Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 4

First section
I can't help expressing frustration at how this has gone. I believe that we should either keep T2 or stop deleting userboxes that fall short of being divisive and inflammatory. Right now I have no idea what policy I am supposed to enforce. In my opinion, T2 was good policy that represented the emergent practice here, widely accepted by admins. As such, it should be in the formal policies. I don't see how we can have it both ways, though. If we can't make T2 stick on the policy page, then we shouldn't be continuing with it as the practice.

I repeat what I've said all along since T2 was proposed. I'm happy to have a policy such as T2 to keep such userboxes as "This user is a Christian" or "This user is a feminist" out of template space. I thought that was the direction we were moving in. It was consistent with Jimbo's words, and it was timely, after the passage of months, to bring the policy into conformity with practice. But I refuse to butcher the English language by claiming that such a userbox, expressing its message in a polite way, is "divisive and inflammatory". It is not an appropriate use of the template system, it gives the wrong impression about Wikipedia to new users, it is be manipulable as an instrument for vote stacking in some relatively rare circumstances. Those are all good reasons for continuing the practice that would have been expressed by T2. But a politely expressed statement of belief such as "This user is a Christian" is not divisive or inflammatory in itself, and it is certainly not both. Tolerant communities are not divided against themselves by polite expressions of diverse beliefs - they are strengthened. Tolerant people are not inflamed to rage by polite expressions of diverse beliefs. "I am a Christian" is not a divisive and inflammatory statement, however inappropriate it is to use template space to make such a statement on Wikipedia.

With a couple of other people, I proposed T2 (originally an expansion of T1) to remedy the situation where admin practice had run ahead of the policy, and the practice was sometimes inconsistent. There was some strong support for this at the time. I'm now seeing very little support for it. Very well, but I don't think we can simultaneously say "we are going to remove T2 from the policy page" AND "we are going to go on acting as if the practice it refers to is good policy (by way of a contrived reading of T1)". Either put T2 back, so we all know where we stand, or don't expect admins to continue following the practice it describes.

I believe that T2 should be restored to the policy page, but since I now seem to be the only person defending it I guess that won't happen. Right now, we seem to have a group of people who are just not prepared to accept that viewpoint userboxes are a bad use of template space. We have another group of people who claim that such userboxes are automatically divisive and inflammatory. IMHO neither view is intellectually tenable. I tried in good faith to get a solution to this issue, with a policy proposal that acknowledged that some viewpoint userboxes are not inherently divisive and inflammatory, but still maintained that they are an inappropriate use of template space. It was evidently a solution that the community does not want, so it looks like I have to accept that. I have no idea what other solution is possible, short of intervention from Jimbo. Metamagician3000 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some other comments before I leave this. It's no use relying on TfD's or deletion reviews to handle the problem. That is a recipe for inconsistency. If a template such as "this user is a Christian" going to be deleted, then "this user is an atheist" should also be deleted. Either they are both are acceptable or neither is. Likewise "this user is a Democrat" and "this user is a Republican". What will really cause bad will is the situation where one userbox survives but an equivalent one does not. We need a clear policy on this - it can't be left to the vagaries of particular TfD's, or of particular deletion reviews when admins have chanced their arm. We've had inconsistent results in the past - "this user is a feminist" survived the process but many others no more divisive and inflammatory did not, because they could not get a consensus to restore on deletion review. We need consistency so users know what is acceptable and the generality of admins who are not militant userbox slayers know what they are supposed to be doing.


 * I have to give a hollow laugh at the idea that T2 has been divisive. It may have acted as a lightning rod to attract comments from the different camps. But T2 merely writes down a practice that various admins were already following. Blame that practice. Better still, blame the vote stacking by some users which made the practice desirable in this first place. There is an underlying problem here with different views about how template space is supposed to be used. T2 did not create that problem. It wrote down a solution to the problem that seemed to be emerging, i.e. an admin practice of deleting certain kinds of userboxes and then arguing hard against their restoration. I suspect that that practice will not go away if T2 fails to stick - as seems to have happened. If anyone thinks that T2 itself was causing the divisions or that they will go away if T2 is now removed from policy, I think they will soon be disillusioned. Metamagician3000 00:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that T2 should be put back on the policy page, simply because it's a good elaboration of T1. Please feel free to put it back, but if you do so, also be prepared to remove false statements to the effect that it isn't Wikipedia policy. I'd far rather have Wikipedia policy both recorded and executed, but if it needs to be unrecorded but executed, that's okay too.  --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If a template such as "this user is a Christian" going to be deleted, then "this user is an atheist" should also be deleted
 * Yes of course both should be deleted. Is there a problem with this? --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They are equivalent and if one is deleted the other can not justifiably be kept. The problem is that neither is devise nor inflammatory, so neither should be deleted. —David618 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * T2 cannot be put back on the policy page as a true policy. Policies on Wikipeida need to be agreed on by consensus, which T2 does not have. —David618 01:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * T2 is simply an elaboration of T1. We're talking about criteria.  The policy hasn't changed.  The policy relating to this is Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  As long as the straw polls are abused to go against that policy, blatantly divisive templates will have to be speedy deleted without a straw poll. --Tony Sidaway 01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * David618, the page you linked to, WP:POL, announces quite prominently "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent." In other words, you're wrong.  A group of people can derail consensus (hell, one person can do that).  No group of people (unless it includes Jimbo) can decide that Wikipedia is a soapbox, a battleground, or a free webhost. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No amount of claims from those who oppose userboxes can turn them into being automatically divisive, either. Jay Maynard 01:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm claiming, as we've discussed. Ideological userboxes reinforce a culture of partisanship, which is anathema to the entire project. Anything legitimate that can be done with userboxes can be done better without them. You might not abuse them, but they actively attract people who will. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please look up the meaning of consensus. Consensus is not a unanimous decision but a general agreement. —David618 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Firmly beside the point. Consensus does not trump policy, whichever version of consensus you're thinking of. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't get what you mean. —David618 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must have been overly terse. There are different models of consensus decision-making in practice in the world.  Sometimes, it does mean unanimity.  Some groups use a U-2 model, where it takes 3 people to veto, for example.  We tend to use a much more haphazard method, where consensus means "somewhere around 80% of whoever happens to show up, except in cases of sock-puppetry, etc, etc."  The point is, it doesn't matter whicjh definition of consensus we're employing here, it still doesn't overrule policy, and you claimed above that "Policies on Wikipeida need to be agreed on by consensus," which is false. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See How to create policy) —David618 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The simple solution to this problem is not to delete userboxes unless they are obviously divisive and inflammatory. Even hardcore "free the userbox" folks are willing to accept that some userboxes may not belong in template space - but speedy deletion should be used only where it is obvious. Any expansion of the criteria for deletion beyond this basic formula is a recipe for disaster. Just stop deleting userboxes - they are not the problem you are trying to solve. If you are worried about vote stacking, then go after vote stackers. T2 is not a good idea, and the practice that it attempts to turn into a policy is a big part of the problem with userboxes - specifically, that people can't seem to leave them alone. Just stop deleting them for three months - and see what happens. You might be surprised at how harmless userboxes really are. --70.218.85.177 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can put it back once more today, I think - but I'm getting damn close to a 3RR breach here and I have no intention of getting blocked over the issue. If the only way to keep the policy there is by one or two people constantly reverting it back in, then it looks like T2 is just not sticking. At some point, we have to admit that it lacks consensus, whatever seemed to be the case a couple of weeks ago when Lar and I and a few others proposed that it be written down and included in the formal policies. Perhaps T2 needs to be explained more, or something, but I've done about as much of that as one person reasonably can. Without more people who are prepared to spend time explaining and defending T2, I don't think we can keep it there - which will make the underlying problem worse IMHO. It is not satisfactory for it to continue as an optional, unwritten policy followed by some admins and not others, but that is what will happen. Metamagician3000 01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Explaining it will not help. T2 is too broad and can easily be minipulated to delete most userboxes. If you would like to propose a new set of criteria I suggest that it allows for beliefs to be posted in userboxes. thanks —David618 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling it "an elaboration of T1" is grossly wrong, because it is most certainly not. I just reverted some Cydebot vandalism of my user page. If you want me to turn a userbox into the base code, especially without bothering to list it for deletion, you can damned well ask me first. I'd put a vandalism warning on Cydebot's page, but that's an exercise in futility. Jay Maynard 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, but the ~ I put there the first time didn't seem to stick. In any event, I'll point out that if it's not policy, admins shouldn't behave as though it were. Is that really too much to ask? Jay Maynard 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have actually used the 5-tilde, which is date stamp only. Regarding policy, our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive.  The way it works is that people do things because they're good ideas, and eventually someone says "hey, let's write that down." -GTBacchus(talk) 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that calling T2 a derivation of T1 in its current form does not fit semantically. T2 does not aim at what reactions are caused. It aims at a wide variety of things that could possibly be thought of as causing a fuss on wikipedia. However, in its current form, it is still arbitrary as to the causes which it recognises as at all possibly making a fuss.


 * I see the next step as either redefining wikipedia as a tolerant society, or continuing with commands from above in the lack of recognition of tolerancy between editors (against the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL basic principles) . Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of opposition to userboxes as lack of tolerance indicates a deep misunderstanding of why we oppose them. Please assume good faith, and try to understand that I oppose userboxes because I see that they hurt Wikipedia, a project that I care about rather strongly.  You can disagree with me about that, but don't assume that I'm against a "tolerant society" - those are separte issues. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I still can't see why admins want to enshrine Template space as though everything in it has to be NPOV and nothing in it can express a point of view. I also do not see how they practically hurt wikipedia. The most common arguments are the issues of votestacking and attracting "bad editors" (the latter being against good faith when used to characterise future editors). The first issue is something that will not be fixed by removing the templates from Template space, subst: and keep with category removal solves that problem. As for the argument about the second one that having fancy HTML boxes attracts non serious editors, well, thats a highly personal view on their effect, negating any possible good that they have for helping people understand other editors and practice "tolerance". I cannot accept that the bad effects which have been alleged so far to be the utter depths of what wikipedia should not fall to, are either right for a Speedy deletion criteria, or are enough to say that any belief statements are the causes of the pain that is being suffered by admins in controlling the massive number of editors who have userboxes so far. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith does not mean pretending that POV warriors don't exist, and going ahead and decorating Wikipedia to look welcoming to political advocacy, and unappealing to those who think of an encyclopedia as a place for scholarship, research, and neutrality. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Section break
I also find this frustrating and feel that it should be restored. The T2 provenance section above exemplifies the frustrating nature of the discussion. It isn't about whether t2 is good for wikipedia or if it's current practice or having the desired results. It's about whether it was added in the correct way and raising policy over everything else....it's even explicitly stated as such: ''There seems to be no have been no consensus for adding T2, and therefore it should be removed. If anyone can see a flaw in my logic here (regardless of whether T2 is in fact a good idea or not)...'' It's no longer about writing an encyclopedia but merely following policy. It's too bad that something so worthless as userboxes are defended with such vigor y waving the rulebook around. Rx StrangeLove 01:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate it when people act as if Wikipedia content depended on the number of times they revert an edit. It doesn't work that way.  In the past few weeks many very divisive templates have been speedy deleted.  Some of those deletions have been challenged, and most of those challenges have failed spectacularly.  Here is a small list of those articles whose deletion was challenged.  All deletions were endorsed on review. Many more such template deletions took place without any challenge.


 * Template:User scientology, Template:User liberal, Template:User liberty, Template:User chav, Template:User notchav, Template:User hate, Template:User ProIsrael,Template:User antiuserboxdeletion, Template:User Darwinist,User:UBX/Communist, Template:User No Marxism], Template:User against Saud, Template:User_Unamerican, Template:User transhumanist, Template:User anti-transhumanist, Template:User Unamerican, Template:User Objectivism, Template:User No Objectivism, Template:User marriage man-woman, Template:User Same Sex Marriage


 * They're all gone. T1, T2, call it what you will. This is Wikipedia policy. It might be a good idea,or then again not, actually to write it up in the documentation.  It's all the same to me.  What happens, happens. --Tony Sidaway


 * What part of Undeletion_policy did people not understand? "A page listed for undeletion should remain on DRV for at least five days."  Please, tell me how many of the above met that test?  --70.218.50.194 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I thought it was ten days. Are you sure it's only five? Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, you know.  Would you prefer it if it was?  --Tony Sidaway 04:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On what basis? T2? No consensus. T1? A long, long stretch. Admins running amok and acting outside the policies that users and editrs believe in? *ding*ding*ding*ding* We have a winner! Bah. Jay Maynard 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony is correct...current practice and past results are a much greater reflection on real policy than reverting back and forth waving rule books. T1...T2...you're right, they reflect current practice regardless of what the last revert was. Rx StrangeLove 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Polcy must make practice—not vice versa—David618 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy is meant to enshrine good practice that is actually being followed. That is what T2 does. But written policy should not be allowed to lag too far behind practice, so the time has come to write the practice down. Again, that is what T2 does. Anyway, I restored it. Metamagician3000 02:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Both policy and practice at WP are supposed to be consensual. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 23:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway.

It was found by the arbitration committee, as long as two months ago, that polemical and inflammatory userboxes can be deleted. All of the userboxes that I have listed above were in that small proportion of such deletions that have been challenged. All were kept deleted because the deletions were endorsed on review. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to add that, in my opinion, the "administrstors running amock" story is getting a little tired. Without the diligent work of administrators, we wouldn't have a Wikipedia to work on. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Admins deleting userboxes for very little good reason is getting tired, too; indeed, that's why we're having this...discussion? I understand that admins are doing lots of thankless, tedious work behind the scenes. Despite appearances, I do appreciate it. I just don't appreciate it when they think that gives them license to do as they darn well please. That said, if the ArbCom says it's policy, then it's policy, and the opinions of peons like me don't matter a hill of beans, and nobody really cares what I think, and I'll go find some better use for my time. Jay Maynard 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, after reading volumes of reasons, you really don't belive that we're working for what we see as the good of Wikipedia? You really think it's just about people getting kicks throwing their weight around?  You think we've been lying about our reasons?  I think that's a shame. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No more, and no less, than folks like Tony and Cyde appear to believe that userboxes are about people wanting to impose their own POV on Wikipedia. No, I don't think people are lying about wanting to improve Wikipedia, any more than I am; I do think they're simply refusing to consider that others can have differing opinions on how to do so and reach different conclusions, and that this is a community of volunteers with specific dynamics that are greatly affected by what can easily be seen as heavy-handed authoritarianism. I also am thoroughly disappointed that, despite all the rhetoric about only doing things by consensus, when it comes right down to it, there's a cabal that's more equal than others, and what they say goes - while denying it the whole time.


 * I've just wasted most of a week on trying to affect policy, because I honestly believed that my input was sought and welcomed. I know better now. I'm not going to leave Wikipedia, but I'm not going to spend this kind of time on it in the future, either. Jay Maynard 03:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most admins are working for what they see as the good of wikipedia. However, I also think it is easy for admins to lose the new user's perspective on Wikipedia - they almost definately stopped being new users long before they became an admin.  Almost policy page in wikipedia starts with a template saying that it is policy because it is consensus.  That box is what new users see as the requirement for being a policy.  If admins start saying that consensus is not needed to make policy, they sound to new users like they themselves are violating policy in so doing.


 * Most users don't want to spend their Wikipedia time discussing policies. I'd certainly rather be elsewhere, but I believe the practice of speedily deleting userboxes that often look to be very harmless is actually quite harmful.  The resulting debates are a waste of everyone's time, and are caused by the speedy deletion.  Deletion via TfD would be less harmful.  Yes, it takes more time - someone has to nominate and explain their reasons.  The explanation will support Jimbo's preferred method of reducing the presnece userboxes - educating one user at a time.


 * Admittedly, T1 doesn't cover vote-stacking userboxes. That is an easier expansion - if a template is actually used for vote-stacking, it should be deleted.  (Now, anyone could edit a template they want to get rid of to look like it was a vote-stacker, then delete it.  But lets assume good faith unless it becomes a problem.)


 * Finally, most users do not see T2 as an elaboration of T1. They see it as very different.  Because people are human, they hold points of view.  Having a point of view is not inherently divisive or inflammatory, much less divisive and inflamatory.  Several users, myself included, have commented above that we would rather know our fellow editors POV than make assumptions about it.  Others believe that all statements on a user page of a POV are inherently divisive.  This is a real difference of opinion, and will not be eliminated without significant discussion and citation of examples.  I think we all need to back off on both the practice and the statement of T2 and have a long, drawn out, discussion.  My personal belief is that either we will end up with some version of the May Userbox policy poll or with a decision that T2 is not grounds for speedy deletion, but may be a rationale for deletion in the presence of other factors. GRBerry 03:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the original posts: There certainly seems to be agreement (see ) that the T2 sense of "divisive" should be split from the T1 sense of "divisive and inflammatory"; the problem is that somehow the split seems to have been interpreted to be an automatic endorsement of T2 just by virtue of it having been split from T1. That is, splitting the two interpretations of T1 doesn't mean that both senses have been agreed upon.  The second interpretation is much more disputed than the first interpretation, I think. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the page has now been protected. That may stop the immediate revert war, but it is not going to be possible to leave the page protected until disputes are resolved. I see no way to resolve this dispute by consensus at the moment. Meanwhile, some admins will continue to apply T2 on the basis that (as they'll say correctly) the page protection does not endorse the protected version, or interpret T1 broadly enough to include T2's content, or simply follow the practice that T2 would formalise and shrug about the formal policy lagging behind the practice. Some users will continue to resist the aim of getting viewpoint userboxes out of template space.

Well, I've made my position clear that I still think T2 is sound policy that updates the page for current good practice. I'm not going to wheel war by removing the page protection, but I do note that it won't solve the underlying problem. We will all have to do what we think is best, acting in good faith, until the issue is finally resolved. I think it is ultimately going to have to be resolved, one way or another, at a higher level than any of us. It's a pity it had to happen in this way. Metamagician3000 02:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the point of splitting T2 out was to protect T1, which was clearly agreed upon policy. That is why I proposed it above on 12 May, and why another user implemented it the next day.  At the time that occured, the combined version was being described as not policy.  GRBerry 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A really REALLY long sub-section
This discussion is all over the shop like a mad woman's breakfast, and has more straw men than a scarecrow convention. Can we try to focus a little bit, and pick apart the threads of what's being said? I'm going to sign each paragraph below so that we can have threaded responses. - brenneman  {L} 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Whatever we do, it's policy.
 * The problems with this are clear if taken to its logical extreme. Re-creation of previously deleted material: If a group starts doing it, would that make it policy?  Administrators could block and protect, but AOL users could keep coming back and using alterate spellings.  If enough people did this, would it become "policy" evnetually?  The further problem with the application of this paradigm to user box deletion is the way that "we" is defined.  If it's admins than that represents a cultural shift to saying "Admins make policy."  Policy is built, in almost every case, from the ground up, and the (pardon me) MySpacers have as much of a right to build the encyclopedia in the manner that they see fit as anyone.  That includes policy. -  brenneman  {L} 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Any argument taken to an extreme loses some of it's cohesion. If it's not used in the extreme then it's not relevant to take it that far. If a group starts doing something, and enough editors agree, dispute resolution measures back it up, the final authority on the site is amiable toward it's goal and the subject is not relevant to writing an encyclopedia then yes, it's well on it's way to policy. Sure, everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia. But that right stops when they attempt to alter the purpose of Wikipedia. The right also ends when they attempt to alter what it means to be an editor while on the site. Rx StrangeLove 09:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the idea that policy is descriptive relies on two things. First, People must start doing it (this is of course obvious). Second, the actions must be supported by the community. If community does not support the actions then logically they do not use those actions. Therefore, if most people do not use those actions you can not claim them as policy. Though editors can not delete pages this does not mean that they can be excluded from this; if editors disagree it is the same as if they do not delete pages. —David618 21:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The userbox deletion policy is widely accepted, so it's policy.
 * This hinges on the definition of "widely accepted." The discussion hasn't died, so what is it that we're calling accepted?  Is it that the deletions are sticking and thus admins at least are happy with it?  *cough* I'm an admin. *cough*  Admins range widely in their respect for the actions of others.  Some are quite happy to wheel war unless explicitly forbidden to do so by the ArbCom.  Others are loathe to revert, preferring to reach consensus through discussion. -  brenneman  {L} 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The T1 deletion criterion is widely used, so it's policy.
 * This one says not that everyone agrees, or even that admins all agree, but only that the criterion is being applied. A brief glance at the skewed table above will put the lie to that.  Even the userboxes that are clearly divisive are only being deleted by a handfull of admins, half by just two in this case. -  brenneman  {L} 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A look at Tfd dicussions from last week shows that non-polemical userboxes have been accepted by the Wiki-Community. Should that be policy as well? (This is not a rhetorical question by the way.) --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 12:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The myth of consistancy.
 * Wikipedia is not cosistant. We to a large degree don't even try to make it consistant.  Why, for example, is the almost-universally accepted guideline for inclusion of bands not a speedy deletion criterion?  Because we prefer to decide case by case as much as possbile, trusting in the system.  Sometimes that develops into a de facto policy, sometimes into a real one, but there is no requirement to be consistant. -  brenneman  {L} 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good rant. Quite interesting, in fact. I particularly liked the bit about consistency (sic), BTW ;-) One size fits all rules will never work while WP is growing so organically - consistency = stagnation. Stephen B Streater 09:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, on something like this consistency is all important. It is critical that if "This user is a Republican" is allowed then "This user is a Democrat" is allowed. On some issues there can be outcomes based on the facts but nothing could be more divisive than this. Personally, I think it is going to be a nightmare having any policy other than one that disallows all expressions of political, religious, ethical and social opinion. Of course someone will be able to come up with an example to test the boundaries in order to make a WP:POINT. But we need to know whether polite expressions of belief in things that are not hateful like Nazism are in or not.


 * Beyond clarifying my view on that point, there's not much more I can say. Except this. As far as I'm concerned, the ultimate aim of getting these political etc userboxes out of template space was established long ago. All that is up for debate is the timing and the method. I'm frustrated by the number of people who refuse to conduct the debate on that basis. If the ultimate aim is going to be challenged at every point, if people are organising to challenge it, as I see on some users' talk pages, and if newbies are misled into thinking that the aim is negotiable or is not taken seriously by Jimbo and most admins, we'll get nowhere. I believe the aim is clear, the recent practice is clear, Jimbo's support for the ultimate aim is clear, and the need for consistency is clear. T2 does all this. It sums up the situation in just a few words. It crystallises a practice that has been getting established for a long time now. If someone put up a positive proposal, such as a short phasing in period during which admins should delete only new userboxes that fall under T2 (creating a moratorium on such userbox creation), while there is a publicity campaign and a process of userfying existing T2-able boxes, I'd be happy to discuss it. I'm not gung-ho about this issue at all. T2 can be delayed for a short while longer if needed. But so much of what we're getting is last-ditch resistance to the non-negotiable ultimate aim. When proposals are put forward to introducing something like T2 over time, consensus is not achieved because the fundamental aim is challenged and some people vote on that basis. That doesn't help us find a way forward. Right now, nothing makes me inclined to treat T2 as anything other than good policy, written or not, but I'd rather it was written. Metamagician3000 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you've once again hit me over the head with Jimbo's stone tablets, I'll go away. Jay Maynard 11:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Non policy arguments aka opinions.
 * "Even mild boxes are divisive" isn't proven. "This is an encyclopedia" is an orthoganal statemtnt, and anything about a "mild" userbox that follows that is a non sequitur.  "They send the wrong message" has two unproven statements: That they send a ubiquitous message, and that it's the wrong one. When there is a difference of opinon we should talk about it until we find a solution we all hate equally.  Note that statements like "Don't be stupid" or "Such fripparies are to be destroyed" does not contitute talking. -  brenneman  {L} 09:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A subsection, entitled "On Bias and Divisiveness"
(There's no telling what developments I've missed since I started writing this, got interrupted, etc. Some parts may be irrelevant.)

Okay...A few people have made excellent points (in my opinion) that the CSD are natural extensions of the core policy WP:NOT. Much of the discussion here has focused on the appropriateness of the content, rather than the pseudo-technical issues under review at May Userbox policy poll et al. I was on the verge of thinking that divisive and inflammatory templates would somehow be okay to keep in some sort of new namespace. This would not really be a good idea, in light of the "soapbox clause," although the diplomat in me still likes the idea of a compromise.

Some people have said that those templates are useful for identifying bias. Let me tell a slightly dramatized short story, for what it's worth. One day, a Wikipedian named Ardric was walking through the project namespace and came across a page of userboxes. He read through them all, intrigued by the wide range of interests, skills, and even beliefs that they could express. After choosing some key userboxes about skills related to editing an encyclopedia, he took more that were somewhat less academic and that covered such subjects as Coca-Cola and Jack Bauer. Then a witch appeared. Just kidding. Anyway, he noticed some userboxes that mentioned political beliefs. At first, he thought that it might be a good idea to let people know—"Tell us about yourself," he envisioned the other Wikipedians asking. "Inquiring minds want to know!" But he realized that it might give the appearance of a conflict of interest. He didn't wish to jeopardize relationships with other editors before they even existed.

(Yes, that was kind of silly; just trying to add some variety.) We (ideally) don't contribute to Wikipedia as supporters of political parties, representatives of corporations, etc. Jimbo Wales has called the neutral point of view concept "absolute and non-negotiable." Biases should be left at the proverbial door. Let's not kid ourselves, though; bias certainly exists. However, cases of personal bias are often taken care of on the article talk pages. If an editor thinks that his or her personal bias should be mentioned, then he or she can mention it, preferably in a factual manner. If an editor simply wishes to express an opinion (not a strong one, hopefully), then he or she can express it. It isn't really necessary to have templates for that. Ardric47 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, biases exist whether we want them to or not. I try to be neutral but that does not mean what I consider neutral as being is what it really is. Second, userboxes provide a standard form in which to place information so that there is some uniformity between pages. The userbox format also provides ease of use in looking at someone's info. Userboxes are much easier to differentiate then a list &c. —David618 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 provenance
Where did T2 come from? Is there consensus for it? If not, it should be removed from the policy. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no policy pump discussion I've been told of. I'm going to move it there tommorow. And ask the the admins to stop deleting templates. Falphin 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is the place to discuss the T2 speedy deletion policy. T2 is simply an elaboration of T1. If it were revoked, administrators would label deletion of inappropriate templates as T1. T2 just provides more clarity. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any consensus for this "elaboration"? What is its provenance? &mdash;Ashley Y 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * None, that I have seen and I have asked for some, and have been told there was none. Falphin 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets compare the t1 and t2. I don't see family resemblence. T1 " Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." Stating this "User is an Atheist" is not divisive in the least bit. And is definetly not inflammatory. T2. " Templates that are designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions." Now, the only simmilarity is they are both talking about templates but the second is specifically for User page templates. Besides that show me how "This user is a Muslim" can be deleted under the first. Falphin 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well obviously "this user is an atheist" is divisive. It makes a big deal about separating Wikipedians according to beliefs, matters that are irrelevant (and indeed actively destructive, which is why T1 exists) to the creation of an encyclopedia.  T2 is just another way of putting it. All templates expressing religious beliefs can be deleted under either T1 or T2. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "obviously" suggests consensus. Where is this consensus?


 * It might be reasonably argued that "There is no God" is a divisive statement, while "This user is an atheist" is not. If T2 really were "just another way of putting it", there would be no need for it. Instead, you (or someone) have chosen one particular interpretation of T1 and added it as T2, but I cannot find consensus for this interpretation. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What????? Thats censorship????? Wikipedia does not censor its conent so why are we censoring our user pages???? Anyway your logic if flawed. It is basic info, basically a basic biography which is allowed. And a lot of things are "irrelevant" to the creation of an encyclopedia on here, but user space is not part of the encyclopedia.  Thats been established in numerous afds, and policy talks. Besides, wikipedia is an enyclopedia created by "wikipedians" We aren't Briticannica. We aren't designed differntly, so there is no reason we should act the same. Lastly, you still haven't shown how the templates are similar. I suppose T1 has a secret meaning only you and who else wrote it know about. Falphin 02:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony: It is not obvious (nor even necessarily true) that "divisive" is the "this userbox categorizes Wikipedians" kind and not the "this userbox provokes a division in Wikipedians" kind. I think it means the second kind (especially with the elaboration "and inflammatory"), and I don't see any reason why one would be led to believe it's the first kind.  (The first kind certainly is being argued as a reason to delete, but I don't think it's part of the CSD criteria.)  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "...but user space is not part of the encyclopedia." Exactly! User space is not, but template space is. Ardric47 07:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For my own interest, where is it declared that template space "is part of the encyclopedia." To me it certainly is not of the importance that the Article and Category spaces have. I have always thought that it was a multi-space type environment. After all, it does contain templates used purely for disciplining bad editors, that is hardly a "part of the encyclopedia", as that is not a contribution to the knowledge encyclopedia. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 08:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting points. I may be guilty of simply repeating what others have said. Does anyone have a link to the discussions of the creation of the template namespace? Ardric47 09:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is no consensus that T2 is merely an elaboration of T1, nor is there consensus for T2 as new policy. Is that correct? &mdash;Ashley Y 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably not valid to draw conclusions from just this thread.  + + Lar: t/c 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any such consensus obtained in some other thread? &mdash;Ashley Y 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think there is no consensus for T2, you should try to remove it from the project page and persuade administrators not to use it. I don't think either of these is going to happen. --Tony Sidaway 02:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would rather establish here that there is no consensus for it before removing it.


 * And I don't think the "we're going to do it anyway" argument is particularly helpful. Administrative behaviour, particularly contentious administrative behaviour, should follow policy, not the other way around. I refer you to Administrator Code of Conduct. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is illogical that there is consensus if so many people keep protesting it. —David618 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's obvious to this peon that it's an admins vs. peons issue, and the admins don't care that the peons don't have a consensus for T2...it's just the admins who count around here. Just look at Tony and Cyde's comments. Jay Maynard 03:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is no consensus, it should be a simple matter to just be bold and remove the criterion. --Tony Sidaway 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of Lar's caution, I shall give others a chance to point to some consensus that I may have missed. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, do you really think the resulting revert war would be productive? I thought the standard around here was to get consensus before making controversial edits, and there's no doubt that one would be controversial. Jay Maynard 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clear that there is no consensus for T2. I have tried to remove it, but have been reverted numerous times.  It is not policy, and should not be part of the official policy page.  --70.213.138.104 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Tony is correct - it should be a simple matter to just be bold and remove the criterion. I will be happy to do so. --Fudgenudger 05:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be no have been no consensus for adding T2, and therefore it should be removed. If anyone can see a flaw in my logic here (regardless of whether T2 is in fact a good idea or not), please let me know. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are entirely correct. I would remove the criteria, but this page has been protected.  --Cyde Saddle 06:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a unilateral action such as removing it without any further discussion would be counterproductive, T2 reflects reality and has been in place long enough to act as a valid description of how policy is carried out Rx StrangeLove 06:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The unilateral action of adding it, against consensus and without discussion, is supposed to be more productive than discussing the policy here before implementing it? T2 does not reflect "reality".  It reflects a known bias and narrow interpretation of policy by a particular group of editors.  It has not been in place long enough to act as a valid description of anything except for the POV of the editors who created it out of (exceedingly) thin air.  --!E 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason that T2 is still around is because admins insist that it be there. It is not a valid description of policy being carried out. It is simply a reflection of admins who are uptight about what is divisive, regardless of the feelings of the many "peons" who have not yet heard a legitimate argument, or else they wouldn't still be voicing their opinions. What they have heard is that this thing is "going to happen anyway" ignoring the idea that our voices count at all in the project, and that when the criterion has been deleted from the page it has been put back, even though in every other case criterion are developed here and then put there, not the other way around. If people followed policy there would be less divisiveness in the community than this... if that isn't irony then I dont know what could be. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am alarmed that no-one can defend the inclusion of T2 on the basis of Consensus. How did it end up on the policy page? &mdash;Ashley Y 07:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We should at least figure out where the discussion that led to its creation is located. Ardric47 08:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion is on this talk page above, starting with a comment of mine on 12-May. (I forgot to sign, but some kind sole did the unsigned thing, so you can search for my username.)  At that time T1 and T2 were written as a single policy, and being as heavily debated as T2 is now.  Some of us realized that all of the debate was about the T2 portion of the criteria.  I proposed splitting them.  On 13-May,  xaosflux  agreed and implemented the split.  (See the ssection entitled "CSD:Tx for his action and subsequent comment.)  GRBerry 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of T2
Speedy deletion is intended for things that either are so toxic they shan't stand around and burn things while we waffle about deleting them or are so widely accepted as delete-able that we shouldn't waste time talking about doing what we're going to do in the end anyway. The application (and defense) of the T2 seems to misunderstand what that second section mean. It doesn't mean "going to do anyway" in the sense of "you can't stop me." Since this doesn't have wide approval, I'm removing it. I'd ask that the few people who've re-added it before not be the one to do so again. If it's actually so widely accepted, someone not famous for being a box-hater will replace it. Heck I hate user boxes myself, it must be said. - brenneman  {L} 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bravo.  Grue   07:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree fully (well, except I'm not a userbox hater). There is a good deal of opposition to both T1 and T2. I think it's hard to say that these are clear cut cases. They seem to be more a ruling from above than any kind of community decision. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. T1 and T2 are the worst things to have happened to Wikipedia since the Willy on Wheels sockpuppets. Thank you for bold move. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone put it back to show what was under discussion; I strengthened the disclaimer to show that it was not policy since there is no consensus. Jay Maynard 11:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I toned that down a little, it had written "not policy" twice, so I made it once. I'm pleased to see, though, that everyone appears to be editing and not reverting like crazy. -  brenneman  {L} 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with that, though I wish you hadn't removed the note about there being doubt that it reflects consensus. I'm not going to start the revert war by putting it back. As for not just reverting, we're simply staking out our positions before the revert war starts. :-) Jay Maynard 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it now says "Note that this criterion is currently under discussion and should not be considered policy." Do you think that is not strong enough?  I would have preferred it removed, but I'm trying to find some middle ground. -  brenneman  {L} 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the wording about there being doubt that it is the consensus view is both self-evident (else, why would there be all this debate over it?) and necessary. Jay Maynard 12:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: no less than three sockpuppets of have been participating in this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we start an Arbcom about this? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember Niven's Law: "Ideas are not responsible for those who hold them". (Well, one of Niven's Laws, anyway.) Just because someone who's been banned has been using sock puppets to weigh in on one side of the debate does not mean that side is wrong. Jay Maynard 12:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that. I just want people to be aware that three of the users above are actually one, and that they've all been banned. Transparency and all that. D-Day, he was already under probation from arbcom (which he violated repeatedly), so I've simply banned him. There's no need for an arbitration case at this point. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it worth putting a dagger or aster or something next to them to help latecomers seperate the wheat from the chaff? - brenneman  {L} 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It might (or might not) be useful to mention that some of the anons who have edited the page are probably sockpuppets of someone (not necessarily anyone who has commented here)—there may indeed be widespread opposition to the policy, but the opinion is not accurately reflected around here. Ardric47 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

...and Tony put it back in as settled policy, without bothering to discuss it here first. Guess that shows me just what my opinion's worth. Jay Maynard 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * T2 is the most useless thing since edilble condoms.  Th e   Gerg  22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)