Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 3

First section
I move to revoke CSD:T2 forthwith, as it does not appear to have the support of the community. All templates deleted under CSD:T2 will remain deleted but can be taken to DRV normally. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Second the motion. This criteria is not supported by consensus, and is open to abuse.  It should be removed.  --70.218.62.240 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To revoke it, you'd have to stop administrators deleting userboxes that express controversial opinions. That isn't going to happen. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this an admission of a cabal. The definition would imply that you would never tell the truth. But the behavioural aspect fits. Admins doing what they want without regard to consensus. Kind of like WP:IAR has become king. I dont mean to sound like a troll, but if there is such a strong dislike of T2 how will Wikipedia really justify its image as "not making the internet suck". Kind of sounds like irony to make it suck for people again. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 10:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that you do sound like a troll. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this. I don't see much dislike of T2.  It's been working very well for months. --Tony Sidaway


 * I move that this section be renamed "Vote to determine whether this is an encyclopedia or a MySpace-style social website," because that's essentially what it is. &mdash;David Levy 02:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the administrators need to reflect upon the massive waste of time that needless deletion causes, and weigh it against the supposed benefits of removing userboxes. There is no tangible benefit to the deletion of userboxes.  None.  On the other hand, deletion causes massive strife and waste of time on the project.  Kelly Martin's experience should have been a lesson to all - but instead she is being taken as a hero.  Not so.  T1 and T2 are meant to divide and inflame the community, and do so to a much greater extent than any userbox ever could.  --70.218.62.240 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assertion that "there is no tangible benefit to the deletion of userboxes." Frankly, the types in question are among the greatest threats to this website.  They drain resources, fuel conflicts (apart from those pertaining to their deletion), facilitate vote-stacking, and convey an inaccurate impression of what Wikipedia is.  (Newbies are signing up to "create profiles" and socialize.)
 * In short, these userboxes "divide and inflame the community." Fortunately, with the bad ones gone, the primary dividing line will lie between those who are here to build an encyclopedia and those who aren't.  The fact that it would be easier to bow to your demands and rename the site "WikiMySpace" doesn’t mean that we should.  &mdash;David Levy 04:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At the very least, we must recognize that Stifle is correct to suggest that T2 itself is profoundly divisive, such that it may not command the support of a clear majority of users, even amongst only those who have been with the project a good while. I don't know that we ought to suspend speedy deletions currently undertaken pursuant to T2 (even as, for reasons I've expressed elsewhere, I am generally opposed to T2), but, irrespective of one's thoughts about T2, he/she ought to understand that there does not seem to exist a clear consensus for the continued operation of T2.  One must observe, of course, that the vitiation of deletions under T2 doesn't necessarily result in our maintaining templates that are generally seen as divisive; we'd simply act with less celerity and more deliberation.  Joe 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone, PLEASE, show me where these userboxes have caused conflict, besides the ones penetrate to their deletion, and where newbis have created profiles in order to socialize. And I guess vandalism isn't Wikipedia's biggest threat anymore? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Quoth the userpage of none other than Joeyramoney (the newbie who inadvertently found himself involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war): "i just like wikipedia a lot, so i decided to start a profile." This user has edited numerous articles, but doesn't mean that it's appropriate for him to display userboxes (whether transcluded or substituted) proclaiming that he's a pedophile and that he suffers from "Ass-burger syndrome."
 * I'll leave it to someone else (Tony, perhaps) to post some links to discussions in which userbox-fueled vote-stacking (and the resultant conflicts) occurred.
 * 2. "Among the greatest threats" != "the biggest threat." &mdash;David Levy 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 gives formal expression to a practice that will continue to be followed even if someone deletes it from the project page. The practice is needed, and the policy should reflect it. Policy should follow (needed) practice, not the other way around. However, policy should also be updated so that it is transparent and genuinely does match practice and provide useful guidance as to what the accepted practice has become, and so it can be used as the immediate explanation for individual acts. Rather than explaining acts in terms of a contrived reading of T1 (which literally says that a template must be divisive and inflammatory, as if it is okay at Wikipedia for a template to be divisive as long as it is not also inflammatory, or inflammatory as long as it is not also divisive), it is better to have a policy that explicitly spells out what we are trying to accomplish here. What we are trying to accomplish is to get politically, theologically, etc., controversial userboxes out of template space. That aim is not negotiable. Jimbo himself has announced it, and no one has ever put a strong reason against it. I see no point in continually disputing whether this aim itself is a good idea. Once the aim is accepted, the only question is how policies should be worded to reflect and support it. Those of us who initiated the creation of T2 say it is better to have the aim stated clearly in the policy, rather than relying on a construction of T1 that does not literally say this at all, and was perhaps written with other aims in mind (though I'm not sure of the last point and don't especially rely on it). Deleting T2 would just produce unclarity, contrivance, and inconsistency as admins do in an ad hoc way what they have good reasons to do, but with no clear policy reflecting their reasons.

I strongly support the acceptance and retention of T2. Metamagician3000 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Aside) "T1...which literally says that a template must be divisive and inflammatory, as if it is okay at Wikipedia for a template to be divisive as long as it is not also inflammatory, or inflammatory as long as it is not also divisive...." I think the "and inflammatory" restricts "divisive" (i.e. "divisive" like in the pedophilia templates, not "divisive" like male/female).  "Inflammatory" alone is probably too weak, as plenty of things can be inflammatory to some person or group of people (and I think people have been making the argument that all the belief userboxes are all currently "inflammatory" because of the debate over them).  I don't think the phrase is as ridiculous as you interpreted it to be.
 * It is not obvious to some(most?) regular users that belief userboxes are harmful - it is a conclusion from what I think are at least two non-obvious assertions that would have to be learned through experience: that templates cause proliferation rather than just aid existing use, and that belief statements are only tolerated in userspace rather than accepted as "about me" (which in turn assumes people know that userspace isn't intended for "about me" anyway). I would say that a consensus acceptance of T2 as a speedy criteria would require some education, explanation, and agreement about why T2 would be necessary, the intended use of userspace, effects of such templates, etc. for some amount of time.  (Certainly, some people would want to more evidence that certain assertions are true.)
 * In addition, the often-repeated statement that such userboxes will somehow transform Wikipedia into Myspace (and its somewhat less-confusing predecessor, "Wikipedia is not Myspace") definately doesn't help people understand why belief userboxes are being frowned upon, and I don't think it's helpful; please stop repeating it. --AySz88^ - ^ 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? It's an apt description.  &mdash;David Levy 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me how the existance of userboxes would make people believe that Wikipedia user pages should be used like a blog like Myspace. (Just in case: the converse, that people that already think such use userboxes, doesn't apply here.) --AySz88^ - ^  01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to call your attention to the large support for "an immediate moratorium on the speedy deletion of userboxes that are 'designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions,' but are not "divisive and inflammatory," until such time when a userbox policy is adopted" at Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll.  Λυδ α  cιτγ (TheJabberwock) 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The contentious templates will die. Really all that is under debate is whether the people who want to continue to abuse Wikipedia as a myspace or livejournal site want to be bloody about it. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the answer to that was obvious, and the debate was now focused on what we ought to do about it. Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Section break for editing

 * I am wondering, Tony, if what you say is based upon your own opinion of what you want Wikipedia to be, or a consensus that you perceive to exist. Please help me understand which, if either, of these is correct, and moreover, why getting dozens of people's backs up by speedying their mostly-harmless templates is a good thing. Stifle (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't just his idea of what wikipedia is. If you look at the top lefthand corder of the page, under the jigsaw ball, where it says 'WIKIPEDIA', now read the words underneath 'THE FREE....ENCYCLOPEDIA'. --Doc ask?  00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how you feel about the userboxes (and you and I are in agreement on them), it certainly doesn't deserve this sort of attitude. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it doesn't. It's true there are lots of userpages that seem to confuse Wikipedia with MySpace or LiveJournal. I encounter a lot of them when deleting images with no copyright tag. And you know what? Not a single one of them has a single userbox on it! That's right, not one so far of the MySpace-type user pages I've found. In my experience, userboxes are used exclusively by people who actually contribute to writing the encyclopedia. Angr (t • c) 09:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Give that man a barnstar. The "Userbox wars" are antagonizing a lot of genuine contributors. The one point I agree on is that they can be used for votestacking. The solution: Take the categories out of them. There is no other problem with userboxes - people will put what they want on their userpages anyway, and unless it's a fair use image or a ridiculous case of WP:NOT a free webhost, it will stay. The logical extension is wanting it to put them in a userbox. It doesn't harm anyone, so why are you stirring up trouble? Stifle (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're forgetting about the "What links here" link. &mdash;David Levy 15:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is 150% correct. The "Userbox lovers want Wikipedia to be MySpace" argument is blatantly false and anyone who uses that argument should be refuted publically. There are many users, some admins, who have loads of userboxes and also want to help build Wikipedia, and have made many significant edits. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The belief that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a MySpace-style site is half-correct. A Wikipedian's only reasonable expectation is that this be encyclopedia.  Anything else is gravy, not an entitlement (no matter how many positive contributions someone makes).  This isn't about being mean by forcing everyone to do nothing but contribute to articles; it's about not tolerating activities that impede such efforts.
 * Of course, no one said anything about deleting all userboxes. It's possible to "have loads of" them that aren't problematic.  I don't think that anyone is arguing that it's terribly harmful to include a small amount of personal content on one's userpage, provided that it doesn't interfere with the goal of writing an encyclopedia.  Whether you agree or disagree, the assertion is that some userboxes do interfere with this goal, and these are ones that should be deleted.  &mdash;David Levy 17:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did I say anything about Wikipedia co-existing as a MySpace along with an encyclopedia? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You noted that many userbox enthusiasts also make valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. I don't dispute that, and my point that this doesn't automatically entitle them to also use Wikipedia as a social community.  To be clear, however, I condemn the latter activity only when it interferes with the former.  &mdash;David Levy 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't implying that userboxes were meant for social networking. All I'm saying is that the argument that Wikipedians who support userboxes want to turn Wikipedia into a MySpace or LiveJournal is simply ridiculous and untrue. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I wasn't implying that userbox enthusiasts don't also serve as fine editors. My point is that Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as a MySpace-like site to any extent that interferes with the goal of writing the encyclopedia&mdash;even by users who also author outstanding articles.  &mdash;David Levy 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many of the userbox enthusiasts also make constructive edits, and I don't particularly care. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia/social network/soapbox/vote-stacking facilitator.  It's an encyclopedia...period.  If someone's willingness to make encyclopedic contributions is contingent upon the availability of unencyclopedic pursuits, that's too bad.  Making a handful of (or even numerous) good edits doesn't entitle a user to also make bad ones.  &mdash;David Levy 15:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If that were true, that Wikipedia is exclusively an encyclopedia, not also a community, then we wouldn't have userspace at all. We might just as well delete User: namespace altogether, because nothing on anyone's userpage helps build an encyclopedia. Userspace is there for the users, not for the encyclopedia. We also wouldn't have meetups—they don't help the encyclopedia either. Wikimania never would have happened either. But Wikipedia is a community in addition to an encyclopedia: read Wikipedians, where it explicitly says "Some people might think that Wikipedist would be a more appropriate name, as an encyclopedist is someone who contributes to an encyclopedia. ... The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community." Angr (t • c) 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that "nothing on anyone's userpage helps build an encyclopedia." Even some userboxes assist in the encyclopedia's authorship.
 * Secondly, I acknowledge that userpage content of the harmless variety indirectly benefits the encyclopedia by fostering community spirit (which leads to increased participation and better articles). I advocate the speedy deletion of userpage content that isn't harmless.  Your assessment of what is and isn't harmful might differ from mine, but that's another matter.  &mdash;David Levy 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I say nothing on anyone's userpage helps build an encyclopedia because there is not one single userpage whose deletion would harm the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia doesn't need user pages. Users do. I would advocate the speedy deletion of userpage content that was actively harmful if I believed it existed, but I don't. I've never seen anything on a userpage that was harmful to the encyclopedia. Nor anything on a userpage that was helpful to the encyclopedia either. Everything I've ever seen on anyone's userpage has been neutral to the encyclopedia. That's the nature of userpages. Angr (t • c) 19:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I disagree with you. I've already cited ways in which I believe some userpage content harms the encyclopedia.  On the flip side, someone might seek the editing assistance of a user who speaks Spanish, lives in Australia, or is knowledgeable in the area of Egyptian culture (as three random examples).  Userpages (and userboxes) can contain information that enables users to contact one another in a manner that benefits the encyclopedia.  &mdash;David Levy 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's quite easy to get help on those issues without touching userspace. If I need a user who speaks Spanish, I can go to Translators available, or leave a note at Reference desk/Language or Talk:Spanish language. If I'm looking for someone who lives in Australia I can leave a note at Talk:Australia or Talk:Australian English. For Egyptian culture I would ask at Talk:Egyptian culture. Don't get me wrong, I'm not seriously arguing for the deletion of userspace. I think it's good to have a community and it's bad to do things that hurt the community's morale. But deep down, I know that userspace isn't essential to the building of the encyclopedia, and if userspace were (hypothetically) to be deleted, the encyclopedia wouldn't be harmed. Angr (t • c) 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't claim that it's impossible to contact someone via alternative means; I cited examples of situations in which userpages benefit the encyclopedia.
 * 2. Do you disagree that the ability to identify specific users with declared interests and abilities and contact them directly (rather than posting a message to a talk page that they might not see) can be advantageous?
 * 3. What if someone wanted to find someone who speaks Spanish and is knowledgeable in the area of Egyptian culture? (Again, keep in mind that these are random examples.)
 * 4. The fact that something isn't "essential" doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial. We could get by without templates, but they certainly improve the encyclopedia.
 * 5. As an aside, Talk:Egyptian culture doesn't exist. &mdash;David Levy 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedia would't get any worse, but the rate at which it gets better would decrease rapidly, I think. I, for one, wouldn't contribute to the encyclopedia as much without a sense of the people here.  Λυδ α  cιτγ (TheJabberwock) 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk:Culture of Egypt then. In fact, even given the status quo I am far more likely to look for someone knowledgeable on an article talk page or the reference desk than I am to use a userbox's "What links here" function or a Wikipedians category. Actually, I don't think I've ever used userpage content to find someone knowledgeable. Userpages just aren't reliable enough; there are too many people who don't list their interests and abilities on their userpages. At an article talk page, you're sure to get your message read by several people who understand the topic. Anyway, my point here is not to argue against userspace, merely to point out that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community, and that userspace is there to nurture the "community" side of Wikipedia, not the "encyclopedia" side. Angr (t • c) 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And my point is that userpages do benefit the encyclopedia (both directly and indirectly), regardless of whether you personally use them in that capacity. (And there's no reason for the two cited contact methods to be regarded as mutually exclusive.)
 * Recently, I received several requests for advice regarding templates (which I was more than happy to provide). Initially, I didn't know how these strangers were aware of my template experience.  I later learned that they followed a file link from the Template Barnstar image page.  If not for my userpage, how would these people have found me?  &mdash;David Levy 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Expressing your personal opinion on matters not related to Wikipedia is a de facto unwikipedian act. Insisting on using a userbox to do the same thing is yet another unwikipedian act. The idea that the myspacers and the userboxers are disjoint sets is simply preposterous. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion, Tony, but that doesn't make it true. If it weren't POINTing I'd add a hundred userboxes to my user page right now just to prove you wrong. -- grm_wnr Esc  17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot prove the statement wrong by adding userboxes to your user page. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since the terms "myspacers" and "userboxers" aren't really defined, you're right, I guess. -- grm_wnr Esc  17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To be sure, Grm is an excellent exemplar of Angr's point supra; Grm has a page with several userboxes (though most are largely jocular in nature and in any case not necessarily descriptive of Grm, he avers), but we also learn from his user page that he has helped promote four articles to Featured Article status, accumulated sundry barnstars, and uploaded 59 images. And, of course, he serves the project as an admin here and at Commons.  Not only oughtn't we to state categorically that those who approve of userboxes in template space fundamentally misunderstand the project, but we oughtn't, IMHO, even to conclude that the majority of those supporting userboxes in template space (or expression of POV at all on one's user page) are less-than-valuable contributors.  Joe 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply observe that Grm's userboxes have nothing to do with producing an encyclopedia. He's a good example of a myspacer, someone who promotes tha abuse of Wikipedia as a social forum. See amended comment below.  --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a personal attack, since you are attacking an user, not an action or a page. From your previous statements I conclude that you understand "myspacer" to be a derogative term. Tony, Tony, you really ought to be more careful about your words. Reading ANI, I also understand that you are in favour of blocking users without warning for repeatedly doing that, so draw your own conclusions. -- grm_wnr Esc  19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You approached me about this on #wikipedia, and User:D-Day has independently complained about this . I withdraw it as a personal attack.  Please accept my apologies for this lapse of civility.  No excuses.  I should always try to express myself without giving offence. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept, and I'm apologizing for my somewhat intemperate reaction as well. -- grm_wnr Esc  22:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Amended comment: I believe that what you were doing had the effect of promoting the abuse of Wikipedia for the purpose of social networking. You've deleted it, which is cool.  Thank you for taking the criticism on board.  I will do my best to reciprocate.


 * Incidentally I don't advocate blocking without warning for personal attacks. I have said, correctly, that blocking for egregious personal attacks  well within the blocking policy.  A warning is nice but isn't necessary.  --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't, unless they place users in danger. That's why the ArbCom places people on personal attack or civility parole. See the relevant section of the Blocking policy. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, for making excessive personal attacks to the extent that they disrut the Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place to discuss the policy on disruption. The circumstances in which people are blocked for making personal attacks are not limited by the clause quoted. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am wondering again, Tony, if what you say is based upon your own opinion of what you want Wikipedia policy to be, or a consensus that you perceive to exist. The blocking policy doesn't entertain any of your derivative policies, I'm afraid, and your attempt to neuter the discussion by saying "this isn't the place" isn't going to work. If you suggest a better place, I'll be delighted to discuss it there. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Any chance we can tone the rhetoric down a touch here, and not bandy about derogatory statements and veiled threats? I can't see that such opposing views will be reconciled, and perhaps the discussion would be better served if it was less heated? Hiding Talk 20:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't block anyone. It's just that these permanent accusations and assumptions of bad faith really are grating on the nerves. --Grm_wnr 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say that I fully support revoking T2; which seems to be more trouble than it's worth. In fact, I would strongly support a statement to the opposite effect be placed, since people seem to suggest some editors would take it upon themselves to continue to enforce an intentionally revoked rule: in order to clearly indicate userboxes and templates are not subject to speedy or ad-hoc deletion, except if they meet the T1 criteria; as being purely inflammatory; editors should presumably be able to express themselves fairly and without prejudice by others.. in their user space, with the point being they keep it out of the article space.  --Mysidia (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Section break for editing 2

 * Posting simply to note my support of T2. My support is based upon reasons expressed above, namely that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a tool for personal expression. Where the personal expression aspect infringes civility, good faith or user page guidance, I feel they should be deleted, and I feel that's the spirit in which this policy is enforced and meant to be enforced. I think we have adequate processes in hand to examine such deletions, and so see no need for the revocation. Hiding Talk 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose T2 as written (at least today). "Templates that are designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions. "  Leave only as "express viewpoints on controversial issues".  Allow "personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions.".  (I agreed with it as a suggestion in DRV/U only to get the matter out in the open in the appropriate venue.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hiding, What part of T2 is supported by the user page guidelines? And T1 is enough to support the civility and NPA policies IMO, leaving T2 simply as an extra that some users would like because they recognise that their personal opinions of what make a wikipedian "true" is different to the consensus ideas. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, the parts that say:
 * Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia
 * Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material


 * in the section What can I not have on my user page? Hiding Talk 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see how Polemical can be compared to "This user is a Christian". The definition of Polemical includes "inciting disputation or causing controversy". Is it not assuming good faith if you say that someone is straight out inciting disputation by stating their faith in a fancy HTML box. I would be extremely worried if an admin went around pages deleting a persons text statement of belief, how is that different at all, in any way, to having it encapsulated in HTML in an ordered manner. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to read WP:USER in a different way to me then. I have no objection to someone having a line stating that, "as a christian, I mainly edit concepts related to that personal belief", but I can't see how stating "I am a christian" is in keeping with guidance to the effect of your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.  In these times in which we live, a declaration of personal belief can be contentious.  Do we allow all such declarations or none?  Anything else is entirely subjective. However, for the record, I would like it noted I'm not attempting to advocate that any admin remove anything from someone's user page without very good reason.  Whilst I wouldn't be unduly worried if an admin went around removing a textual statement of belief from user pages, I'd have a long list of things they could do first.  I guess we just have different opinions on this issue.  I don't see that the criterion is a huge problem, but perhaps that is because it hasn't seemed to impact upon me.  All I wanted to do with my statement was express support for the criterion.  If there is a consensus to removing it, my opinion will, quite rightly, count for little. I just tend to hold fast to the fact that user space is for describing one's self as a wikipedian, not as a person. Hiding Talk 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose  Userboxes do not merely provide a way for social contact. They also can show any biases that a person has. It is important to know editors biases in order to create a reliable encyclopedia.

Wow, when did the community agree on it? If not, as shown above this needs to be removed. User space, is for the users to state their beliefs and such, and so we should have no problem with those kind of user templates. Following the logic of T2 we should delete user pages, if they contain any "controversial statements", "beliefs" etc. Which is basically what most user pages are. That said, it could be reworded to speedy-delete the more specific and less usefel templates. Falphin 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "User space, is for the users to state their beliefs and such" - see, that's not strictly true. In fact, WP:USER proscribes against Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, well thats why we don't need the less useful templates. But declaring an opinion on a controversial matter is helpful to wikipedia. Also note that at the top it states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." Substantial is tricky word, but I'm confidant a few templates don't count as substantial. Falphin 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's removal of a notice from this document.
Somebody placed a notice in front of the T2 criterion stating:
 * 'Note that this criterion is currently under discussion and should not be considered policy.'

This gave a misleading impression of the nature of this document. It is a policy document and should reflect policy at all times. As far as I'm aware T2 is in regular use and the deletions associated with it have been going on for months. Despite a vocal opposition, such deletions have been for the most part unchallenged and such challenges as have been made have been overwhelmed by the strong support.

It should in my view be considered policy.

On the other hand, if it is not policy, the correct thing to do is not to put a misleading notice up, but to remove the criterion.

The deletions in question would then proceed under criterion T1, as was the case prior to the creation of the second criterion.

I have removed the misleading notice. The criterion should either remain as documentation of our site policy or be removed as non-policy. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case, remove it. Wikipedia consensus shows that T2 is not, nor should it be policy. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should it be considered policy? THere's considerable doubt as to whether it is the consensus view that it should be. People have asked for some support for that; all that's been produced is repeated assertion that it is. Further, there is also considerable doubt that, if it is not policy, the deletions in question would, in fact, be covered under T1. No support for this idea has been forthcoming either.


 * You called for people to be bold and remove it. Someone did. Someone else put it back with a note that it was not policy, so that people could actually see what was being debated. You simply reverted all that, unilaterally, without participating in the ongoing dicussion and gaining consensus first. This is in keeping with the rest of your actions in this whole debate, where you have been assiduous in listing userbox templates for deletion and deleting them out of process prematurely and in violation of consensus that they should be kept.


 * Your actions in this affair, along with the fact that you ahve not been brought to heel by anyone else, lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the admins of this system don't care what the ordinary editor thinks, and that the entire consensus building process is just for show. In essence, I'm being told to sit down and shut up. I realize I'm new around here, and that my contributions are probably less valuable than those of most other folks - I'm probably still under 100 mainspace edits - but when an admin consistently does things his way, in the face of at least considerable doubt whether there is consensus in favor of that policy, if not a consensus in opposition, and he's permitted to continue, then what conclusion should I reach but that I should go back to editing articles and not meddle in the affairs of my betters? Jay Maynard 13:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Tony is right that if it isn't policy, it should be deleted. What was wrong was reverting it back in after someone boldly took his advice. As I've said for more than two weeks, there is no consensus in favor of this, and I am highly doubtful that there ever will be consensus in favor of this as a criteria for speedy deletion.  It might pass gain consensus as a criteria for non-speedy deletion, but its adherents will have to stop asserting that it is already policy and start making arguments as to why it should be policy.  Jimbo can, but has not yet on Wikipedia, make it policy by fiat.  If he ever does, it will have to be done by him, from his own account, and marked as a policy in place by fiat rather than by consensus.  GRBerry 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's a practical reason for that notice: it allows people to see that the merit of T2 is under debate, as otherwise people might start using T1 to cover the same as T2 again, but that's exactly why they were split in the first place. Making sure people know that T2 is actually disagreed with and hasn't been just merged into T1 is probably an important distinction.  --AySz88^ - ^  13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Was T1 ever agreed on in the first place? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 13:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy's not written
Policy isn't what's written down, but it's not "what we do" either. When it's what some people do it's probably best to stop and talk. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose asking for people to use the talk page rather than reverting is futile? What if I beg? -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking it onto the talkpage is discouraged, because it leeds to discussion, which could lead to consensus, which is bad for Wikipedia. Instead, leave it up to people who almost know what they're doing. Sure, they'll destroy the purpose of the encyclopedia, cause half the users to leave, but it's what Jimbo wants. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, someone needs a hug. No, no! *backs away with horrofied look* Not from me!
 * Seriously though, don't get a skewed impression. The staggeringly large majority of Wikipedia works, and works well, because most people are willing to find some middle ground.  And let's not be coy: The "Uzerbox Freedom Fighters" haven't exactly helped find a middle ground, either.
 * Oh, all right, you can have that hug then.
 * brenneman color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're including me in the "Uzerbox Freedom Fighters", but I'm not at all sure there is a middle ground. The admins pushing T2 (or, equivalently, treating T1 as though it covered the same territory) are adamant that userboxes are harmful to Wikipedia and should be wiped from the face of the planet. The few efforts at "compromise" they've endorsed, albeit in a very lukewarm manner, were simply restatements of that idea. Several attempts at compromise have been made, but those admins have done their best to shoot them down as "this simply isn't going to happen". WP:MUPP is getting better than 70% support, and is one attempt at compromise - but I have little hope that it will actually become policy. In the face of that, can you blame some of us for giving up? Jay Maynard 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * T1 is basically a consequence of the collision of Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and a significant minority of people who are determined that it should be abused for that purpose through use of the template space, whatlinkshere, categories and transclusion. The form of their activities make it difficult for us to determine consensus by the use of conventional straw polls, so the T1 criterion was given a bit of a boost by Jimbo and isn't going to go away.


 * Lately some opponents of Wikipedia's core policies have tried to challenge T1 deletions by saying that X or Y expression of belief isn't divisive. T2 seems to me to be an attempt to clarify that all uses of Wikipedia as a platform or soapbox can be speedy deleted.  I don't think it's particularly necessary but since it's a logical consequence of our site policy, and we're still seeing people packing polls in order to attack fundamental Wikipedia policy, I can understand why it has been proposed.  Use of Wikipedia resources outside the userspace, to campaign, to express personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, and so on, are incompatible with Wikipedia's goals and constitute, when considered en masse, a serious abuse of Wikipedia.  Whether through T1, T2 or just plain old commonsense, continued abuses of Wikipedia as a platform for social or political campaigning or religious proselytism will be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that saying that all expressions of belief are divisive flies in the face of WP:AGF. If people are packing polls, then address that. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Are the folks in favor of T2 truly unable to separate statements of personal belief from campaigning for those beliefs? They are most assuredly different. Jay Maynard 15:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By AGF you mean "Assume good faith". An expression of opinion can have a divisive effect irrespective of the motivation of the person expressing it.  It's simply incorrect to describe as a violation of "Assume good faith" the statement that an expression of belief is divisive. And divisive templates are speediable under T1. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem. Several of the templates that were speedied under T1 WEREN'T divisive. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that a userbox that says "This user is a Republican" is divisive does not assume good faith on the part of the poster. I am not campaigning for the Republican party; I am declaring my bias up front so that others may watch for it. Campaigning for the party would be "This user is a Republican, and thinks you should be too". Where does it end? Is my "This user is an amateur radio operator" divisive? To an advocate of BPL technology, it could very well be, but I doubt that anyone here except the most ardent advocate of userbox eradication would say so. By that argument, all userboxes are divisive, and should be eradicated - but there's most certainly NOT a consensus on that point. If it's going to be stretched to that degree based on Jimbo's statement, then he can damned well come in here and speak ex cathedris; until that point, such arguments are merely hearsay. Jay Maynard 15:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of T2 by User:Tony Sidaway
I have removed the following:
 * # Templates that are designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions. Please note that while this has been used, a consensus on it has been not reached.  As the "vast majority of contributors" have not yet accepted it, it may not be considered policy, and its use is controversial.

The continued adding of notices to try to state that this isn't policy is counter-productive--this project page should attempt to state policy and only policy. If more discussion is required then we should discuss and not engage in silly disclaimers that significantly misstate the nature of Wikipedia policy by misquoting other policy documents.

Removal of divisive templates will of course continue. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Divisive by whose definition? Misleading by whose definition? You do not speak for Wikipedia...do you? Jay Maynard 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best if T1 and T2 were moved to their own proposed policy page and have it decided there. And futhermore, these "divisive userboxes" must clearly be proven why they are divisive in order for their deletion to be valid.


 * P.S. No one has given me any evidence that userboxes have lead to argumentation between users(except for when it comes to deletion) or any violation of WP:AGF, which I have been asking for since this whole debate started. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 15:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a bit late to challenge T1. The proposal that such templates lead to "argumentation between users", which you have chosen to present as an argument for which you have found no supporting evidence, is a rhetorical device known as a Straw man.  You have, perhaps inadvertently, chosen to attack that sham argument rather than confront the arguments actually expressed for removal of divisive and inflammatory templates.  --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be late to challenge T1, but it's not at all late to challenge the assumption that all, or even most, userboxes are deletable under T1. That's what this entire discussion is about, and that's what you're trying to ram through over significant opposition. Jay Maynard 16:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That argument was not my idea. Many users who wanted to see a userbox gone would claim that the userbox was divisive, and would cause a rift in Wikipedia. When I asked for evidence as to where that instance occured, none was given. I belive, therefore, that assertion was false, but still bring it up in the hope that someone will correct me. It is not a "sham" argument. I am merely asking people to back up their claims with facts. And I have confronted the arguments expressed for removal of divisive and inflammatory templates, especially the ones that don't fall under T1. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of removing T2 from the policy page until a consensus is reached about whether to include it. Being bold in adding things is OK, but re-adding things when they turn out to be controversial is being unhelpful. Stephen B Streater 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. T2 has been more devisive than any userbox. —David618 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but keep in mind, there are thousands of userboxes and only two template deletion policies. So yeah, any one of the latter is bound to be more "controversial" (however you choose to find that) than any one of the former.  -- Cyde↔Weys  22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A logical arguement but I find my meaning clear: T2 causing more division that if the policy was never proposed. —David618 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The state of play on WP:NOT and T1
Well the state of play on T1 is that it's policy, but some editors are unhappy about that. Some editors seem to be strong on saying how terrible it is that administrators are taking policy into their own hands (say what?) but a little weak on how, with the chronic problems with straw polls on tfd, one might actually implement our official policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. But if soapboxy statements such as "This user is opposed to the House of Saud" are still regarded by some misguided editors as a legitimate use of Wikipedia resources, obviously we'll have to keep deleting stuff without playing the straw poll game. Wikipedia really isn't myspace. If you think it is, you probably blundered onto the wrong website. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we were above juvenile rollback of insightful comments. Forgive me.  Will someone please repost the reply that was removed here by an administrator against policy?  --70.218.112.4 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * T1 is policy as written. What we are concerned with is not admins applying policy, but admins inventing policy, including inventing their own peculiar "interpretations" and "elaborations" of existing policy.


 * On exactly how to implement such guidelines as WP:NOT, might I recommend those apparently unfashionable standbys of Wikipedia, discussion and consensus? &mdash;Ashley Y 05:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I think I've stated elsewhere, the relevant interpretation of the T1 policy was a finding of fact in the arbitration case Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway, so it's hardly just an "own peculiar interpretation". We've been deleting polemical userboxes for ages under T1 on this basis. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "polemical or inflammatory" interpretation of T1 is meant to include the meaning in T2 (which I would assume is where this is going? Else this whole section seems rather out-of-the-blue....) --AySz88^ - ^  14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the T2 wording was an attempt to pin down the meaning of "polemical". I don't personally think that is necessary in the context of Wikipedia.  We don't try to pin down the wording of the other criteria too hard, and T1 works quite well as it is. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Except for its blatant misuse on templates that AREN'T divisive. I agree with the meaning behind T1, but we cannot pretend it hasn't been abused. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If CSD's are ever believed to have been abused, the deletions can be reviewed. In practice most T1 speedies when reviewed seem to be endorsed.  As time goes on fewer and fewer instances of T1 are even challenged, though nearly every single one seemed to be challenged in the early days. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is not the same as WP:CSD
Many of the comments I see seem to be missing one very important issue, namely that WP:NOT is not, and should not be, a speedy delete criteria.. T1 is more accurately described as the template equivalent of an attack article, which is in there at A6. I don't think many people would disagree with the speedy deletion of an attack article, so I doubt many would disagree with the zapping of a similar attack, just because it was in template form. (i.e. the original T1)

As for T2, there is a big difference between saying that "template X is a soapbox, and should be deleted", and "template X is a soapbox, and should be deleted right now with no discussion". I agree that soapbox style userboxs are WP:NOT, and like everything that is WP:NOT, should go to the appropiate *fd, where it should probably get deleted. However, I believe it is the attempt to skip the tfd step that is causing a lot of the friction. The speedy deletion criteria are deliberately very narrowly defined for a reason - they exisit only to remove material that would be immediately damaging, and anything else is disccussed and deleted/kept based on consensus/policy. The addition of T2 to "allow" speedy deletion of material that is not immediately damaging is proving extremely divisive, and the impression it is giving is one of arbitary decision making, and the ignoring of consensus by bypassing any discussion. That to me, is more damaging to wikipedia in the long term than any pretty boxes. In short, I don't disagree with the deletion of userboxes, but I strongly disagree with the speedy deletion of them. Regards, MartinRe 18:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really like the points you make about what does more harm. This is a good way to look at things - let's think in terms of damage control.  I think many (maybe even most?) of us agree that userboxes can sometimes be harmful, but this doesn't mean we have to delete them all right now, as you say.  In many cases, so far, the cure has been far worse than the disease.  Friday (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most userboxes are harmless. The harmful ones need to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "deleted", or "deleted right now"? That was the point of my comment. Clearly harmful ones (i.e. attack ones) should be "deleted right now", of course, but if it's unclear it should go to tfd. What shouldn't happen is admins saying "I think that's harmful, delete it, no discussion", as that can be used to justify deletion of practically anything, right up to babel boxes. Regards, MartinRe 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleted right now because (a) they're crap and (b) unfortunately any troll can get a Wikipedia account and play "userbox freedom fighter". It's a silly game and, you may have noticed, one that the Arbitration Committee has slammed down heavy upon. Speedy deletion is about "deletion without discussion." That is the very purpose. Some things are so toxic that they are deleted so as to deny trolls, people of little intelligence, and those who just like to argue, the opportunity to waste time. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is extremely close to a personal attack. Editors who are most definitely not trolls are calling for discussion on it. It is not just admins against trolls, dont generalise the process for your own benefit. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Tony. Enough of the borderline/if not exceeding personal attacks. You're an administrator, so please be a model for new users. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you're one of the ones that give us peons the impression that you think substantially all are harmful. Counterexamples? When have you not voted Delete, or, worse, speedy deleted any userbox you encountered? Jay Maynard 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you compile a list and we'll see if we agree? The vast majority of userboxes I have seen seem to be utterly harmless. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why do you want them all deleted? I'm starting to a notice a double standard Tony, and I'm afraid I don't like it. -- D -Day on WHEELS!!! 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not want all userboxes deleted. --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not disagree with using T1 to delete an attack template. It's the extreme expansion of T1 to cover any userbox that expresses any viewpoint at all that I (and, apparently, lots of others) have heartburn with, and especially those admins who assert that that's the right thing to do in spite of what appears to me to be an overwhelming consensus otherwise. Jay Maynard 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But that is the very intent of T1. To kill the unencyclopedic activities. If you want to engage in these activities, find another website. This is an encyclopedia, devoted to the Neutral point of view. We should of course actively discourage, and in extreme case ban (and I can give copious recent examples of both conducted by the Arbitration Committee) attempts to abuse Wikipedia for the expression of personal points of view using resources other than the usepage. . --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Tony, not once have I contended that NPOV is anything but mandatory, or said that I do not believe in it wholeheartedly. I strongly doubt that anyone in this entire brouhaha would argue that it's other than fundamental. Please stop insinuating that folks argue with the concept. The problem is that people are imperfect. I know that I'm not experienced enough in editing Wikipedia to ensure that my biases don't leak out into my writing - or, conversely, that I'm not bending so far over backwards to avoid it that I wind up introducing the other POV. I list my biases on my user page so people can read my writing, then keep me honest, or help me be not quite so uptight, as the case may be. This is valuable for the encyclopedia.


 * The problem is that you equate showing a belief in anything, in any way, on any part of Wikipedia, to not believing in NPOV. This is not assuming good faith on the part of the folks who believe as I do. You also think we should hide our biases, instead of hauling them out into the light. This denies basic human nature, and also only serves to try to homogenize one of the most diverse communities on the planet. Dammit, we're not just Wikipedians, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. Jay Maynard 22:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously POV in articles is harmful, but has that activity been provoked by userboxes. And there are plenty of things that are "unencyclopedic." (i.e. WP:BJAODN) Do we delete those of T1? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Expression of a point of view on an external matter anywhere on Wikipedia' is regrettable. I do not know Jimmy Wales' opinion on the invasion of Iraq.  Do you?  I'd rather not know. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know his view, but I'd like to know if I had to work with him on an Iraq war article. It would help me know where he was coming from on his changes to the article, and as to double-check so that his edits are not POV. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then ask him, or go to his userpage. But inviting him to abuse transclusion, template space, whatlinkshere and even categories seems to me a bit much.  If I want you to know that I'm a Christian I can do so by typing the words "I am a Christian" on my userbpage.  Facilitating any more than that is utterly ridiculous and far beyond what is excusable as a legitimate part of our project (which, in case you had forgotten, is solely and exclusively to create a high quality encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Transclusion and whatlinkshere and categories are not reasons that are necessary to have a premade bit of HTML planted on your page to demonstrate your POV so that editors can more fully understand your edits. The creation of a high quality encyclopedia can, IMO benefit from people more fully understanding where others are coming from. Stop mixing issues together. They are not related. And try not to lose your temper just because you are the one who is having to do the vast bulk of defending of your personal views on userboxes. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony. Explaining your biases so that other people can see where you're coming from is commendable.  Userboxes are neither the best way, nor even a very good way to do that.  They're colorful little stickers that give the impression of advertising one's biases.  They're "attractive to the wrong kinds of people" (from WP:JOU).  I'm not saying that every person who has userboxes is the "wrong kind", but I'm saying that these toys inadvertently attract the wrong kind, i.e., activists.  Activists are a greater threat to Wikipedia than vandals, and we should avoid anything that reinforces a culture of partisanship. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do note that it is possible to agree that they need to be deleted, while disagreeing that they need to be speedy deleted. That seems to be a common misunderstanding, anyone disagreeing with the speedy deletion is automatically assumed to ba arguing to keep them, but that is not the case. Discussion before deletes is not an "opportunity to waste time", it is a keystone of consensus - can you imagine what would happen if we scrapped Afd and let admins speedy delete anything they thought failed WP:NOT? Regards, MartinRe 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. I agree totally. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, how are you going to get consistency? This a recipe for more popular views among Wikipedians to survive TfDs and less popular ones to fail. We could end up with "This user is a Christian" being deleted and "This user is an atheist" being kept, or vice versa. That is a far more divisive outcome that having a clear rule enabling admins to delete both on sight. Deletion of such userboxes is not the sort of thing that can be voted on one at a time with varied outcomes that reflect the demographic biases of users or who showed up that day. Either all such userboxes are unacceptable as templates or they are all acceptable (at least as long as they are not so extreme as to bring the project into disrepute). It seems to me as if we either have T2 or we don't. There is no way the issue can be decided case by case through TfD's, while also preserving consistency.Metamagician3000 01:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * MartinRe, that's true. Furthermore, arguing that something shouldn't be speedied is different from arguing that it should be undeleted and taken to TfD for re-deletion, which has been happening a lot with userboxes. I simply cannot countennance reanimating a dead body just to re-kill it according to a different process. I've been taking advantage of DRV to try to have those important conversations, and, as Jimbo said "change the culture, one person at a time". It appears that some are willing to support Jimbo fully in the idea that userboxes are bad, but disagree with him utterly about how they should be gotten rid of. There's a balancing act, between getting rid of crap that needs to go, and getting as many editors as possible on board. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, undeleting hopeless cases is pointless prcess wonking, but for many not so hopeless cases I've seen DRV turns into a de-facto tfd after the fact, so we still end up with a discussion and a deleted template either way, but with added ill feeling for the out of process deletions. So why not simply try and do it the normal way, end up in the same place, but without as much badwill? Regards, MartinRe 00:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't sound as if we're disagreeing particularly... I do think a lot of the bad will is generated by misunderstanding the role of written guidelines and procedures here, but that just undrerscores the fact that more dialogue needs to be going on. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dialogue is good :) My objection is the speed of deletions, and not the deletions themselves. The arbcom case (linked below) enforced that polemic or inflamatory userboxes may be speedy deleted, and that I have no problem with, as a template attack page, and is covered by T1. What I do have a problem with it is extending the speedy criteria to a wording that could cover the rest of them, instead of sending them to tfd. I would have the same objection if articles were being speedied because they were WP:NOT in one person's opinion, instead of being afd'd. From what I see the main confusion about policy is why the speedy deletion criteria exists. Deleting without discussion is quite harsh, and easily abused, so that's why the criteria were narrowly worded, so that's it clear a) what falls under this criteria and b) whatever falls under this criteria should obviously be deleted. T1 satisifes this, but T2 does not, because it is so broad. It can be used to justify anything from userboxes containing wording that would be acceptable in article space, or even the babel boxes, as language is a controversial issue too. Speedily zap polemic userboxes like "christians must be thrown to the lions", sure, but speedy zap "X is a christian"? That's not polemic, so should be taken to tfd. Find a user whose page is full of non-polemic bumberstickers? mfd it as a being against WP:USER. Written guidleines are important to make the working of wikipedia transparent and reasonably consistant, which is important for all editors. (and without editors, there is no wikipedia) Of course it won't be exact picture of what happens in practice, due to slight diferent interpretations, or to stop people wikilawyering, but it should people the confidence that things will be treated reasonably consistantly and predictably, as otherwise it just looks complete arbitary, depending on who is making the decision. And that's my main objection to T2, it's so vague, that what templates will be deleted or kept appears a completely arbitary decision, and when arbitary decisions are made, confidence is lost. Regards, MartinRe 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I put my opinions up front on my user page, and wish others would do the same. This is one of the reasons I found POV userboxes helpful. I can then work with editors with other PsOV to create neutral articles. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting the words "I believe in X" on your userpage is fine. Do it now. Should you demand any further indulgence from your fellow Wikipedians, you shall not get it. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel a userbox is not revealing a user's bias in a satisfactory way, I'd say slow down, maybe change the wording first and talk with the box's users. Speedy deletion is definately not a solution, as the DRvs show - it's more of a WP:PANIC reaction. --AySz88^ - ^  02:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)