Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 6

T1 and T2 debates discussion
Please edit the discussion on the project page in place, alter it freely and add further points. The idea is to get to the point where we can archive all the thousands of words of discussion and leave this as a brief (or at least, more brief) summary. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A good idea; thanks, Tony. Septentrionalis 01:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which policies do you mean by the "several policies" in the last main bullet? --AySz88|talk 01:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope that whoever added that bullet (or someone else) will add links to the relevant policy proposals. Please feel free to dive in and edit the wording until we find something that is more or less agreeable to all. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been done. Septentrionalis 23:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just organized them into subsections, please revert me if that isn't a helpful thing to have done. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is helpful to readers. It will probably also help those of us who have been edit conflicting as we review the record above. GRBerry 02:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, would someone like to archive the fairly massive T1/T2 debates into a separate page? I think this is a better way of working. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Like... T1 and T2 debates? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but can it wait until the fast and furious review of the refactoring slows down? Moving the evidence while multiple editors are working on it isn't the best timing. GRBerry 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see this until just now, and I've already archived 21 sections... -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I found a way to work around it. And I have to go to bed now.  Sigh, I've only made it through the discussion from May 11 through May 19.  I know there was stuff already in the Jan-March and March-May archives for this page.  Don't know if I'll have much time tomorrow, we are hosting a party.  GRBerry 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sure about the comments: what do you want here? &mdash;Ashley Y 07:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we're trying to build an outline of the main arguments that have been presented in the extensive debates on this subject. What's up there is somewhat organized right now, and people have been adding points and subpoints for a few hours, although it's quieted down lately.  I was hesitant to stop you commenting, because obviously your input is welcome, but I think it's worthwhile to get an organized summary together.  The whole "Other arguments" section is awfully unstructured and sprawling right now.  There are also a lot of discussions from this page that I refactored over to T1 and T2 debates, which you may or may not have noticed.  We're trying to organize this melee into more of a line dance, as it were. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * More helpfully phrased, perhaps, we're trying to report on the debate in a somewhat NPOV manner, so we can all look at the arguments for what they are. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. So if I have new arguments to any of the points, where should I make them? &mdash;Ashley Y 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, do you care if someone "refactors" your ideas, by moving them around and rephrasing them in the third person? I mean, it's a Wiki, please yourself.  I just wanted to call your attention to some structure that maybe you hadn't noticed.  If you could try to add your ideas in a logical place within the structure that's there, that'd be awesome.  As much as you want to play along with building this outline, you're perfectly welcome. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please feel free to rephrase what's already there, if it doesn't seem to be presented fairly and neutrally. We'd like to see each argument in its Sunday best. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this to a separate page? &mdash;Ashley Y 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of discussion is already at T1 and T2 debates. Shall we there? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just mean the summary thingy. &mdash;Ashley Y 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, and done. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Several people are doing some very good work on this summary, and all your contributions are appreciated. I'd like to remind us all that the idea is to collect the various arguments in an organized format, and present all sides fairly and neutrally. This purpose is best served by refraining from deleting any ideas that come up, although refactoring for the purpose of clarity and organization is certainly helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I must take issue with this suggestion. The worst or least competently presented ideas should be deleted, rather than refactored, otherwise we will end up with an unbalanced presentation (which I would argue has already blatantly happened). --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, can you help those of us with a less finely tuned sense of the blatant to see what's unbalanced about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that the least competently presented ideas should be fix, so that they're competently presented. Isn't the goal to actually get each argument on the table and see it at its best, so readers can judge them all on merit? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Motions to remove are in order on the Talk page. I also feel that the present text is unbalanced; although in the direction of the opinions of the original drafter (as is natural). It is therefore probably close, in fact, to a neutral PoV. Septentrionalis 00:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So sayeth the one who has repeatedly deleted arguments rather than attempt to answer them. Jay Maynard 00:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we certainly started back on the talk page for WP:CSD with a blatantly unbalanced presentation - it didn't even look like balance was attempted the first time I saw it. The current version is a lot closer to balanced.  I expect the pendulum to swing a few times before becoming stationary.  I believe that most contributors are tyring to generate a fair presentation of the arguments, but with kilobytes and kilobytes of argumentation to wade through, it will take time.  GRBerry 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure trying to keep my arguments to the facts. OTOH, if there are more arguments one way than the other, it is not the presentation that's unbalanced. Jay Maynard 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, every user who responded to your suggestion that arguments should be deleted disagreed with you. So why did you go ahead and delete a bunch of arguments without discussing it here?  One of them even included an explicit comment telling you personally not to delete it again.  (I don't know who originally added that comment.) GRBerry 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was me. I got really frustrated at Tony's repeated deletion of what I believed to be an honest argument (and others have agreed). Jay Maynard 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have extensively used the "some commentators, some admins, some XXX, ..." formulation in building. In an article, this could be seen as using weasel-wording. I used it because 1) I don't want to drag personalities into the summary of the discussion and 2) not doing so in certain points could be seen as a personal attack. If anyone has a better solution, please use it. GRBerry 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that those "some have argued" locutions are acceptable in this case. I also think we're making progress towards a reasonably complete and neutral presentation of the arguments involved.  I hope I'm not the only one finding the process quite educational. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote-stacking
I'm troubled by this sub-section. We don't have any examples presented yet where a userbox in template space was used for votestacking. We have specific paths for doing vote-stacking. The latter, at least, runs against he guidance in WP:BEANS. The first bit might also. But this is an argument that has been used repeatedly, so we can't just remove it. If we attempt to replace with a summary that doesn't run afoul of that guidance, this is what I'd suggest. "It has been argued that userboxes enable vote-stacking. However, those making this argument have been unable to back it up with examples where userboxes were the enabling tool.   It is at most a rare problem that can be handled using the tools that are used to handle vote-stacking when other means enable the misbehaviour." Do others feel the WP:BEANS rationale is reason to remove it? If so, what summary should replace it? GRBerry 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like your sentence "It is at most a rare problem that can be handled using the tools that are used to handle vote-stacking when other means enable the misbehaviour," because it doesn't seem very neutral to me. If it were hedged with something like "Thus, some argue that...," I would be more ok with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "It has been argued that userboxes enable vote-stacking. However, those making this argument have been unable to back it up with examples where userboxes were the enabling tool. Thus, some argue that the tools used to handle vote-stacking enabled by other means are adequate to handle the use of userboxes for vote-stacking."  GRBerry 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (WP:BEANS) I don't think that this section says anything that isn't obvious, except that whatlinkshere can be used for vote-stacking (which should be part of the justification for any policy resulting from this discussion). I would have no objection to trimming down to "userboxes can be used for vote-stacking; votestacking by other means is just as easy" unless someone disagrees with that; if someone does, we must keep the argument. Septentrionalis 22:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Until I see examples where userboxes were actually used for vote-stacking, I think that we need to leave in the summary the fact that we haven't seen any examples yet. GRBerry 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus moved one of the arguments in this section under a sub-heading entitled "Does anyone care about this argument?". I introduced it in the talk days ago and added it to the summary. I don't know who elaborated or added the sub-point. I'm proposing here that we should shrink this section as if conflicts with WP:BEANS. So I'd be quite willing to see it go, but since I'm not the only contributor to that argument, I'm going to leave it up a while longer to provide opportunity for others to disagree. GRBerry 10:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the reply to it, basically suggesting that it's a red herring. The existence of potentially biased and problematic Wiki-projects really has no bearing on userboxes, I think.  I suggest the argument be removed unless someone has something to say for it. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll
I propose that we create a straw poll with questions on each of the issues in order to show what people engaged in this debate believe and to aid in forming a compromise. Hopefully we would be able to find areas that the consensus agrees upon and conclude this debate. I am creating some questions to be transfered to T1 and T2 debates/Straw poll on my sandbox, any constructive additions are welcomed. —David618 t 01:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While this might be a good idea eventually, the editing of the refactored summary is still moving quite a bit. I'd suggeest waiting until it stabilizes before starting that.  GRBerry 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Does anyone else think it seems a bit early to be polling? I mean, what are we getting out of this debate summary we've been working on?  It's certainly kept a few of us busy for a while - are we understanding each other any better than before?  Has there been a point to this exercise?  Thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This page has only demonstrated how far removed the userbox proponents are from reality. There is no need for a poll.  T1 is in operation and is successfully cleansing the wiki and returning this website to its primary function as an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are definate differences that are clear without a poll but I would like to see a range of different issues. Hopefully there would be at least something to start compromising on. I resent Tony's comment about being removed from reality—I however will not take cheap shots at you. I do not expect any consensus to be reached by this. A poll would merely be a guide to finding a resolution hopefully in the future. —David618 t 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All we're going to determine is how many pro- and anti- userbox people are still bothering to pay attention. What has that got to do with consensus, policy, common sense, or anything else? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The people still paying attention are the strongest supports of both sides. At least we will be able to tell on what areas we can compromise on.
 * As a point of clearification: I intended that the poll would have more indepth questions than "do you support T2." I would like it to have pretty much everything that is being discussed that is related to this issue. —David618 t 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really wish I could come up with some way to say what "T1...is successfully cleansing the wiki" conjures up in my mind without resorting to blatantly offensive historical references. Jay Maynard 04:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I decided to stop short of making direct comments on that in my reply. I just suggest to Tony that he take a step back and calm down. —David618 t 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Butchering contest
I don't think we can use this "summary" technique very well because if I go away for a day I come back to find a rather large amount of opinion expressed as fact, some facts weaseled away as marginal opinion, and so on. This is a kind of butchering contest. Initially suggested as a way of summarising the repetitive debate then going on, it has been removed to a separate page and increasingly marginal opinions have been added and elaborated. This isn't helpful. I don't see any point in this. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What were you hoping for, or imagining it would be like? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention was to reduce the extreme repetition involved in the original debate. It was getting monotonous to see the same arguments trotted out and to shoot them down day after day. This endless piling on of silly quibbles and, in particular, the attempts to weasel away the clear pronouncements of Jimbo and the arbitration committee on this issue, are not helpful. --Tony Sidaway


 * Tony, with all do resepect, you assume what Jimbo meant. In fact, Jimbo specifically stated that he did not want mass deletions (I could find the quote if you want). People's opinions have the right to be expressed—do not merely dismiss them as "silly quibbles." —David618 t 02:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ArbCom don't make policy, at least not under such dispute. Jimbo does, but has chosen not to, preferring consensus, for which there is none yet. You keep trotting out these same arguments, and it's getting monotonous to shoot them down day after day. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take that pair of replies as a "no, we're not any closer to understanding each other" then? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but I still believe in a poll. —David618 t 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually pretty happy with the summary, and encourage Tony to work with the structure he started, rather than complaining when the arguments speak against him. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it at least serves one purpose. If you don't feel like repeating an argument, you can just hand someone a link, and let them get sick of it for themselves. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You weren't shooting down arguments. You were declaring them "silly" or "trolling" and deleting them. If anyone's walking around here with a bloody cleaver in his hand, it's you. Jay Maynard 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Careful Jay, you're starting to sound just like him. You know what they say about pigs and mud? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get me started on Tony. I just hope he will eventually come to realize that there are other people working on this project who care deeply about its success, and who disagree with him honestly and intelligently.  Until then, this process is just treading water.  --70.218.3.206 05:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I share that hope, but I don't blame Tony. If you're not used to seeing things from other people's perspective, it's hard. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really hate being called a troll when I'm making serious arguments. To me, trolls are the scourge of the Internet, and disrupt what it's all about: communication. Jay Maynard 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for feeling that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the summary page is working. It's much shorter than the vast discussions, as it allows editing in place. I do think though that many people are starting from the wrong end. The idea is not to try and work out what current policy is, but to make a new policy which works for Wikipedia. This is why I added a Risks section - which I'm going to change to Consequences. Once we agree on our aims, we can start to talk about implementation - not the other way round. Stephen B Streater 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another major advantage of the summary format is makes a version of the the discussion from which personalities have been subtracted. While Tony is the strong deletionist most active in building the summary, he is a representative of a faction that is larger than just him, and we wouldn't be able to accurately reflect the discussion without either him or some other representative of that faction. But Tony, your contributions would be more valuable if you improved the deletionist arguments than if you deleted other arguments. I've gone and found examples for a couple of them because the originally offered examples were off point - as you have been part of the process and discussion far longer then me, you probably would have an easier time finding good examples. But please check what the example actually shows before adding it - the vote-stacking argument is in my mind pretty much defeated by the quality of support examples that have been offered to date, and it is the argument I was most prepared to treat as a major problem in need of speedy deletion as a solution. GRBerry 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, how is this a contribution to this summary? This edit severely distorted the argument against your position - and you even marked it as minor, which it is anything but. Why did you delete arguments in this edit or this pair instead of responding to them?

Edits such as this one are improvements to the summary and I encourage you to make this type of edit in the future. GRBerry 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This has degenerated into personal attacks and denigration, alongside the most appalling attempt to weasel away the clear statements of Jimbo and the arbitration committee and the repeated endorsement by the community of a broad interpretation of T1. I don't thnk it would be productive to involve myself further. I shall content myself with putting a "disputed" tag on the summary, from which most of the factual evidence has been repeatedly removed. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Tony has made a major concession by adding the word neutral to the potential benefits section. What he is implicitely saying is that he will accept neutral user boxes. Anyone can add back in non-neutral (and hence controversial) user boxes as additional potential benefit as something which may help to build community, if that is what they believe. Stephen B Streater 17:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You think Tony's made a concession? He's just saying what we've said all along - statements of expertise and interest are fine, but statements of opinion or belief can't be on templates. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. We've had babel boxes for ages and nobody tries to delete them. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict, response to Tony.]] If Tony is leaving then we should find a strong deletionist that can replace him. I don't know who would be a good replacement contributor.  GRBerry 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope Tony hangs around, but there is no consensus for strong deletionism. However there are very real risks to a free-for-all. I haven't been around long enough to know all the history, but it seems to me that whatever the consensus is now, we should adopt a policy which shapes Wikipedia development in a positive and constructive way. The consensus of newer users, I expect, will be to have more fun and less work, but this is a slippery slope as it will attract ever less diligent people to WP. We should be biasing our intake towards users who will contribute positively to the encyclopaedia, even if this lags behind current membership. One reason that the deletionists are claimed to be a clique of admins is that they have been around longer and are not representative of current members. The writing is on the wall. Stephen B Streater 17:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect I speak for Tony and myself when I say you're painting a very unrealistic picture. "We should adopt a policy?"  Who do you think "we" is?  You think if a bunch of users get together and agree on a policy, that makes it so?  What makes you think users get input into whether or not they get to use template space for political networking?  People will always vote themselves more entitlements, no matter what the cost; that doesn't affect the reality of Wikipedia policy.  The only writing on the wall is that ideological userboxes are not allowed in template space. (See, I can talk like a "strong deletionist" too.) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not as simple as this. In future, there will be MSopedia, Googlepedia, Myspaceopedia, BBCopaedia etc. If we take the easy options and ignore users - dictat from above (which seems to be your rather poor deletionist argument) - Wikipedia will soon become a historical backwater with irrelevant out of date articles. The Netscape of on-line encyclopaedias. So Wikipedia will gain a phyrric victory. The way to thrive not to reject the future, nor to accept the future - it is to shape the future. Stephen B Streater 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Accepting a dictate from above is not my main deletionist argument, it's the third or fourth in importance. It also happens to be the most irrefutable one, because Jimbo has been clear, and there's no way around that.  I don't believe that we're about to see a proliferation of 'pedias; that's a vision I don't buy.  I think Wikipedia is shaping the future, right now, and it's vital that we do it without falling victim to partisanism.  We can't be an encyclopedia and a political networking site. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you have better arguments for deletionism. As for Xopedia, I'd like you to look at how many leading internet establishments ten years ago are leaders today. And if WP is not the leader, who will fund it? The question is how to achieve success without alienating bystanders. This is where Tony's subtlety is a problem. Stephen B Streater 19:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo has been clear that he is not in favor of belief oriented userboxes but he has also made it clear that he does not want a mass deletion like some deletionist have been doing. —David618 t 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there had been a "mass deletion", they'd all be gone. We've beed doing one and two at a time; but some people won't be happy until we decide that we don't care about policy and stop deleting them entirely. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Reply to GRBerry, above) I doubt we'll get another strong deletionist in here to replace Tony. I think his actions show that he considers the broadest possible interpretation of T1 to be a done deal, and no argument against it will stand, no matter how strong. Else, why delete them, or call them "silly" or "trolling"? I think his view is the view of the admin community, and so we'll see userboxes go away, period - followed shortly by their equivalents in user-coded Wikicode, plain HTML, or just plain text. No matter what anyone else thinks, and no matter how much consensus that the approach being taken is wrong, that's what we'll see. My userpage is the coming Wikipedia standard. Get used to it. Jay Maynard 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stopping the Use of T1
Although I am in favor of T1, I believe we should stop its implementation until this debate is resolved. Some admins are currently going on deletion sprees and have all but stated that they will use T1 to delete all the userboxes being discussed currently. If they are not stopped now, then irreperable harm may be done to groups of userboxes that have not been proven to be under T1. —David618 t 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's simply incorrect to talk of deletion sprees. There is now a very large body of reviewed deletions demonstrating that T1 is used responsibly and appropriately to delete unacceptable templates. If a userbox is deleted wrongly under "T1" then it can be undeleted on review. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "All but"? Let's state it outright then: We're going to use T1 to delete all the userboxes being discussed currently.  What part of "Template space is not for that" don't you understand? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:JOU:
 * There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has said that he is not infavor of mass deletion. —David618 t 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And then, 3 months later he said, "Template space is not for that". You didn't answer my question - what is unclear about that?.  It has, incidentally, been suggested that the pedophilia userbox affair changed the lay of the land somewhat, and Jimbo's altered tone is evidence of this.  Furthermore, I don't see how deleting userboxes one and two at a time, and suffering them to be brought back to DRV so we can explain everything over and over again, counts as a "mass deletion".  A mass deletion looks like: you log on one morning, and they're all gone.  That hasn't happened.  We've been bending over backwards to explain what's going on in lurid detail at every single step.  What on Earth do you want? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you admit you are actually disregarding the fact that he said that noone should go on deletion sprees, such as have happened in the past few weeks. Mass deletion was what was happening at TfD, and at DRVU and using speedies under the hastily constructed T2. You cannot say that you are bending over backwards to keep the community together. You are simply pointing out that a group of admins have taken it upon themselves to choose a process that includes walled gardens and even when there is clear consensus, reversion to calling for a speedy close of a discussion is always available. It is also quite convienient to take out four of my responses from the main page as if they simply dont count. Not satisfied.... Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "disregarding," no. I think you asked the wrong deletionist that question.  Now let's look at what Jimbo said, and what happened:
 * February:At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist.
 * There, about 3 months ago, he asked us not to go on any deletion sprees, at least for a little bit. He had already expressed his expectation that we shift away from ideological userboxes.  Then what happened?  Did we all chill out?  No, someone decided to say "Fuck you Jimbo and Wikipedia" by pushing the envelope and making the most offensive userbox they could, to prove a juvenile point, or just to troll.  "User pedophile" or whatever was a roaring success, and then we reflected on it as a community all through March and April.  Then someone finally decided it was time to actually make the situation move instead of sit in a stalemate that means the userboxes get more entrenched.  That's obviously a stupid state to remain in if you think they should go, so we're finally getting something done.  In the midst of that work, after we deleting a hundred or so userboxes in like four weeks - a pretty leisurely "spree" - Jimbo talks again, replying to someone complaining about "User Green Energy" up at DRV.  He says:
 * May The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.
 * You don't read that as an endorsement of the deletion of that box? You read what he wrote two days ago, and really believe that he's still thinking - "we just need to chill, and not go on any sprees right now."  Do you think the guy lives in a cave?  Note how he made a contrast in that statement, let me highlight it for you: on the one hand regarding User space, "melely use reason and argument to teach, etc.";  on the other hand regarding template space, "template namespace is not for that, . . . we do not endorse this behavior."  Did he say, let's use reason to convince people to move them out of template space on their own time, meanwhile letting them get more and more into the habit of using template space?  No, first we get them out of template space, then we use reason to show that they shouldn't be here AT ALL.
 * So, fully regarding all of Jimbos statements, in context, I would still say what I said above. I also have no idea how you can have a walled garden on a open Wiki - are the pro-userbox people's watchlists broken?  I admit that every discussion here is biased towards those who are paying attention, but... c'mon, yours is the side with the group notification tools! -GTBacchus(talk) 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you consider that that is evidence against userboxes being used to stack votes. —David618 t 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever, it's certainly evidence against the "walled garden" theory. If there's one thing I've learned from this summary, it's that userboxes have to go, entirely independently of whether or not we have examples of their being used directly for vote-stacking, which is a stupid thing to look for, when they're category linked anyway.  The fact remains that userbox people are the same people who think that vote-stacking is just groovy, proving everything we've been saying about the problem being a misunderstanding of Wikipedia culture.  Ideological userboxes and vote-stacking are just two symptoms of an attitude that Wikipedia is a place to engage in politics.  It isn't, and we're paying now for not making that clearer sooner. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that vote-stacking was "just groovy"? I didn't, and don't, believe that it's related to userboxes, nor do I believe that getting rid of userboxes will do a thing to stop it, and I do think that the emphasis on it is misplaced given the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I don't think it's fundamentally good. As for Wikipedia being a place to engage in politics, this entire debate is political: the userbox wars are themselves a form of Wikipedia politics. Jay Maynard 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not happy that someone pushed the boundaries. I personally have made no actions in this at all. I have merely tried to work through arguments. Having Tony go through and call a large set of arguments mostly put down by me, as silly and old is hardly the treatment that anyone deserves. The deleted arguments have been stated before on the verbose conversational style pages, why should someone be able to delete them saying that they are just silly. I have tried my hardest to respect all of the arguments put forward by others, putting evidence up for them, all we get is someone going along calling them silly or taking evidence down because it doesn't suit them (that wasn't you obviously).  Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll note I haven't made any actions either, except for giving opinions at DRV. You may also note that I've complained about Tony's removal of arguments, and suggested to him that he's not bringing a quicker end to the controversy by alienating people when he could go ahead and be respectful instead.  I think he's prolonging the drama by making it so damned easy and appealing to be against him and associating the anti-userbox side with arrogance, boorishness and complete lack of diplomacy.  Apparently he can't be bothered to care about that, so I'm just trying to work around his attitude.  I'd very much appreciate your not confusing me with him - I actually have been bending over backwards to build consensus here, which I'm sure Tony considers a big waste of my time. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have, and if it weren't for your effort, I would have been out of here a long time ago. Jay Maynard 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unsuitable templates are being happily removed, one and two at a time. Nobody is engaged in mass deletion. There is no need for hasty and precipitate action; what matters is that we get to the destination, not how quickly we get there. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The more you say that, the more determined you make everyone else to hold out. This wouldn't be an issue if it hadn't been made into one on a certain day in early January.  Rogue 9 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all I am unclear to what "that" refers to but I'll assume it means userboxes stating beliefs. It is clear to me that while Jimbo does not support userboxes he is in favor of a gradual change rather than a mass deletion. We of course dissagree on what a mass deletion is. My interpretation of the phrase does not neccissarily mean deleting all of them over night.
 * T1 does not apply to userboxes that contain beliefs. Stating one believes in something is not neccissarily inflammatory. Though I should assume good faith, some comments have made me uneasy with deletions being justified under T1 until we determin how broadly it can be read. —David618 t 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Be assured that the outcome of review after review is that T1 most certainly does refer to userboxes containing beliefs. They are inherently divisive.  Divisive userboxes can be speedy deleted; this has been endorsed scores of times. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they are not inherently divisive. Let me say that again.  There is nothing divisive about me being told that another user is a Democrat, a Communist, an anarchist, or whatever.  I don't care about that, not on Wikipedia.  If a person can contribute in a positive manner, he can be a goddamned space alien for all I care about his activities here, and I would be greatly surprised if that was different for very many other people.  Someone who automatically hates another person because of a little box saying he disagrees with you on some minor point is going to be a problem regardless, because someone so easily offended will get offended and cause a fuss with or without userboxes.  Rogue 9 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with a speedy is that most editors can't see what the offending box was at the DRV and there is no debate to go on. So DRV is a bit limited. I did get involved in one, but it's hard to form a proper judgement in these circumstances. Stephen B Streater 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. For most of the time that we have been reviewing T1 deletions, some helpful person has reproduced the userbox code at the head of the debate.  It doesn't seem to have had any effect on the end result.  Deletion of crap tends to be endorsed even more strongly if the crap can be seen in all its ugliness. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't happen in my case. Perhaps you could oblige with the green energy one. If it is divisive, I'll change my opinion. Stephen B Streater 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is appropriate to show the userbox being discussed. —David618 t 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The more upsetting aspect of the ongoing deletions of userboxes is that TFD consensus is often ignored, and DRV consensus is often short-circuited because the discussion is closed prematurely. I'm not sure why one would insist that these are not mass deletions. Mass murder can occur over an extended period, and so can mass deletions of userboxes. The fact that administrators are ignoring policy, failing to learn from the mistakes of others (KM?), and continuing to plug away at userboxes is a sign that they are not paying attention to the needs of the community. It does seem that the debate has changed recently - because it is clear that there is a faction bent on deletion that is not concerned with process, policy, consensus or civility. --Godwhacker 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith, Godwhacker. It's pretty clear to anyone familiar with this debate that those deleting userboxes are concerned with policy, though they may have different ideas than you about what policy is. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do realise that these admins' actions are based on what they feel is best for the cummunity but I do find it disconcerting that they are continuing deletions even though large parts of the community have problems with either what they are doing or the ends they wish to achieve. —David618 t 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (Assume good faith). Rfrisbietalk 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did say "please", didn't I? If you want to "conclude" bad faith, I guess I can't stop you.  I have no doubt of the good faith behind the userbox deletions, regardless of how they're carried out.  It's possible to do something a large part of the community has problems with, and still be doing the right thing.  It happens all the time.  David "finds it disconcerting", ok.  I find a lot of things about this controversy disconcerting; none of that changes my mind about userboxes though. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

discriminatory application of T2?
It doesn't seem to me like we have reached a decision yet to apply T2, that is, deleting all templates of the type user_worldview. Whatever this decision will be, it seems highly undesireable to me that different measures should be applied to the templates of users with different worldviews. In the present case, the template:user atheist (talk), which said "this user is an atheist", has been redirected to "template:user atheism" ("template_talk:user_atheism|talk"), which says "this user is interested in atheism". While it may not be intended as such, I regard this action as discriminatory against non-religious users, as long as templates as template:user_christian are not treated the same. -- 790 10:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also, being an atheist is not the same as being interested in atheism. Stephen B Streater 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Being an X" and "Being interested in X" are not the same, and anyone who thinks that one is a good substitute for the other should be asked to think again. Given the trend, that template:user_christian survived a speedy deletion, deletion review, and TfD discussion is only a temporary state.  In part this outcome may have been due to the particularly egregious way this one was handled prior to deletion.  The discrimination argument was raised in the TfD discussion - in comparison to template:user_satanist.
 * I see two possible outcomes for this overall process. The first is that we find some compromise that preserves templates .  The second is that Jimbo imposes a no-tolerance policy and subsequently we go on a mass deletion spree.  I happen to think that the former is better for Wikipedia, so encourage you to participate in the various discussions that search for a compromise, keeping in mind what the alternative to compromise is.  GRBerry 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviewing what I wrote above, I'm appalled at myself. I'd meant to write userboxes, but wrote templates.  I intended to say that a compromise that had non-template userboxes was a possible outcome.  GRBerry 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, based on Jimbo's recent comments, something like the German solution may finally get through. --StuffOfInterest 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite familiar with the formalisms on en.WP... can't we have just have a poll on T2? -- 790 14:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately as the community is fairly evenly split regarding userboxes it has been impossible for months to get any sort of policy established via concensus votes. Because of this T1 was only brought in by dictate of Jimbo.  An attempt to expand the scope of T1 created enough of an uproar that it had to be split off into T2.  After that the debate on T2 bogged down to the point that there is no way for it to gain a concensus.  Now a few admins are going around acting as if T2 is set policy any anyone who counteracts their actions will be accused of wheel warring.  All in all, it is a grand mess. --StuffOfInterest 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 790, regarding the "formalisms" here, Power structure is a good read. StuffOfInterest's description is one way of looking at it.  Someone else might tell you that T1 was introduced as policy in February and has enjoyed broad support with a broad reading, but that a small but vocal minority of users remains in denial of this fact.  A third person might tell you that the vast majority of Wikipedians don't give a whit about userboxes one way or the other, and that you've stumbled upon the part of the site where we go to get our daily dose of drama.  The truth, as usual, is some kind of weighted average, and then we start arguing over the weights... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but could you plesae point me towards the polls and/or discussions which has established this "broad support". Every poll I've seen that has anything to do with userboxes which has had more than a handfull of votes ended up on a roughly 60-40 split.  Sometimes it comes down on one side and sometimes on the other.  It never goes far enough to establish any sort of concensus.  This is sort of like calling 51% a "strong mandate" (for a slight political joke). --StuffOfInterest 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * StuffOfInterest, I don't really consider those polls meaningful. Think about it: what happens when you put a poll up about a contentious issue at a place like Wikipedia?  The vast, vast majority of Wikipedians don't know about it, or ignore it.  Participation is entirely self-selective, and since it's open to see, a lot of people choose whether or not to participate based largely on what the current tally is when they see it.  If they side they like less doesn't seem to be in danger of "winning" a lot of people just walk on by, maybe watchlisting it, maybe not.  Try to see it through Tony Sidaway's eyes: most experienced Wikipedians don't mess around with it because they don't consider it a threat.  They know wikipedia isn't democracy or mob rule, and no number of signatures on a petition is going to undermine our fundamental policies.  Just imagine that you think that way, and try to see how I'm able to say, "someone else might tell you...., etc."  I don't agree with Tony Sidaway's about everything, but I'm certainly aware of some very experienced, very well-respected Wikipedians who consider this whole mess a tempest in a teacup that will pass with time, and the userbox fad nonsense will hardly be remembered.  Those polls are almost guaranteed to come out around 60/40, because if it drifts very far from that, more people will show up on whichever side to balance it out.  It means absolutely nothing. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You (and the related comments I've seen) have convinced me to opt out of the myth of consensus building. Rfrisbietalk 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No meaningfull poll will end with complete consensus, and while I admit that there is such a mechanism as described by GTBacchus, I don't see why it should make the poll worthless altogether... And as I reckon that most Wikpedians do believe in democracy, I'm pretty sure even a 51%-ruling will get enough acceptance to make it work. All in all, it seems to me that this way of dealing with disputed policies is by far more satisfying than the alternative: asking our beloved founder to impose a ruling on us... So why don't we set up a simple poll: (A) all user_worldview, and equivalent, templates are to be deleted without further notice; (B) user_worldview templates are not to be deleted unless they are found to be inflamatory per T1 -- 790 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict - response to GTBacchus] I think this is (to tweak the analogy) "a fire that will burn out in time." I also think the approach some people are taking is the effective equivalent of throwing cans of gasoline on the fire - it is explosive and doesn't help put the fire out quickly.  I'd prefer a smother it in sand approach to cutting a massive firebreak.  But whether we smother it in sand or cut a massive firebreak, we also need to make sure the fire doesn't restart later when new fuel is added.  That last will take formation of a clearly communicated, unambiguous, accepted policy.  For the purpose of putitng out the fire, it almost doesn't matter what the policy is.  For the success of Wikipedia, it does matter what the policy is.  GRBerry 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 790's original post. We can't apply T1 some some "user worldview" templates and not to others, or else we're taking a stance on which worldviews are acceptable for wikipedians to hold and announce via template, which makes a mockery of the idea that our purpose is to write an encyclopedia. We're not here to pass judgement on different worldviews; we're here to research and write articles, right? The only solution I've seen suggested for this problem is to let the community decide by consensus which worldviews are divisive and inflammatory and which ones aren't. That sounds to me like a shitstorm ten times the size of the current one, when we could cut through the Gordian knot real quick by just sticking with no "user worldview" templates. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this wouldn't be an easy way to deal with things... but it would still be preferable to the current limbo -- 790 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict - response to GTBacchus] I'd disagree - most of the proposed policies (I haven't read them all) on this subject wouldn't leave T1 in place as written. They either make it more explicit (broadly or narrowly) or overturn it.  Almost any of the policy proposals is better than the current state of affairs.  GRBerry 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

T3?
I've seen multiple references to a T3 in the deletion review debates. I don't recollect seeing anything about it on the talk for CSD. What is it and should we include it? GRBerry 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * T3 (according to some deletionist admins) = all POV templates. Only babel should survive. Maybe. Has not consensus but is happily used under the guise of T1 (see Deletion review. CharonX talk   Userboxes  02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we take arguments from related discussions?
The first major spree of building this was to take all the arguments that appeared in the CSD Talk page in May. I think we have/had all of those arguments included by now. Do we want to go through all of the various related policy discussions and find other pertinent arguments? I think it would at least be worth going over them to see if any of the arguments are more effectively made elsewhere, because we want to see all of the arguments in their "Sunday best". I've just noted some better written versions at Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal. I suspect they are in better form there because there was less feeling of urgency in a proposed policy context than in the speedy deletion context. GRBerry 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, wherever we can get them from, as long as it seems helpful. Whatever else you may find, there's still the "No way to apply T1 consistently without T2" argument, and there's the realization that, at some point, we're dealing with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia is.  We haven't presented either of those yet, not to mention the elephant, which I'm still trying to figure out how to bring up. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The consistency argument does need to be made. My take on consistency is that we need to make T1 less ambiguous - and that it is logically possible to make it less ambiguous on either a broad or narrow interpretation.  We are dealing with conflicting visions, and I think the arguments referencing education are, at least in part, attempting to say that an educational process is the best way of resolving the vision conflict.  I'll admit to not knowing what "the elephant" is.  GRBerry 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe "the elephant" argument would refer to the story of the Blind Men and an Elephant. In other words, people looking at the exact same issue and coming up with vastly different interpetations. If not that, then I would like to request GTBacchus expand on what he means there.--tjstrf 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not that elephant. I'm referring to... y'know when there's an elephant in the room, but nobody wants to mention it, so they talk about everything but the elephant in the room, but it's making people nervous, so they're kind of alluding to it, and it's obviously not going away, but nobody's willing to just say "HEY, WHAT ABOUT THE FREAKING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?" so they just get even more perturbed about whatever smoke and mirrors distraction they're talking about - y'know how that is? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still guessing pretty blindly, but are you referring to No angry mastodons? And if you aren't should we introduce an argument based around that?  GRBerry 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Goodness no, I'm not talking about that. I'm working on a section to explain myself, please give me a few minutes.  Now, do you mean an anti-deletion argument, that there's no urgency necessitating speedy deletions as opposed to AfD?  Yeah, isn't there already a section that could go under?  This one?  I guess that could link to WP:NAM.  It's a pretty meaningless argument though, to someone who thinks that userboxes are doing active damage to Wikipedia, because then there is an urgency.
 * There's a thought - looking through the arguments and trying to pick out which ones carry any weight from the other side's perspective. Trying to work that that out is a good exercise.
 * Anyway, re-reading about it, I guess No Angry Mastadons is more about one's personal comportment than about actions on the Wiki such as deletions. In that sense, it can't really hurt to remind everyone of the dangers of typing under the influence of anger. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Elephant in the room would be here. Rfrisbietalk 03:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It turns out that by "a few minutes," I mean probably overnight. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and imported some of the arguments from Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal. There are probably more arguments that have better form there, but I didn't spot them quickly.  And I'm sure there are more elsewhere.  (Amusingly, most of the ones I took are from regulars on building this summary.)  GRBerry 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (originally re GTBacchus's T1 v T2 comment, but it wandered a bit!
 * I've never found any problem in differentiating T1 and T2. I regarded T1 as the template equilavent of an attack page, and T2 more like WP:NOT, which, while it needs to be addressed, does not need to be speedied to do so. The acid test for me is to ask whether or not the content would be acceptable if subst'd on a user page, if not, it's a T1 Speedy, if it would be acceptable, it shouldn't be speedied, but still should be moved to userspace.


 * The problem I see with having "T2 style" userboxes in template space is that having them there, and on offical wikipedia pages, is that gives new users that sides must be chosen, or at least that they matter. Take the comparision if you went to a offical "Blah inc" meeting, there's a big difference between having people there with personal badges, than if there was a table inside the door with "Blah inc" badges with a list of groups you could be in. The former is personalisaton, the latter much more divisive. I also disagree that displaying bias is necessary, I think that bias is either not majorly relavent, or if it is, it's obvious without it being displayed on the userpage.


 * The problem with this current situation is that several cornerstones of wikipedia are in temporary conflict. Wikipedia is first and foremost a enclyopledia, and that product is built by people following processes according to policy and consensus. I believe everyone is trying to get to the same place (a good product), we just have differing ideas about the best way to do so. Applying policy harshly can lead to lack of confidence in process and consenus, and people being disillusioned. On the other hand, following process literally may end up with a result that's against policy. Neither are good for wikipedia, without people there is no product, but without policy, the product is not wikipedia.


 * So, where does that leave us? I think there is a widespread misunderstanding of that WP is not, namely about it not being a web host or a soapbox. The main situation I see is the WP:USER guideline getting more and more stretched. Userpages are supposed to be user for enclyopedia work first, but personalisation is fine too, within reason - we're not all boring here, so they don't have to be bland! But, over time, the balance appears to have shifted, from focusing on wikipedia, to focusing on the personal web host aspect, with userboxes being one visible aspect of that. My impression is that the trend for new users seems be shifting from "wiki-editing first, and then set up a userpage" to "set up userpage first, and then wiki-edit", with some not even doing the second (and vital!) step, and, simply "setting up user page". I don't think anyone would think that's a good trend.


 * The problem with userboxes is that this trend is encouraged, and by having them in template space, it gives the impression of being offically sanctioned also. That is at odds with WP:NOT, and is what has led to the inconsistancy of processs gives different answers to policy. However, it's important to note that consensus is based on the assumption that the editors are working towards a solution in line with policy, and I'd also add that it has the assumption of a *reasonably* representive sample group (see clarification above) If either of these assumptions aren't valid, either because the arguments put forward conflict with policy, or if the consensus is skewed, you'll end up with a result according to consensus that isn't valid according to policy.


 * When there are large group of people involved, I don't think a quick fix is possible, which is why I'm against the speedy part of the T2 deletion. Changes to the status quo can't be abrupt without annoying many people, which I why I think mass speedy deletions are out. I think it would less better to first focus on stopping creation and proliferation before tackling any reduction, one possiblity would be to re-enforce Jimbo's statement at Userboxes/Beliefs. If use is to be discouraged, should not the first thing be to stop new users using them, before persuading existing people to remove ones? I can see those unfamiliar saying "discouraged? then why give a list?" and using them regardless. Should we not remove the list as a starting point? Likewise for any "T2 type" templates, surely the first step is to remove the code from the offical pages to stop use and creation and then let them reduce in use over time before subst'd/deleting the template. Would that not be less hassle in the long run than trying to push through deletes when they are at their height of usage?


 * Anyway, Just a few thoughts, Regards, MartinRe 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The German solution
This is the musing that just might inspire the development of what has been called "The German solution" to finally end the userbox wars.


 * May 27, 2006 The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.

Here is a partial list of discussions before and since that might be used to help formulate this solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbietalk 23:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:May Userbox policy poll
 * Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll
 * Userbox policy poll
 * Userfying userboxes
 * Wikipedia talk:Userboxes
 * Wikipedia talk:Userboxes
 * Wikipedia talk:Userboxes
 * Wikipedia talk:May Userbox policy poll
 * User:Userboxes
 * User:Boxes


 * Created The German solution, go ahead and improve as you see fit... &mdash;Ashley Y 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mumble. This still seems to me to be not very much of a compromise...but, OTOH, if the existing userbox directory pages will be maintained and simply updated to point to the userboxes in user space, and the admins who have been deleting userboxes whenever they get half an excuse will not do so if the userbox in question is in user space (except for things that are obviously against some other policy - I'm not proposing to waive Wikipedia policy entirely for userboxes, and never have), then it might work. Without either of these two conditions, however, it's not a compromise - it's a total capitulation. Jay Maynard 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It works like this: All "non-standard" (i.e. almost all except Babel boxes) are migrated into userspace. Either a central repository is created or (more likely) individual users adopt them in their (to be created) userbox archive pages (which sould be interlinked). They still can be used like templates, just that they are in userspace now and outside the encyclopedic content. Standard Wiki policy apply (i.e. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc.) but besides that they only have to follow WP:USER - i.e. they are allowed to be POV or controversal, and are not subject to T1 (T2) speedy-deletion rules. Check my (small) repository to see how it looks like (too tired to expand it right now) CharonX talk   Userboxes  02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * unfortunately, I think that moving the said templates to userspace is a solution only in a "juristical" sense... if there was a pro-T2-decision, they could well stay in template space, if there was a contra-T2-decision, a move to user space wouldn't seem appropriate to me.-- 790 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Userfying userboxes Ashibaka tock 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This page has a list of German implementation features that may be useful as background for other proposals as well. Rfrisbietalk 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganize
This is the T1 and T2 debates. I think we should reorder the T1 and T2 debate summary section. Continue leading with events and Jimbo's views - they are great at the top. But arguments about the value of userboxes shouldn't come next, they should come last, because this debate is primarily about what T1 means, whether T2 is unstated policy, and what if anything should be speedily deleted under these criteria. I propose this section ordering:
 * 1) Events
 * 2) Jimbo's Views
 * 3) Arguments about the T1 and T2 criteria
 * 4) Arguments regarding recent deletions
 * 5) Alternatives to T1/T2
 * 6) Arguments as to the value of userboxes
 * 7) Potential consequences for Wikipedia

By the way, if I were to reword as "Potential consequences of ____ for Wikipedia", what goes in the blank? I don't know, and if the rest of us don't have the same obvious answer, this section should be dismantled and the content merged into Arguments as to the value of userboxes.

If I hear no objection in the next five hours, I'll probably implement this tonight. The time consuming bit will be fixing all the "above"/"below" references that get flipped. GRBerry 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, by tonight I clearly meant tomorrow night. But the reorganization is done, except for dismantling "Potential consequences".  Anyone want to do it?  GRBerry 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)