for this on their userpage so that people can use the german solution? It will need to be watched, as a deletion of that page will mean that the german solution didn't work.--Rayc 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a number of the mild religious userboxes on my page: User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. They are not templates - just boxes and the code necessary to create them.  I have ones that are purely "this user is a xyz" - none of the divisive or sarcastic ones.  Another user, User:CharonX, has created a page for userboxes at User:CharonX/Userboxes. BigDT 04:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the code I copied to my sub-page earlier, can be used as a template :

Later I'll use to delete the page and then move the  restored template to that page in order to preserve history.-- Hunter 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here it is in its new home. Good Luck! :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)