Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 2

"And" -> "or"
A couple of days ago there seemed to be clear consensus that userboxes that are divisive or inflammatory should be deleted. There is quite clear arbcom precedent to say exactly that. T1 used to say "and/or" before it was deleted in the last flurry of changes a few months ago, and I think that when it was reinstated the wording with "and" was not intended to mean that henceforth a userbox had to be both divisive and inflammatory, even though that is what it literally said. The intention was surely that divisive userboxes and inflammatory userboxes would be deleted. Often, the rationale for deletion of userboxes has, in practice, just been "divisive".

However, someone has changed the "or" back to "and" over the last couple of days. As far as I can see, no explanation was given as to why this was done. I have taken the liberty of changing it back to "or" to reflect: Metamagician3000 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * practice;
 * the original aims of T1;
 * arb. com.'s clear language;
 * what seemed to be the consensus here.


 * I think it should remain as "and" as per the diff referenced on the main page. Many things could be regarded as devisive, even divides users into admins and non-admins. I don't think it's the division that's the problem, it's if there is hositily attached to it as well. That's why I think it should remain as "and" to allow the swift removal of anything that splits people into them/us in cases where this would create unnecessary tension. Regards, MartinRe 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, I'd probably just simplify it to say inflammatory, as not all divisive issues are bad, but generally all inflammatory one are, even if they're not devisive. Regards, MartinRe 01:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreeded, or is MUCH broader than and. I don't mind removing divisive myself, but we should form consensus on chaning this policy first. —  xaosflux  Talk  03:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just reverted an and-->or back to and. This is the exact version that is in the citation where Jimbo added this.  This section apparently is just starting to discuss this proposed change. —  xaosflux  Talk  03:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I do not think "or" was the original intent of Jimbo's creation of T1. My logic goes like this: Interpretation of T1 should be placed in the context of the User paedophilia controversy at the time, with which "divisive and inflammatory" more probably meant the kind of backlash and division created in the community by the existance of the userbox.  It probably doesn't mean "divisive" on its own, which could be interpreted horrendously broadly to include male/female or "I think the singular they is acceptable".  (Unless, of course, Jimbo has clarified it since.) --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this unanimous arb com ruling seemed pretty clear on how the arb com interpreted the situation. Metamagician3000 10:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo did have the polemcial version around at one time (mailing list?), but polemic != divisive. I'd be fine with or if we were going back to polemical. — xaosflux  Talk  11:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I would almost say that polemic == "divisive 'and' inflammatory", but the latter is easier to understand for most people, as the former isn't a very common word, ime. MartinRe 12:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Polemical" actually seems like a weaker word than "divisive" to me. Anyway, I'll leave this alone for a while and get back to a mix of (1) editing an encyclopedia and (2) real life. Metamagician3000 12:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is weaker, if you are referring to the breadth of it's scope, but that may be by design. — xaosflux  Talk  12:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, one of the boxes deleted as part of the referenced Template:User paedophilia controversy was the box Template:User pedo, which follows precisely the formulation suggested for alternatives to divisive and inflammatory boxes (i.e. "This user is interested in Pedophilia"). The creation of that template led to a two month ban for the wikipedia who created it - it might be nice to place a little warning to that effect along with the suggestion that such a formulation is acceptable.  My 2¢.  --67.168.249.84 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the main problem with the pedophilia box was that it had a history behind it. In context, it was highly provocative, even though the words themselves were in a relatively anodyne form for such a sensitive subject. Anyway, I won't press the "and/or" issue, because I'm quite happy with the current (as I write this) formulation of TX. I'd just like to see it bed down. Metamagician3000 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

First section
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues. Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions. This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking. If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so. By letting these templates remain we are passively endorsing them and giving outsiders the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. -- Cyde Weys 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is saying that every template must stay, we are debating on whether there should be a discussion before deleting them or not. A speedy deletion is a deletion without any discussion and is an extreme measure, and not to be used lightly, which is why the crtiteria are so narrow. In my opinion a speedy deletion should only be used in cases where it would be potentially damaging to have the material there for the duration of the discussion, (copyvios, attack pages, etc.). All other cases are non-urgent, and should go to the appropiate *fd. The original T1 "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" was fine, it allowed speedy deletion of templates that were the template equilavent of attack pages, which could be seen as harmful enough to delete right now. However, I don't think any of the recently deleted templates were potentially harmful enough to do the same, if anything the speedy deletion of them is proving more devisive than the orignal templates ever could be. Many userboxes aren't of much relavence to the enclyopedia, true, but WP:NOT is not a blanket justification for speedy deletion, either in article or template space. Regards, MartinRe 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. They should be deleteable, they should not be speediable. Reasonable editors may differ on when a userbox is harmful to the encyclopedia, far more often than they will differ on when an article is gibberish or makes no claim of notability (and so on down for the other speedy criteria.) Septentrionalis 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Our deletion process and protections exist to prevent encyclopedic content being deleted without discusson, unless it is obviously junk. Userboxes are not encyclopedic, they simply do not deserve the procedural protection and consensus requirements due to article deletion, because their deletion is at worst neutral to the encyclopedia. There have been literally hundereds of POV-celebrating userboxes, and thousands of others created int he last months, so if there is a consensus to get rid of POV userboxes, it would simply be impractical to use TfD. TfD is for debates over encyclopedic templates, we really don't want to clog it up processing myspace junk. --Doc ask?  23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc underestimates the advantages of TfD. It encourages discussion; it encourages civility; it requires consensus. All these are good things, which the present situation sorely lacks. It is also, quite often, faster.Septentrionalis 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * MartinRe, the problem is that if broad consensus is what T1 says it is (that all religious, philosophical, polemic, political, etc, userboxes do not belong in template space) but when any particular one is taken to TfD, it survives, then the process is broken. As surely everyone by now knows, I am a huge fan of process, when it works (which is almost all the time). But when the process does not work, it needs to be changed so that it will work. All these userboxes need to be speedied. With warning, with a chance for people to subst first, with consensus beforehand, but they must go. It has been long enough. That they typically do not survive DRVU suggests that the broad consensus is what it is being said to be. That they survive TfD suggests that TfD is broken. Further, there are times when consensus is not the only thing. At the root, the foundation, and Jimbo have some considerable say. And they want them gone. (I think I'm channeling Tony Sidaway here... yeesh!!!)  + + Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is a big difference between saying "political, etc userboxes don't belong in template space", and "political, etc userboxes don't belong in template space, and should be speedied". I agree that they don't belong in template space, but think this is not the best way to solve this problem. Even Jimbo suggested changing it one editor at a time, so I think a more gradual process would be more effective in the long term. IMO, It is more important to do something right, than do it 'right now'. I agree with the original T1, devisive/offensive templates are valid speedies, as the template equivalent of attack articles. However, the expanded T1 is proving to be very devisive, the fact that tfd and DRV/U give different answers is a clear indication that there is no consensus either way. I too am a big fan of process, and sometimes process gives different answers to what you might expect, but agreeing with processes only when it gives the answer you want is very risky, which makes decisions look arbitary, and gives potential legitimacy to rogue admins doing what they like, destroying the trust of the community in the process. I would strongly suggest that the speedy criteria remains restricted to material that does immediate harm, and to approach userboxes in a more restrained way. For example, one idea would be to do the following steps:
 * Separate userboxes from categories (reduces auto cat add used for vote stacking, and also allows them to be transferred to format.
 * Convert all userboxes on the main pages to use format, so new editors copying them in are already semi-subst'd. (I believe using the userbox template is the best way because it's simplier than raw HTML, and any text added is in user space, no edit wars over original template, as they are unlinked)
 * Require any new templates designed for user space to use the above method. (and new ones created differently speedied)
 * Gradually convert all templates to use the above format, and then delete the orignals when complete.
 * That I believe would end up with all the user POv, etc, out of template space, not as fast, yes, but I believe more effective in the long term. Regards, MartinRe 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to dissect Cyde's text piece by piece. (Is it even Cyde's? I thought it was from Jimbo. But that's irrelevant for the argument.) Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Cyde's; what Jimbo said is at Jimbo on Userboxes. Septentrionalis 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues.
 * Wikipedia already has userpages, and userboxes do not add any additional potential of turning Wikipedia into a "battleground" than userpages already do. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Template userboxes allow easy votestacking. User pages do not allow easy votestacking.  +  + Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions.
 * That is simply not true. But even if it was, it is doubtful that userboxes would do that any more than any other mechanism, including user-categories or WikiProjects, already does it. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User categories associated with these userboxes need to go too. We have not seen egregious stacking due to projects. Censure for users that do it should be considered regardless of how the votestacklist is developed  + + Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking.
 * This is a strawman argument. Vote-stacking is a problem either way; forbidding certain userboxes doesn't solve it. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This used to be my argument too. Not any more. Removing these userboxes does not hurt, and can help. As well as get rid of divisiveness in general.  + + Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor will it help; attempts to prevent clique voting by inhibiting communication will not work: There are too many ways to communicate, many of them off Wikipedia entirely.Septentrionalis 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just about clique voting, it's also about presenting an appearance that encourages an unencyclopedic perception of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. When a newcomer sees a bunch of these boxes, they get the wrong idea about Wikipedia, that this is a place to be partisan.  This is a place to try our best to rise above partisanship, not to fight or represent for our pet causes.  It's an article of culture that we're not doing a great job at communicating. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jimbo that the desirable way to change a culture is to appeal to editors one at a time. The Userbox War debased our culture noticeably; and yesterday's antics suggest that Userbox War II would be no better. The way to encourage people to be reasonable is by discussion and consensus; T2 is neither. Septentrionalis 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so.
 * This is strictly correct, but doesn't mean you shouldn't use templates. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean you should either. If there are other ways that don't have the downside, they should be used. + + Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By letting these templates remain we are passively endorsing them...
 * It is doubtful that "passively endorsing them" is any worse than or even different from passively endorsing the idea of giving every user their own userpage where they can write what they want. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and giving outsiders the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
 * Templates do not give any significantly different idea than userpages already do. "What it means to be a Wikipedian" is hardly something any single person can decide or define, much less impose on others, outsiders or insiders. But even so, the idea outsiders are supposed to get is that we are an encyclopedia; they are not supposed to be concerned with who writes it. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution to votestacking
Why not just remove the categories from ubxen (which I think everybody agrees we should do anyway), and subst them, so whatlinkshere doesn't work? That allows us to keep the pre-made ubxen so people don't have to type too much stuff when creating a userpage (if you have to type everything out manually, doesn't that mean people would be focusing more on their userpage rather than the encyclopaedia?) and votestacking is unlikely to impossible. --Rory096 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A reasonable proposal, but it won't solve votestacking. There are too many other ways to communicate. Septentrionalis 03:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it won't solve votestacking, but it would stop it from being made easy because of userboxen, which is one of the main (and only really legit, IMO) concern regarding ubxen. --Rory096 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The other methods are no harder, starting with the (perfectly legitimate) method of having the Fooian Nationalists watch all the pages on Fooland. I can think of at least three others that would be more effective than that, but are no more trouble than userbox cats; but it would be WP:Beans to detail. This is the argument for non-partisan phrasing; if the Barlanders can join, it won't help with votestacking. Septentrionalis 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but those don't really have anything to do with userboxen. --Rory096 22:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is much more reasonable than subst and delete comments which have another purpose in mind. This proposal is not designed to stop vote-stacking completely, but thats not really what the userbox debate is about, so at least it would clear that part up so that people can discuss the real issue with having userboxes in template space and we can also focus on the votestacking issue without having reference to this concept which is not causally related to the votestacking issue. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's removal of the "recommendations" section from T2
On reflection, I have removed the following subclause from T2:
 * (We recommend such options as: requesting users remove the template in question; attempting a more neutral rewording of the template, - e.g. replacing User likes X with User is interested in X; and substituting the template before deletion.)

Firstly, rewording a template that says (say) "This user is pro-life" with "This user is interested in the ethics of abortion" doesn't really resolve the problem; there will probably be a number of separate templates around each reflecting a separate view, and the best way to tackle this is to remove the templates completely.

Secondly, substituting alternative text is problematic because it does not reflect the transcluding user's intent.

Thirdly, speedy deletion is for the removal of obviously unsuitable material (such as that which asserts a political point of view) Our reason for using speedy deletion to do this is because userbox adherents tend not to be acculturated Wikipedians, they tend instead to be imbued with a "myspace" ethic, a belief in their unassailable right to express their partisan opinions using electronic bumper stickers in template space. At this stage we're well aware that asking the users to remove the templates (which I might add is not a recommendation in the case of any other class of speedy deletion) is likely to achieve nothing except dumb intransigence. If we're to remove these unsuitable templates, we should do so as expeditiously and unapologetically as possible. While there may occasoinally be room for doubt as to the encyclopedic value of an article, a userbox template by definition can never have encyclopedic value, so there's even less reason to pussyfoot around the issue that in the case of, save, CSD A7. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does NPOV apply in this case when it doesn't apply to the content of user pages? Considering you use it as your reference for neutral above. Sorry, you removed that section :) Ans  e  ll  12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an extremely dangerous precedent, 1, to call userbox enthusiasts as unaccultured in your view, and 2, to delete things quietly because it might cause a fuss, if there is such a huge fuss to be caused then maybe an actual userbox policy should be formulated to fall back on when the inevitable cruch comes to the few who are being so hasty in deleting something on the basis that it is not encyclopedic in their view. Ans  e  ll  12:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy" and "quiet" perfectly describe the way in which many thousands of articles are speedy deleted every week. It's how speedy deletion is meant to work. You might think this "hasty", but it works well. --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles in question are being deleted in this way using well-defined criteria with community consensus. It is hasty to delete things based on criteria that may appear on the CSD page even though heavy discussion is still in order as to their exact wording. The lack of the "well-defined criteria with community consensus" puts them outside of the typical speedy situations. Ans  e  ll  13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template speedies are also taking place regularly and, although they're more frequently challenged, the number of successful challenges is actually quite low. Thus the speedy criteria for templates are now well established. --Tony Sidaway 12:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll support this, I think there's processes established that allow challenging contentious speedies, and Tony's right on the broad point that speedy deletioin should really be just that. Speedy. Hiding Talk 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 Clarity
Some contention on this issue may be the result of a lack of clarity due to all the conditional in the statement: "Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." Does this mean:
 * (Interpretation a) Templates ... that express (personal beliefs or ideologies or ethical convictions or viewpoints) on controversial issues.
 * OR


 * (Interpreation b) Templates ... that express (personal beliefs or ideologies or ethical convictions or viewpoints on controversial issues).
 * The latter is much broader. — xaosflux  Talk  12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the difference. Could you give examples of where a template would seem to fall under the second, "broader" criterion but not the first? --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is about the scope of "on controversial issues": does it modify "viewpoints" alone, or does it modify "personal beliefs", "ideologies", and "ethical convictions" as well? For example, "I think orange juice tastes good" expresses a personal belief, but not a personal belief on a controversial issue. If T2 has interpretation (a), a template saying "I think orange juice tastes good" is not speediable; if T2 has interpretation (b), such a template is speediable. Angr (t • c) 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good example. We'd obviously delete a template that said "I think orange juice tastes good" for its sheer fatuousness. As a communicable sentiment of supposed relevance to the encyclopedia, it's well below the event horizon. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd obviously delete such a template. I don't see that it's any more fatuous than "This user understands that no user on Wikipedia 'owns' any of its pages and welcomes the assistance of others in making this page perfect" (which should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's read WP:OWN), yet no one has ever deleted User page perfect, or even nominated it for deletion. But that's not the point; I was merely trying to explain the difference between the two interpretations of T2. Angr (t • c) 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to explain the different interpretations:
 * 1) Templates ... user pages that express (personal beliefs or ideologies or ethical convictions or viewpoints) on controversial issues.
 * 2) Templates ... user pages that express (personal beliefs) or (ideologies) or (ethical convictions) or (viewpoints on controversial issues).

Shouldn't the "correct/official" meaning be made explicit in the policy language? FWIW, so far in practice the broadest (second) interpretation seems to be favorite. Jimbo's exact words read as version #2: "It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." AvB &divide; talk  17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think something along the following lines would be much clearer:


 * Templates, insofar designed for user pages, that express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies or ethical convictions.

or even:


 * Templates that are designed for user pages and express one of the following:
 * viewpoints on controversial issues
 * personal beliefs
 * ideologies
 * ethical convictions

AvB &divide; talk  17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It still seems silly to isolate templates this way. Either user pages are allowed to have "viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies or ethical convictions", or they aren't. If they are, those viewpoints etc. should be expressable by means of a template, which is nothing more than a convenient tool for holding text. (And as the page Template messages/User namespace shows, templates have never been restricted to article space.) If they aren't, then the speedy criterion should be U2 rather than T2 and say "User pages that express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies or ethical convictions." Angr (t • c) 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to censor viewpoints expressed on user pages. Rather, the point is that the use of templates to express personal beliefs in this way does nothing to advance the cause of editing an encyclopedia, and does a few things to hurt it.  T2 is clearly intended to read the second way (since a major goal of the recent refactoring was "remove guesswork and the likelihood of bias from these speedies." Nandesuka 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't believe that using templates to express persnoal beliefs hurts the encyclopedia in any way. Nor do I believe that anything at all in userspace, regardless of how it's presented, advances the cause of editing an encyclopedia. If editing an encyclopedia were really all we were interested in, we wouldn't even have userspace. For the encyclopedia, it's useless. Userspace is just for users. Angr (t • c) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have waited for WP:MACK to take hold rather than reigniting the embers of the userbox war with another pointless, undiscussed can of kerosene. Cynical 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. However, currently a minority of people are enforcing this issue much more tightly than Jimbo wanted or, I suspect, the community supports, while most other admins are staying the hell away from it. The result is that because most actions taken with regard to T1 and T2 are theirs, they appear to have more support than they actually do. I oppose this move in the strongest terms possible. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most definitely, and I'd like to see some of you admins participating in the discussion there rather than here. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by User:Matt Yeager
edited T2 from:
 * Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues.

to:


 * (Proposed criterion) Templates designed for user pages that express divisive and inflammatory personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. 

I have reverted this edit for the following reasons:
 * 1) templates are already being routinely speedied for expressing "beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues."  This is largely just an interpretation of T1.  Examples of such speedy deletions that were endorsed at deletion review include the deletions of the "No Marxism" template, the "Communism" template and the "against Saud" template.
 * 2) the repetition of "divisive and inflammatory" appears to be an attempt to weaken the clause, and doesn't really make much sense.
 * 3) the inclusion of the term "proposed criterion" is prejudicial.  WP:CSD is the place for speedy deletion policy.  We don't put mere proposals there (they would be discussed on the talk page).

--Tony Sidaway 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The proposal is so broad that it encompasses everything. There are administrators who would take everything to be included in the category. You shouldn't justify your policy decision based on current practice, there has to be an objective reason why we should outlaw any expression of POV on user pages, and NPOV policy is not it. The inclusion of proposed criterion is perfectly fine, otherwise this debate is a foregone conclusion, and it most certainly is not a foregone conclusion. Maybe the proposal should be deleted and developed here since it is actually still a mere proposal. The repetition of divisive and inflammatory is what I think defines a scope for the whole proposal, it deserves to be there. Ans  e  ll  12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of these CSDs. They don't "outlaw any expression of POV on user pages" at all. They merely limit and hopefully effectively erradicate the ongoing abuse of template space, categories, whatlinkshere and the transclusion mechanism to promote partisan views.

This principle has already been well expressed in past debates. The thesis that we shouldn't based written policy on current practice is simply fatuous. That's what policy on Wikpiedia is. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy should not be made up by practice followed by someone saying its current practice therefore we must make policy fit it. That ignores the idea of consensus in the community. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 07:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out "Silence!" and read out from his book, "Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."
 * Everybody looked at Alice.
 * "I'm not a mile high," said Alice.
 * "You are," said the King.
 * "Nearly two miles high," added the Queen.
 * "Well, I shan't go, at any rate," said Alice: "besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now."
 * --Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. Angr (t • c) 08:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Per definition, current practice has consensus. (as there is no opposition to that which is already there). Wikipedia essay/guidelines/policy are said to be "descriptive not prescriptive", ie, current practice is to be written down.

This also explains things like Ignore All Rules. If you disagree with current practice, get consensus and apply a new current practice. Kim Bruning 10:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In actions which any wikipedian can take, I would agree that current practice must have a decent level of consensus, but where the actions can only be taken by a subset of the involved parties, current practice may only by definition have consensus in that group. (ie, admin powers of deletion etc.) Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why I am dismayed at the low efficacy of Requests For Adminship. We've gone from the wiki with the best user/admin ratio (due to adminship being "no big deal") to the wiki with the worst user/admin ratio (due to high influx).
 * Even so, actions like deletion can certainly be taken by anyone, you just need to know how, it just looks at tad funny. :-) Kim Bruning 11:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there also a method for people to be able to review deleted content without admin privileges. I know that would be helpful with deletion review comments, particularly speedy deletions ;-) Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at some point there was community consensus that that should be made impossible, so it was. It's a tricky situation because it can also get us into legal trouble. Even so, that was years ago, and nothing is supposed to be binding forever. Perhaps you could come up with a proposal? Kim Bruning 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite think it appropriate to do that just yet. Instead I made up Reduce confusion by following policy, an essay into why following policy can save wikipedians time in general. Have a look and comment or improve on it. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Any speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes are premature
Clearly, the use of userboxes is controversial. In addition, previous attempts at establishing a policy about their use have been unsuccessful, e.g., Proposed policy on userboxes. Further, many attempts to speedy delete specific and even classes of userboxes have proven to be controversial and divisive. Thus, attempts to create speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes, such as the current T2, violate their own principles. If the underlying principles of T2 were applied to itself, it would qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion.

A fundamental problem with any attempts to target userboxes with speedy deletion criteria is that these criteria currently have no basis in a broader userbox policy. Until such a policy is in effect, speedy deletion criteria specifically for userboxes fail to have the guidance of policy-level consensus, exacerbating the likelihood of provoking exactly the type of divisiveness it purports to eliminate.

Because of these inherent pitfalls in the current situation, any attempts to develop speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes are premature. In the meantime, speedy deletion criterion T1 is in effect for all templates, including userboxes. If a userbox violates T1, it can be dealt with accordingly. Consequently, I propose the following.
 * Delete T2.
 * Hold a moratorium on developing userbox-specific speedy deletion criteria until such time that an approved userbox policy is in place. After the policy is in place, determine whether any additional speedy deletion criteria are necessary, and then proceed accordingly.
 * Work toward developing consensus and approving a userbox policy. A current proposed policy can be found at Userbox policy.

Thank you for your good faith consideratrion of this proposal. Rfrisbietalk 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that many people are trying to rush in their point of view into policy claiming current practice dictates it without thinking about a long term solution that has consensus to start with. Ans  e  ll  12:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree with this, 100%. See also User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll and WP:MACK. Please, admins, hold off a bit and see what the rest of us can come up with! TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Abosultely agree. No userbox should be speedied unless it meets the general criteria for speedy deletion, until we've got together a proper policy on it. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to object in the strongest possible terms to any modification of userboxes using T2 as the basis since this is a new and heavily disputed guideline. Specifically the efforts of Clyde need to be stopped for the time being at least until this issue is resolved here as he is systematically changing the meaning of several dozen userboxes without discussion. JohnnyBGood  [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|15px]]  t   c  00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 confuses POV for bias, making it inappropriate
T2 characterizes a "point of view" about a controversial subject. By inclusion here, it then appraises expressing such a POV as unacceptable, thus meeting a criterion for speedy deletion. This policy statement is inappropriate because it confuses POV with bias. Some contributors to Wikipedia misuse the term POV, taking it as an antonym to "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased". (Describing points of view)

In adition, T2 implies a form of objectivity that is not intended by the NPOV policy. There's no such thing as objectivity ''Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.''

This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense... (There's no such thing as objectivity)

Further, T2 pushes the boundaries of using Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

For reasons such as these, T2 is an inappropriate criterion for a speedy delete. Several less intrusive options are availiable, such as the example of replacing User likes X with User is interested in X. Beyond that, Templates for deletion should be used to guard against the potential for abuses of this policy through its biased application. Rfrisbietalk 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad doing that can get you blocked. (See Template:User pedo)--70.218.62.240 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The following templates seem to express a POV:

test1

test2

blatantvandal

sockpuppet

etc., etc. These are templates expressing an opinion that are designed for user space. In the war against userboxes, let's be careful about the collateral damage we open ourselves up to. JDoorj a m    Talk 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, these are templates explicity in the service of the encyclopedia, with long histories, etc. Also, I think we usually subst those. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, these templates are opinion based to some extent, they desire to express ones point of view with regard to vandalism. Remember, there is a thin line between vandalism and content disputes, the templates are quite easy to misuse in content dispute cases, where they are "divisive and inflammatory". Also, I think the subst debate is entirely different to the debate about the purpose of userboxes, it merely transfers the argument to look as it the user coded the HTML, however, without knowledge at this deep level, the users intentions are completely identical. Ans  e  ll  07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy creep
It's dismaying to see CSD creep like kudzu into debates on policy. Speedy is for non-controversial deletion. If there's an active debate on the merits of an issue, speedy is inappropriate. Please settle issues in the appropriate place; then bring the results here. John Reid 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is historically correct. Certainly I find no suggestion of this in early incarnations of this project page.  More recently speedy deletion has been used to accelerate controversial deletions that are necessary for the smooth running of Wikipedia. It's unlikely, for instance, that most "fair use" speedies would succeed if every single one were put to a straw poll.  Similarly we need to deal with the excessive proliferation of highly contentious user templates, but straw polls on these tend to fail. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are the inevitable debates about this really worth the potential benefits for all of the two or three really controversial vote-stacking incidents that happen every week/month. Could we not just leave it to an admin to decipher the problems when they close an AfD. Is that not what this is all about. Stopping people from votestacking. The difference to the server from transcluding, or even from just pushing out plain HTML from these things is low. If as the user in the above says that Userboxes are used by actual editors, not the "social-networking" types than how do the few people pushing this speedy criteria actually justify their actions. Ansell 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Past experience has shown that speedying during a deletion debate has only made things worse. --D-Day 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found this to be the case. Whether during a debate or without a debate makes little difference to a valid speedy. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this much, at least for regular AFDs, with very few exceptions. Stifle (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

when citing T1, T2
Could folks start refering to T1 and T2 as "CSD Terminator1 and 2"? that would make DRv a lot more fun... ugh, what a dumb coment, ++ not helpful for me. Mike McGregor (Can) 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by Anonymous Contributors
Speaking of removals, an anon/some anons have been changing things ([], [], and []). I and others have reverted them, since the changes didn't appear to have been discussed and agreed upon. Ardric47 03:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sprotected the page. Over half the edits to this page are anonymous changes and reverts, and it's cluttering up the history so that good editors have to spend far too much time diffing to see what substantive changes have been made.  For a widely followed page like this, it isn't worth it particularly given that, as far as I know, there has never been an anon edit to this page that hasn't been reverted.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not objecting to sprotection under the circumstances -- but what would really make it easier to follow things was if the ongoing userbox dispute could somehow be separated from the criteria for deletions that actually matter... Henning Makholm 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)