Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What's the point in even having this debate?

Enough administrators have made it clear that they are going to do whatever the heck they feel like regardless of policy.

Template:User Christian has been deleted out of process yet again, despite surviving every TFD and DRVU it has faced. IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN A WEEK since it survived the TFD process.

Yet, on the ensuing DRV, administrators User:Doc glasgow, User:Tony Sidaway, User:Phil Boswell, User:Sean Black, User:Metamagician3000, User:Jareth, and User:GTBacchus have all demonstrated that community consensus is irrelevant to them by endorsing a patently incorrect deletion. I find it incomprehensible that we are even having this discussion. You guys are just making up rules as we go along.

If you are going to refuse to enforce whatever actual policy is decided on and just delete anything you don't like out of process, why even bother pretending to go through the motions of getting a community consensus?

You guys weren't chosen as administrators in order that you enforce your own viewpoints. Might does not make right.

BigDT 05:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Community consensus is not "irrelevant", but if a group of users take it upon themselves to make it impossible to obtain a consensus to enforce policy for the good of Wikipedia, then I'm afraid policy trumps consensus. Otherwise we allow people to hijack Wikipedia for unencyclopeic uses by "voting" against policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying, in effect, is, "consensus is fine as long as it agrees with me." You are quite correct that policy trumps consensus, however, there is no applicable policy. T1 says "divisive and inflammatory". Nobody could possibly believe that there is anything inherently divisive and inflammatory about a simple statement, "this user is a Christian". That said, I don't question that it has become "divisive and inflammatory". But there's not a problem with the template itself - the problem is with the out of process deletions.

I've said it a couple of times before. I didn't come here to fight userbox wars. The reason I became involved is that I noticed an edit to my userpage (it was on my watchlist). I then saw the prior vandalism to the template by Cyde and others. Had that vandalism and subsequent out of process deletion not taken place, I never would have cared one way or another.

The "so what" of this is that you and other administrators are actually causing the very problem you are trying to solve. By taking actions against a consensus, by inventing non-existent policy or claiming that policy means something that it clearly does not, all you do is cause there to be more support for the pro-userbox side. BigDT 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppose something different were happening, that was against policy as you understand it. Suppose a group of people were preventing the implementation of something you thought was important? Would you just shrug it off, and say "oh well, since 50 of them showed up and said to hell with WP:NOT, I guess they win." Is that what you'd do? I don't really care what words T1 happens to be written in just now. The applicable policy is that Jimbo's made it clear that template space is not for advocacy or statements of personal belief.

Seriously, BigDT, what if you really believed that userboxes are actively harmful to Wikipedia: what would you do? How would you do it better? I'm all ears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has the power to decree thus sayeth the word of Jimbo, henceforth there shalt be no more userboxen. He has not and thus is it incorrect to procede as though he had. At any rate, with respect to T1, it is at most very questionable whether this userbox falls into that criterion. On the other hand, there are very clear and unambiguous policies laid out for TFD and DRV. There is a strong consensus (though not yet a firm policy with an exact implementation) against administrative wheel warring. From where I sit, there's no question whatsoever. If it is so clear, as you seem to think it is, that there is something inherently harmful about these things, why did Jimbo stop with T1? Why did he not decree once and for all that they are abolished? The fact is that he didn't and proceding as though he had is a violation of clear policies and consensus. BigDT 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't address my question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a try: If I believed they were harmful to Wikipedia, and repeated DRVs showed "keep" consensus, I wouldn't wheel war, or anything else. In the end, there's got to be someone who sets policy and has the power to make it stick. That someone has to step up to the plate and make a decision. I'd do everything in my power to get that decision made. I'm surprised that Jimbo has avoided doing so; it is his inaction that has resulted in this mess dragging out for as long as it has.

That said, I'll repeat what I said over in the DRV for Template:User Christian: Repeatedly deleting, in the face of repeated consensus for Keep and repeated undeletions on DRV, shows nothing but complete contempt for the user community. Is that really what you want to show us? Arguing that Jimbo supports repeatedly deleting in the face of consensus to keep is an argument that Jimbo shows complete contempt for the user community. Is that what you want to argue? Are you really willing to risk running off users because you're so insistent that you know better than they do? That's what it's coming down to. Jay Maynard 11:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, hi. When you say "I wouldn't wheel war, or anything else," I don't quite know what to make of "or anything else". Does that mean you would remain completely inert, you wouldn't try to convince people to change their way of thinking, you wouldn't continue to voice your opinion in deletion discussions?

Regardless of what you meant there, you're suggesting that you'd take it to Jimbo. Duly noted. You're wrong about "nothing but complete contempt for the user community". I think we're squarely in a realm where broad categorical statements like that are not to be trusted. You're failing to appreciate the deletionist perspective. There is a considerable segment of the community that is troubled by userboxes, and perfectly happy for them to go away. A hard-line userbox policy shows respect for and solidarity with that part of the community. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was imprecise. By "or anything else", I wouldn't take any actions that would fan the flames, such as speedily deleting any userbox that wasn't blatantly over the line. If it would cause further controversy, then I wouldn't do it until the dust settled. The controversy is far worse than even the most inflammatory userbox. No, I wouldn't be inert, and no, I wouldn't keep my mouth shut - but I wouldn't damage my own credibility by taking action in violation of a repeatedly expressed consensus. That is why i don't trust Tony or Cyde any farther than I can throw my Lexus.

It is not the hard-line userbox policy itself that shows complete contempt for the community. It's the repeated deletion of a userbox for which the community has repeatedly shown a consensus opinion that it be kept. To delete it in the face of such a repeated consensus spits in the eye of the community, and says that the admin doing the deleting doesn't care about consensus. That is contempt. In the face of actions like that, is it any wonder people are driven to expressions such as mine? Jay Maynard 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing by your question is a system where any administrator can take any action because he thinks it is right, regardless of any consensus otherwise. That's the whole problem here. This is a wheel war (albeit a very slow one). One administrator deletes the userbox. Another restores it. Another deletes it. That's a wheel war. So what you're asking me is, if I thought something should be done, would I wheel war to impose my will? No. That's not an appropriate use of administrative tools. BigDT 12:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, BigDT, I wasn't proposing anything by the question; it was an honest question. I want to know what you would do, not what you wouldn't do. I don't know what you think I'm doing, but I haven't touched a wheel this whole time. Tell me what you think I should do, if I really believe that userboxes are actively hurting Wikipedia. Jmaynard gave an answer; what's yours? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If I believed that, (and to a great extent I do) then I would seek community consensus on the issue. Not attempt to force the issue by going around the community and hope no one notices. Sincere belief is present on both sides of this issue as with any other, and sincerity definitely does not make you right. Suicide bombers are among the most sincere people I can think of. Does that make them right? If the communithy disagrees with you, you must live with it. If the community is in contention, you must not subvert the debate. --tjstrf 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I implied that you personally were wheel warring. I did not intend to. The administrators who have deleted/undeleted it are, IMO, engaging in a wheel war. As for an answer to your question, what I would do in this case is essentially what the current WP:NWW proposal says, which is an interpretation of WP:WHEEL. "If you think something is a good idea, do it. If people disagree, take a step back and discuss it." At that point, according to WP:NWW, after the action has been undone, redoing it would be a wheel war violation. So I wouldn't wheel war. I would discuss the issue and attempt to gain a consensus. But according to the wheel war policy and the wheel war proposal, taking an action twice without consensus ought to be considered a wheel war and ought to be considered a violation. Thus, it is unacceptable behavior. BigDT 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as the point of having this debate, I think there are people learning from each other on this page. What if we decide to adopt something like the German solution? Then these arguments could be helpful in discussing the details of how that would work. I also just hope the process is thought-provoking, and helps us understand each other in the long run. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would submit that that's a rather poor reason. The constant bickerings are destructive more than anything and are fueled by the out-of-process deletions. For example, today, when Tony arbitrarilly decided to stop a DRV discussion in clear violation of undeletion procedure, six pages of debate ensued on WP:AN/I. Meanwhile, I had to make two requests for help in dealing with a user who was making repeated personal attacks and adding uninteligible nonsense to articles. The only administrator to respond was a brand new one - User:AmiDaniel. If the reason that no other administrators responded is that they were too busy defending out-of-process deletions of userboxes, then that's a problem. BigDT 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The process of implementing the removal of useboxes from template space could also be educational and help us understand each other in the long run. But doing it by speedy deletion is inflammatory instead of educational. See Wikipedia:Reduce confusion by following policy or Wikipedia:Process is Important for more general versions of this argument. That is part of why there are a significant number of people who want a very narrow interpretation of T1, combined with either TfD discussions about deletion of POV useboxes or even better a real guideline/policy on userboxes. GRBerry 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of having this debate is that the alternatives are worse. Besides, if WP supposedly uses consensus as a basis for policy, then debates are the only way we seem to have of attempting to determine/force a consensus. More to the point, why are admins allowed to make changes that would be considered vandalism if done by the average user without discussion? --tjstrf 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that deleting templates under CSD has been massively unhelpful for the German solution, as templates just vanish without ordinary users being able to recover the code. —Ashley Y 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"template space is not for advocacy or statements of personal belief" sounds well and good, but T1, the "Jimbo-approved" criteria, reads "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." not "Templates that promote advocacy or state personal belief." I and many others would interpet "divisive and inflammatory" to mean hatespeech, trolling, insults to the beliefs of others, etc. not statements of personal belief which are worded in a strictly factual manner. (Advocacy is a different issue.)

If a viewer finds the simple statement "This user is a republican/muslim/homosexual/ex-convict/communist/whatever" to be in some manner divisive or inflammatory, the problem lies in the viewer, not the statement. As an administrator, I'm sure you have encountered users whose personal POV is so strong on an issue that from their perspective the NPOV which everyone else can at least tolerate is an impermissable affront to their personal beliefs. Do we bow to the wishes of such editors, and pervert the article's nonbiased stance for the sake of not offending an individual who finds the very existance of people they disagree with offensive? No. So why should we do so with userboxes? Only an extremist can find a statement of belief which lies in a vacuum offensive.--tjstrf 08:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the question of consistency. If we go around deleting the Satanist userbox while leaving the the other religion userboxes intact, that will get outcry. If we delete all religion userboxes, we'll get outcry anyway, but at least we'll be consistent. So we either keep all the religion userboxes intact, or we delete them all (under T2 or whatever). Personally, I'm in favour of the latter. But above all else, we have to be consistent. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is necessary, but if an issue is under hot contention, then consistency becomes a meaningless argument, as both sides can use it with equal validity any time a decision is only partially implemented. Once the debate has been settled, then you swiftly and unilaterally enforce consistency, but when we are still determining what a rule means, things should be judged case by case.

On the issue of the template User: Satanist, I would argue that it --along with User: Christian, User: Athiest, User: Democrat, etc.-- is not inherently divisive or inflammatory. (provided it was properly worded, not sure about that since it seems to be DELETED right now...) It does not say "This user is a Satanist. Go evil!" or "This user is a Satanist and thinks Christians are a bunch of wimpy goody-two shoes." it says "This user is a Satanist." period. No claims that the view is superior. No activism. No hatred towards other religions. No more divisive than the template "This user's favorite colour is blue." is.

If the reader attaches the connotation of superiority, endorsement of human sacrifice, or an attack on their own beliefs to that statement, they are simply showing their own ignorance of the Satanist philosophy and their insecurity or extremism in their own religion. We are not here to build a whitewashed padded nursery for those who cannot cope with the existance of people who disagree with them. --tjstrf 15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am John Doe. I only know and care about consistency. I have no idea, nor do I care, what a Christian, a Satanist, an Athiest, a Democrat, or whatever is. I have no idea what is evil, good, superior, or inferior. If these userboxes are covered under T2, and T2 is approved, I will delete all these userboxes regardless of what these things are. If T2 is not approved, I will keep all these userboxes regardless of what these things are. Consistency means deleting (or keeping) templates regardless of what's evil, good, superior, or inferior. I think the approval of T2 will allow consistency to be applied. OTOH, if T2 is not approved, consistency should be applied on the other side and all these templates should be allowed (unless they are covered under T1). --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict w/ Deathphoenix) Tjstrf, when you say "If the reader attaches the connotation of superiority, endorsement of human sacrifice, or an attack on their own beliefs to that statement,..." you are completely missing the boat, as far as what the objection is to the userbox. It's not about any of that. It's about using template space for something that is utterly unrelated to building an encyclopedia. So someone's a satanist - super, great, whatever. What on Earth has that got to do with Wikipedia? It's personal stuff, keep it in user space. It's a matter of demarcation - letting personal expression content and personal belief content drift into namespaces that are related to encyclopedia-building is mixing work and play. It muddies the line between the encyclopedia and the community, which is bad because the encyclopedia has to follow rules that the community doesn't. Just keep the template space "business only", and do what you want in the user-space. It's #The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

@Deathpheonix: And if T2 is officially approved, then I would wholeheartedly agree with and support its enforcement, and further hope for a rule supporting the deletion of all non-project oriented userboxes as well. If a rule is there, we as users and even more so you as administrators are obligated to uphold it. However, until that point, you cannot claim they must be deleted (or kept) for the sake of consistency, as there is not a consistent standard to judge them by.

Personally, I hate userboxes, I find them irritating in general, the nonsense/humour ones disruptive, and the users who flood their pages with them cliquish and annoying. Because of that, I refuse to personally use them, even the Babel ones. But I do not attempt to get them all deleted because of my own personal opinion.

@GTBacchus: In that case, you have a valid concern, but not one that is addressed by either of these regulations. If your concern is that users's personal preferences have no place as templates, then address that issue specifically and seperately, not via abuse of the "Divisive and Inflammatory" clause. That's going against the intent of the rule. "Divisive and inflammatory" should not be used as a legal basis for deleting things when your opposition to them is instead that they are non-encyclopedic in purpose. (Reminds me of the absurd number of laws we have in the US that are based on the Federal government's Interstate Trade control...) --tjstrf 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I like userboxes. I have some that state my skills and some that state what WikiProjects and WikiOrganisations I'm on. I dislike all the other ones. But I don't delete any of them. If I were to delete them, I'd delete the ones that are clearly covered under T1. I'd be itching to delete some under T2, if it passes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And you would be justified in doing so, as they were policies with consensus to back them. However, twisting a policy to enforce a different viewpoint than it was written to cover is an ause of the system. To make a comparison to a current ongoing political issue in the US, The T1 "divisive and inflammatory" clause is no more intended for deletion of templates which are simply unencyclopedic than the Constitution's eminent domain is intended for the building of shopping malls. --tjstrf 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the T2 proposal. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

T2 is not for unencyclopedic templates either. It's for removal of opinion based userboxes. If you want unencyclopedic template to be a proper cause for deletion, then that needs to be its own criteria. (And one I would highly support.) I do not, however, support using a template's expression of political or moral opinion as a criteria for speedy deletion when we have templates like "This user wishes they had a girlfriend" and psuedo-Babel boxes like "This user can write at a professional level of Bullshit", which would go unchallenged even under T2. (To say nothing of the User: Gibberish templates... why aren't those in BJAODN by now?)

If your concern truly is templates of unencyclopedic nonsense destroying wikipedia, create a criteria to address ALL of them. Attempting to indirectly deal with the problem by deleting templates which express a view which might have some bearing on Wikipedia while ignoring those which have NO bearing on wikipedia is anything but consistent and has caused the current problem.

The deletionists have a perfectly good point that unencyclopedic templates need deleted. The problems are their methods, and their attempt at indirectly enforcing this concept through misuse of unrelated deletion criteria. --tjstrf 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, T2 addresses what I care about, which is userboxes that display an opinion or show membership to organisations that display such an opinion. As for unencyclopedic templates, well, if you think T2 isn't enough, why don't you propose to expand the definition of T2 (if you haven't done so already)? --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Two primary reasons, the first being I don't want to add more complexity to the debate just yet, and the second being that I don't know the proper "official" channels for proposing new rules. Plus, if I waited to proposed it until after the debate on T2, it would probably meet less resistance no matter what happened to T2. If T2 were to pass, the idea of deleting random junk templates would be less controversial than that of deleting everything opinionated, and it could probably slip in with relative ease. If T2 were to fail, since the debate was over I could start the proposal with a relatively clean slate and less emotional baggage from wikiactivists, also aiding its passing. Also, no offense intended, but why do you care more about people identifying their beliefs than filling their userpages with what is, although at times admittedly funny, undeniably drivel?--tjstrf 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good plan. :-) As for why I care about it, it's because I believe that personal beliefs can't be summed up with official-looking badges. Having an official-looking template saying that you're part of the Esperanza project is one thing. Having another official-looking tempate saying that you belong to some out-of-Wikipedia organisation, or believe that the Earth is flat, or whatever, isn't. I think such things should be described in your own sentences, not in an official, pre-written userbox residing in the template-space. Oh, don't get me wrong, I think the unencyclopedic stuff should be gone too, but I simply don't care as much about that drivel... though I wouldn't mind seeing it go either. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A small amount of craft is more effective than trying to brute-force your opinions through, let's just say that. As for wanting everyone to write out their opinions in text, if you did that, you'd have article-length opinion pieces for user pages, which would be far more divisive and inflammatory than the user boxes ever were. (Also, imagine if the people who use 40-60 userboxes were to write a text elaboration of every one of them, plus every other random factoid they could think of about themselves.) Even for the userboxes that aren't annoying, I simply don't want to have to read why some user likes the colour blue, what they think about their being a Wikifaerie, and a paragraph of German to prove that they do in fact write it at the Babel:3 level. --tjstrf 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If they had to do it... they won't. It's so much simpler to have forty or fifty userboxes than it is to have forty or fifty sentences about yourself... and that's exactly why it's best not to have these userboxes. If one actually had to think about what to write on a user page, rather than slap on forty or fifty userboces that say "This user likes eggs", "This user is a gangster", "This user wears a hat", or such similar drivel, I'll bet that person's user page would be a lot more appropriate to be a Wikipedia page rather than a cutsey little MySpace page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I like userboxes, I've got some myself. But an official-looking Wikipedia userbox that describes one as believing that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted really isn't the best thing to have. I'd rather see that user have to explain why he thinks that is true, rather than taking the easy way and slap on an official-looking Wikipedia template. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ARGH!!! Why does everyone who oppose userboxes accuse those of us who support them of wanting to see user pages turned into MySpace?! It's insulting as hell! Jay Maynard 10:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because being divisive and inflammatory is an excellent debate tactic for those whose position is that we must abolish such things on the wiki? No wait... In all seriousness though, some people do have userbox lists that resemble the random factoid boxes on MySpace, only without the Q/A format.--tjstrf 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A template saying that a user believes George Bush's edits to the constitution need reverted would be a valid "divisive and inflammatory" call. But not necessarily "This user believes in Original Intent." or something similar. And I believe that most users who really do have strong POV on issues would be willing to write them out on their user pages.

In the mean time, for an example of a userbox that I think should be deleted long before we even start addressing ones like User Christian, see Template:User intercal. "This user hates you and insists you learn to program in intercal." Divisive? Check. Inflammatory? Check. Direct insult to reader? Check. (Stupid joke? Check.) WHY are people focusing around a few borderline cases to try forcing their point accross when we have templates (in the main templatespace I might add) that people on both sides would probably agree should be pulled down? If you guys had started with templates like User intercal in the first place, you probably could have gotten T1 as a well-established precedant that could actually be used without automatically being reviewed to death, and then worked from there to whatever your personal object is. (Also, I think this was probably my weirdest edit summary ever.) --tjstrf 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Jay: Look, I don't oppose userboxes. Take a look at my userboxes. I even have a couple of fun ones (like the 127.0.0.1, pig-4, 1337-0, CN). It's the sheer volume and types of userboxes that I have a problem with. Okay, you don't want a comparison to MySpace? How about this... A user page dotted with userboxes is just plain ugly. These official-looking userboxes make user pages look like a cookie cutter page. I'm reminded of some web page builder where you go through a list of items to check off:

Check all that apply to you:

• You are a Democrat
• You are a Republican
• You are a Christian
• You are a Satanist
• You like eggs
• You are a gangster

Just enable all the checkboxes that apply to you and you have your home page with a list of easy-to-describe boxes about you. With Wikipedia, just stick a piece of Wikicode and voila! Instant self-description. It's just so easy to put these userboxes in. Why not simply take a little time to actually describe yourself? I don't see any problems with that. These userboxes make it seem like Wikipedia somehow condones Demcrats, Republicans, Christians, Satanists, those who like eggs, and gangsters. What Wikipedia should really be condoning are those who can contribute to Wikipedia in English, or German; those who know how to develop HTML pages, or write Javascript; those who are on the Esperanza, Harry Potter, or Cricket Wikiprojects. That's what's appropriate for an official user box. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A well thought out point, but I fail to see what that has to do with the T1 or T2 deletion criteria. Wikipedia doesn't "condone" anything you find on a userpage, that's why it's a User page, not an article. Further, the anti-systematic bias group would hate you for saying that the only skills which deserve mention are those of the techie and linguistic types, as it further promotes the image that only computer geeks are allowed on the wikipedia.--tjstrf 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, I believe it has a fair bit to do with T1 and T2, but because of the effect of these two CSDs. What I mean by "condone" is the fact that Userboxes lie in the Template: space. This would also have been true if the failed proposal to move these to the Userbox: space passed. Even though these userboxes are in user pages, the fact that they reside in the templatespace indicates that their use is official and someone condoned by Wikipedia. T1 certainly addresses the concern of some of the devisive userboxes, I'm hoping T2 will address the userboxes that are irrelevant to Wikipedia (ie, Babelboxes and Wikiprojects are certainly relevant, and will stay). If this means some of the userboxes I'm using are deleted, so be it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It (the desire to get rid of irrelevant userboxes) may have something to do with the effect of the criteria, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the object of the criteria. Neither addresses relevance to wikipedia, which is why I view them as incomplete regulations, and why their abuse by certain admins to mass delete userboxess which are irrelevant but not inflammatory irritates me so much. Many of the T2 supporters seem to be supporting it because of ulterior motives. --tjstrf 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other T2 supports, but yy motive is clear. I don't like irrelevant userboxes. Simple as that. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And I share your opinion in that. What we disagree on, as best I can tell, are 2 minor issues:

1. Is T2 the proper criteria to accomplish the object of abolishing irrelevant userboxes?
2. Can we non-hypocritically delete POV templates while allowing tripe and humour ones to still run rampant?

I say no to both. The proper path is to propose the deletion of unencyclopedic templates. Not disrupt the wiki over a few borderline cases whose proponents will fight hard to keep them while turning a blind eye to those worthless ones which could be silently put down. An added benefit of this idea would be it would establis non-controversial precedants that could be turned into uncontested core policy, then expanded over time.
Slower but with an even higher chance of success would be to propose the deletion of all "Nonsense templates", a definition that could gradually expand with time to include anything unencyclopedic. Devious? Maybe. Better for wikipedia in the long run? Definitely. --tjstrf 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your response to #1. I say T2 can delete a lot of irrelevant userboxes. It may leave some irrelevant userboxes behind, but it'll go a long way in cleaning up a lot of the irrelevant ones to start off. As for #2, I'd agree with you and say no. And I'm prepared to let go of my 127.0.0.1, pig-4, 1337-0, and CN templates if that means a lot of these "This user is a Christian", "This user is a Satanist", "This user likes eggs", and "This user is a gangster" userboxes are deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

An aside

You know, I never would have gotten involved in this if I hadn't come back to my userpage one day to see a bunch of my userboxes just vanish without trace or process. When you speedy-delete a userbox, what you are actually doing is removing something from someone else's userpage without their permission or even giving notice. Now that may or may not be allowed under the rules (hey, their fault for not substing, huh?), but it is also obnoxious. It creates annoyance and bad feeling. And when the process under which this is done turns out to be rather suspect, and when userboxes that are voted to keep in TfD are subsequently speedy-deleted anyway, it compounds the annoyance and gives the impression of a small group of admins taking policy into their own hands and riding roughshod over user consensus. It damages the editor-base of Wikipedia and our faith in the process for dispute resolution and ultimately our interest in contributing to the project. This is why for me this has always been a debate about transparency, process and consensus; certainly I would delete all my userboxes if there emerged a policy against them. Jimbo seems to have repeatedly urged people to cool down, to stop the deletion, and work on building consensus; instead we have seen admins taking his words "divisive and inflammatory" and "interpreting" them in ways surely not originally intended. (I even read one admin say that "divisive and inflammatory" would still apply to user-space, only this time they would choose to interpret that narrowly; which makes no sense to me, surely the words have only one meaning whatever it is?) Likewise, popular sentiment has been very much against the deletions, in policy proposals, at TfD, and at DRv just as soon as ordinary editors found out about it, but that has also been ignored.

The userbox speedy-deletes have been a disaster politically, if one may speak of Wiki-politics, and have fanned the flames of the userbox wars and created the impression of bad faith and bad feeling all around. A much better approach would have been to build consensus on what to do first, or do what we are now doing, which is to create userboxes in user space (now frequently having to look around for substs of speedied deletions to recover the code). —Ashley Y 06:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start the education and consensus building before the mass deletions. People feel they own their user page, and take offense if they find out the truth too rudely. WP:USER says: "It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage". Even knowing this makes a difference. I've been trimming my own page since I started looking into these things, and will continue to improve it. Stephen B Streater 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashley, this isn't directly on point, but if you ever need code from a deleted box, please feel free to ask me; I'd be happy to copy it for you, if you don't have a substed copy handy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I'll reply first to Ashley's comments beginning this section. First of all, I agree that speedying userboxes without substing them or anything, just leaving red links on people's user pages, displays exceedingly poor judgement. It's kind of like asking for a userbox war to please happen and be really unpleasant, please. On the other hand, I don't fall back on policy, process, and getting everyone to sign on before doing anything. I can think of a third way, but I'm not going to say what that is right now.

I've noticed, through this userbox war, there are certain things that get repeated a whole lot, and I've seen them in other contexts, too. "Our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive." "You're Wikilawyering." "That's process-wonking." "It's not a vote." "Written policy will catch up." "The AfD was wrong." . . . I suspect it's statements like these that characterize the "ignoring process" attitude to which you object. I think I understand what you're saying about transparency, process and consensus, and how you imagine the Wiki working, if only everyone else were seeing it that way, too.

Now, I can grant that what you describe is a model of how a wiki could work, and it's not ridiculous, or inconsistent, or even strange. It's also not how Wikipedia has been working, but there seems to be some pressure lately for it to become that way. When I say "lately", I fully intend the implication that this vision is more common among newer editors. I think that many more experienced editors share a different vision, that I think we've done a really terrible job of communicating.

Maybe Wikipedia just needs to give up what it was, and become what a lot of people assume it must be and get upset when it isn't. I think, though, that there's value to what Wikipedia has been, and I'm not ready to toss that vision aside, just because people find it kind of shocking. They do, and it's silly to think they won't, because it is kind of radical, and to my mind, much cooler and more powerful than the system you're envisioning.

Have I been vague enough? Exponential growth means you're always dealing with growing pains, and there are certain aspects of a Wiki that scale more easily than others. I'd like to try to have a conversation, if anyone else is willing to have it, about these conflicting visions of how Wikipedia works, hopefully learning in the process how we can better communicate with each other, and all be working on the same project. I guess I could start a new page called Wikipedia:The Miseducation of Wikipedia, but I'm also comfortable here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not with the "Ignore all rules" approach, in general. It's using that approach when it is obviously inappropriate and when so many people are crying foul precisely because process is not being followed. This is where the pain is coming from, and why, for instance, so many editors are coming out of the woodwork and ending up on DRv, of all places ("the woodwork" in this case being "contributing to an encyclopedia"). This could have been avoided. I would still recommend a note on T1 that it is to be interpreted narrowly, at least until we've figured out what to do.

Of course, sometimes one just needs to "do what needs to be done"; but if you do that, I think you should have at least the idea that there might be consensus for it. If some admin action is not policy, and you know there isn't consensus for it, what legitimacy does it have? Is this the sort of admin behaviour we should encourage? I don't think it has a good track record.

And this is not a new direction for Wikipedia, either, see for instance the essays Wikipedia:Reduce confusion by following policy and Wikipedia:Process is Important and the discussions on them on their talk pages. There's always been a balance between the two, ideally in the service of consensus. —Ashley Y 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those two essays don't support your assertion for which you cite them. They're both new this year, and both created largely in response to the userbox controversy. Their novelty actually supports my assertion, that the pressure to be more process-oriented is kind of new. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules has been around for over four years, and it's linked under the fifth pillar at WP:5P. There's a lot of culture based around tht rule; and ignoring that culture leads to problems, just as sure as ignoring consensus does.

But I feel we may be talking past each other here, Ashley. I think I'm saying more than you think I'm saying, especially since you characterize it as the "ignore all rules" approach. What I'd really like to do is see (or write) a Wikipedia essay or two about the vision I'm sharing with many other Wikipedians, which we've never really bothered to write down. I'm not convinced that you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if you're convinced that I know what you're talking about? I want to avoid the same pain that you want to avoid, and I think I know how you're suggesting we avoid it. Do you know what I'm suggesting? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should write your essay, and add it to the pool. I really don't know what you're suggesting, but I hope it's not going to be on the theme of "educating new editors on the culture of Wikipedia" especially if it's that culture, and not a process aberration as I earlier thought, that was responsible for the speedy deletions. —Ashley Y 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm really looking for is a conversation, but it looks like I'll have to keep looking, or just develop the ideas on my own, which is slower. I thought I was clear that I opposed how those deletions were done, but I guess you don't believe me. :( -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do believe you, but you really need to explain your vision rather than just allude to it. Go ahead and write the essay, the essays in WP space are one of the more useful developments to come out of the UBX controversy. —Ashley Y 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on it. I was alluding rather than explaining because... I think I found it necessary to establish a few things that I'm not talking about first - flushing any residual poison out of the well, as it were. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The really frustrating thing about the userbox wars is the fact that it clearly shows just how skewed AFD, TFD, and DRV really are. It's not about the actual policy itself; it's about who shows up. Template:User admins ignoring policy survived three TFDs and two DRVs before losing on its third DRV, where either the anti-UBX users came out stronger or the UBX supporters just got tired of voting keep. I think this really shows the ultimate power of the admins - they can delete it instantly, but trying to get it back is a long, uncertain process. That userbox had been there for seven weeks before an admin arbitrarily declared "bloody obvious t1" even though it was contested and kept through TFD and DRV. Hbdragon88 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now we have an anomaly whereby things get speedy-deleted under T1 that would be voted "keep" under TfD. The result is a massive process train-wreck of speedy, TfD and DRv that for instance Template:User Christian is currently involved in. I believe the simplest way to resolve this is to make T1 explictly narrow (as I believe was originally intended?) and then we can figure out what to do next. —Ashley Y 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouln't a policy stating, "userboxes must not be deleted unless so-and-so" grant userboxes even greater protection than actual articles?Timothy Usher 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. They'd still be valid for deletion via TfD (in fact, since templates have no standard deletion regulations, they can be deleted via TfD for next to nothing and sometimes are) just not speediable unless they were "divisive and inflammatory" to a non-extremist. --tjstrf 01:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to GTBacchus - "The Miseducation of Wikipedia". I’m all for discussing and learning more about wikivision and wikilosophy. However, I’d rather not have it start with the premise that I am “miseducated.” This conversation reminds me of M. Scott Peck’s “The true meaning of community.” Wikipedia is not there. But then again, I am an eventualist (sorry, no userbox available, go figure...parting complements of Doc glasgow). Rfrisbie^talk 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that wasn't how I meant it, but I can see how you would see that. I was shooting for kind of ambiguously cheeky while referencing Lauryn Hill. Then again, I had some ideas about where a page like that would develop, and the deprecation was actually more self-directed, but you had no way of knowing that. And here I am, trying to talk about communication! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was tongue-in-cheek. I was just messing with you. The Doc glasgow thing got me to delete my smiley. If I ask me, I “believe” Wikipedia could use a good paradigm shift or two. Bring it on! :-) p.s. Can someone just undelete {{User even}}? Rfrisbie^talk 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just write it... —Ashley Y 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it - I don't know what it says yet. I don't even know what it's called. User:GTBacchus/Temp. There, that'll do until it crystallizes a bit; then I'll move it to project space, and speedy the old version of it out of process without telling anyone, mua-ha-ha! My basic thought, at this point, is that there are certain elements of Wiki culture that tend to surprise and upset people, but which a lot of people are very committed to, and we really ought to find a way to articulate what those aspects are, so we can talk about them, seeing as they seem to be hiding under every other argument here. There's also some important stuff about scaling. I don't know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Popcorn in hand, breath baited...;-) Rfrisbie^talk 04:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that even the strictest of process sticklers would agree that DR'ing an out of process deletion of a person's userspace by that user would be asinine. :p But, on topic, it looks like it will be an interesting essay, though you probably need some sort of thesis, unless it's just planned as a discussion starter. --tjstrf 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let it develop organically, and see what happens. I have a thesis (different kind) to write this week, so according to the usual rules of procrastination, I'll be much more inspired to write about Wikipedia policy and culture than about graph colorings. I do have to turn in for the night very soon, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

T1 changes June 12-13

Changes to T1 are hotly debated. If we are going to expand it, it is at least as important to expand upon the limitations to its use as it is to expand the areas where it can be used. So I added the limitations that Jimbo has endorsed - and given that the community originally accepted having any version of T1 only because Jimbo endorsed it, his thoughts on what it means are still more indicative of policy than anything else. GRBerry 04:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I made another change. Given that the purpose of T1 is to 'remove divisive statements from the 'officially sanctioned' template namespace' it inherently does not apply to transclusion of user pages. It would apply to transcluding in something from the equally 'official' Wikipedia namespace, Portal namespace, et cetera... but that is rarely done and never with 'divisive' content that I have seen. However, the user namespace is a different case. Comments there are less likely to be taken as 'endorsed' by Wikimedia and we have a long tradition of allowing wide (but not infinite) lattitude in such statements. T1 was brought into existence to remove endorsement of views that should not be taken as supported by Wikimedia from all namespaces except the user namespace. There people have always been allowed to express their own views. --CBDunkerson 11:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

T1 and T2 again

Given that Jimbo said this:

This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales Diff

I'm just wondering if the support for a broader T2 (perhaps if deletion was preceded by userification except in clear T1 cases) might be forthcoming from folk that were previously opposed? ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that quote has to do with T1 or T2? It looks to me like he doesn't like the directory of userboxes in the Wikipedia namespace. --AySz88^-^ 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems obviously connected to me (although there is the oracular factor to contend with) Since he says "the removal of" it has to be a space that exists now not one being proposed for creation. That rules out Userbox space. And since it's an "official space for userboxes" that pretty clearly points (to me anyway) to templatespace, not wikipediaspace. So I read it as opposition to userboxes living in templatespace and support for The German Solution. Hence, a broader T2 that bans all userboxes from templatespace seems justifiable. YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that T2 is still good policy and every comment by Jimbo reinforces it. It's just that it's hard to write it down anywhere without causing a backlash from the group of people who think it's cool to have POV userboxes in template space. I wish Jimbo would be clearer and tougher, but his general view has been stated often enough for those who have ears to hear to get the message. No admin who deletes T2 boxes in a gradual way, shows some sensitivity, etc., is doing the wrong thing. Metamagician3000 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The German solution is happening, without anyone having to propose any policies or anything. The emerging consensus (from where I'm standing anyway) seems to be that userboxes all get migrated to userspace, per Jimbo, where they get to go ahead and be POV if they want, also per Jimbo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one problem with the reworded T1 criteria - it makes it easy to go after userspace content. All I have to do is transclude your userpage to a subpage of my userspace, and I can immediately delete it as "T1". This seems like an overly broad criteria, that bleeds impermissibly into other namespaces. I think it should go back to the way it was worded before, in the interests of all parties (and our collective sanity). --71.36.251.182 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that would be transparently obvious? Who but the most extreme of process wonks would support such a deletion? It would be like putting an image of a hammer and sickle on someone's user page and then calling them a Communist. The edit history would immediately show what really happened. · rodii · 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Two userboxes located in user space were speedy deleted today as "T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case." —Mira 23:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And to carry that factual note further, they are up at deletion review and at least one participant there has supported the speedy deletion. GRBerry 04:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My view: T1 gains it's policy status from endorsement by Jimbo. Jimbo has said, very clearly, that the goal is to remove divisive viewpoints from anyplace that might appear to give them official endorsement. He has also said, again very specifically, that transcluding within the user space does not create the same problems and should be subjected only to the same limitations we place on user page content in general. Ergo, any expansion of T1 to prohibit transclusion of 'divisive userspace content' directly contradicts Jimbo's position and is not part of the T1 policy he has endorsed... and therefor should go through normal process creation / adjustment procedures. You can't say 'this is policy because Jimbo says so' once you have 're-interpreted' something to directly contradict Jimbo. --CBDunkerson 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

T1 and userboxes: how about a more precise wording?

I've noticed that quite a few userboxes have been speedy deleted citing T1, but there seems to be no consensus as to how T1 should be interpreted, and thus many users get annoyed at having their userbox deleted. I agree with the sentiment of T1, but speedy deleting these userboxes can often lead to divisiveness and inflammatory statements as well. What's the solution here?

Also, I'd be interested in seeing how Jimbo Wales's endorsement of this criterion was worded. It may provide some insight into this situation. -- T.o.n.y 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If criterion CSD:T1 were in a template, it would be speedily deleted under T1, and rightfully so. It definitely needs to be reworded, but "we" editors (or even "you" admins) cannot do so without more input from Jimbo. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all of Jimbo's pronouncements on the subject can be found here. Do any of them prohibit rewording or qualification of T1, and if so, which? Septentrionalis 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing there supporting T1. Without Jimbo's suggestions, it wouldn't be present policy, as there has never been (visible) consensus supporting it. Hence, we have a policy created by fiat (and apparently not Jimbo's). The simplest solution would be to revert to the status quo ante T1 -- delete T1, undelete all templates deleted under T1 unless they violate WP:NPA, and do not re-delete as "unused" if they were ever used. Then, perhaps, a reasoned policy could be obtained by consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially with userboxes and other templates used (almost) solely in the User namespace. While I can understand Jimbo's sentiment concerning userboxes, I also know that people in any community want (and possibly need) a channel for self-expression. It helps others in the community learn about each other and identify their reasons for being in the community and their motivations behind the work they contribute to the community. Userboxes provide an easy way in this community to express oneself and (for the most part) don't inherently create division or heated debate. Of course, they can be misused, but that goes for almost any tool available to editors here at Wikipedia.

However, I think that any changes made to speedy delete criteria should reflect the general consensus of the community. While Jimbo's (inferred) opinions have considerable clout in this community, he is but one person. I think we should put this up to a vote. -- T.o.n.y 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• First, Voting is evil. It is much too premature to attempt to put this question to a polarizing vote. But more importantly, before you all lock in on this chain of reasoning, I'd ask everyone to please reread the many archived discussion pages leading up to the decision. Jimbo did not impose this policy out of the blue. There was rampant abuse and dissension being created by some userboxes at the time. Now that they've been deleted, it's all too easy to forget the worst examples which forced us into this (perhaps draconian) solution. Many people would agree with the assessment that the community has not yet reached consensus on this issue. But it is not fair to imply that Jimbo was alone in his opinion. As far as I know, he doesn't even have an opinion except that we should all get back to the real work of creating the best possible open-source encyclopedia. Many, many users heartily supported his decision. In my own observation, they were doing more harm than good to the project. I don't miss them. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree; the thing to do is to stop fighting the Userbox Wars, and go on from where we are. Genuinely divisive userboxes can (and should) be TfD'd; the editors they offend will vote to delete. They are no loss. Removing (or even modifying) T1 is enough. Septentrionalis 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind political, etc., userboxes being speedily deleted if we had a clear policy that allowed it. They are at best a waste of template space. Currently, however, we are seeing userboxes that are clearly not "divisive and inflammatory" being speedily deleted. An example was a userbox that said simply, "This user is a transhumanist". I don't see how this could be considered divisive in itself, since we are (generally) tolerant people, so we are not likely to be divided against each other merely by expressions of subscription to philosophical views that we may not happen agree with. In a tolerant community, such statements of ones's views are not met with the kind of hostility and active opposition that is implied by divisive. I realise that such a userbox, if in template space, could theoretically be used as an instrument for undoubtedly divisive activities such as votestacking, but it's not obvious to me that that theoretical possibility amounts to the userbox itself being "divisive". Even if the word "divisive" could be stretched so far, which is very doubtful, I don't see how the mere polite, non-provocative statement that "I am a transhumanist" could be considered inflammatory. As an absolute minimum, I think that T1 should be altered from "divisive and inflammatory" to read "divisive or inflammatory". That would capture any genuinely divisive userboxes as well as those that don't create particular divisions but simply arouse reasonable people to anger. I think that some indication should also be given that the word "divisive" is meant to be read in a broad sense to include any userbox (or other template) that lends itself as an instrument for factionalising etc, though I have no particular words to offer at this stage. Meanwhile, I don't think the current words should be interpreted and applied in an unnaturally broad way, as often seems to be happening. The words "divisive and inflammatory" are clear enough; they simply don't stretch as far as some of our colleagues would like them to. Metamagician3000 08:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see T1 say "all political, religious, or philosophical" rather than "divisive and inflammatory". I can make the argument that any political view is divisive. Not just Nazism. Simple change, and would get us out of a lot of divisive and inflammmatory discussion about whether something is divisive (a judgement call that's hard to make) and move it to whether something is political (a lot easier call to make). ArbComm has held that T1 is policy. I support that. Now get it to be clear, easily applied policy. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It could say both "all userboxes that express a religious, political, philosophical, or similar point of view, or are otherwise divisive or inflammatory". There will be grey areas no matter how it is worded, and deletion review would still be necessary, but this sort of language would put the issue beyond doubt with most userboxes. Metamagician3000 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Or better still, we could adapt Jimbo's own language: templates that "express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory". How's that? Metamagician3000 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support either of those formulations. I've mostly stayed out of the userbox debate because, frankly, I think most people's User pages are boring (including my own) and I never read them. But having read up on the issue I have to say: the more wiggles room we leave on this the worse it will be. Wikipedia is not a blog, and is not myspace. While people are welcome to write what they want on their user pages, within policy, there's no reason to waste our time weighing the merits of these various templates. Religious, political, philosophical, or similar...delete them all, regardless of whether or not they are divisive. That's my $0.02, anyway. Nandesuka 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Nandesuka. People will wiggle but let us give them little room to do so. Agree with MM3K as well, (dude, your ID is too long!!! Grin) that Jimbo's wording is fine. It's far more precise and inclusive (of what we want to see deleted within process) than my suggestion. I'm not hung up on the exact wording. I just want it to be less wiggly than "divisive" which is just way too wiggly. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean toward that, as it's clear that the admins (possibly encouraged by Jimbo, but there's no public evidence that Jimbo agrees that it should be policy) will delete userboxes, controversial or not, by whatever means necessary, and that, although the majority of active Wikipedians may disagree, there's clearly not enough weight to overturn that fiat. Hence, although that policy is clearly harmful to Wikipedia, the wheel warring is worse. (Note that I am assuming good faith, just noting that those admins mistakenly believe that the deletion of userboxes is good for Wikipedia, and that this outweighs the violation of existing process.) However, all userbox deletions, unless the text itself is objectionable on a userpage, must be subst'ed and converted to Template:Userbox format. However, even Nandesuka's formulation leaves enough wiggle room for wheel wars. My counter-proposal would be to delete all userboxes except wikiproject boxes. Note: I would still prefer restricting T1 to those templates which would be considered "attack templates" — but that rational appropach is not going to happen. My more restrictive form is probably the best that can be achieved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, your good faith is quite clear, but you're mistaken in your implicit claim that "violation" of process is a Bad Thing, that might or might not be "outweighed" by some particular Good Thing. I can't pin down a particular guideline or essay that taught me to see it this way, but "acting out of process" is part of the perfectly healthy and normal functioning of Wikipedia. That's how process evolves - someone starts doing something because it's the right thing to do, others see them and mimic them, because it's clearly the right thing to do, and eventually when someone suggests writing it into the guidelines, a bunch of people say "oh, I thought it was already there".

The trick is to let people do what they do, and try to document the best practices once they're identified and selected for. For whatever reason, the interpretation of T1 that's rising to the top seems to be that "all userboxes that express a religious, political, philosophical, or similar point of view, or are otherwise divisive or inflammatory" don't get to be publicly transcluded, and shouldn't even be here. I'd also say there are very good reasons for that, but I don't want to double the length of this post, and it's all been said several times.

I support rewriting T1 according to Jimbo's formulation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No edit on this page [Note: this exchange is copied from WT:CSD ] can reflect Jimbo's formulation: He said nothing about speedying. What has happened, btw, to what Jimbo recommended: asking people to remove their political/religious userboxes, and so changing the culture one person at a time? Septentrionalis 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the T1 criteria are too subjective to allow for speedy deletions. They are good as deletion criteria, but not so good for speedy deletions. Powers 12:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Deletion without discussion (i.e. a speedy) is an extreme measure, and should only be used in cases where harm would occur if the target remined in place for the duration of the discussion (copyvios, attack pages, etc), or where a discussion was held previously (e.g G4). As it stands, the speedy deltion of neutrally worded templates is proving to be more devisive than the original templates ever could be. Regards, MartinRe 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may try to add to the discussion, I would like to say, having recently come across a speedy deletion of a userbox I found funny, non-divisive, and non-inflammatory (unless one considers non-explicit references to sex divisive or inflammatory), that the speedy deletion of a userbox sufficiently unclear with respect to the criteria discussed here is extremely frustrating, disheartening, and alienating. On this end, not holding discussion thus feels like an abuse of procedure and seems in bad faith. I understand the dislike for userboxes, and I even sympathize with not wanting them in template space, but choosing speedy deletion over TfD, now, prior to reaching consensus on what is to be done about userboxes and after an initial deadlock on trying to reach such a policy? I fail to see the good faith in that. Just venting saying. ---Bersl2 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd change the wording of T1 to "Templates that are both divisive and inflammatory" because too many deletions of userboxes have the reason "divisive" with no mention of it being inflammatory. T2, however, I'm not going to touch with a 50ft barge pole. Will (message me!) 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Concept

What if, instead of deleting boxes, they simply are placed in the creator's user space, and all links are changed to reflect the move? Rather than subst:, which destroys the uniformity of the template, how about transcluding from user space. I think this is the best solution at this point - the deletionists will have their way with template space, and the userbox afficionados can keep their boxes just the way they like them. Any takers? Any objections? Anybody want to help make User:Boxhunter/Boxes into a more complete catalog? I welcome all comments. --Boxhunter 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:The German solution for pre-existing discussion. The idea is alredy being worked on. General prefernce seems to be that actual users have it in their space rather than boxholding special purpose users. GRBerry 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it would be helpful to have some central repository. Even the German's provide for users with catalogs of userboxes. --BlankFlank 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what people are talking about here. Maybe not one central repository with all the boxes, but a few big warehouses, hosted by individuals who want to host them, and all interlinked and listed. Some users are hosting religion boxes, some politics boxes, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderfully wiki way to do things, but it could also end up being a waste of server space as these catalogs will probably have a large amount of duplication. Standardization is also negatively impacted, as the boxes will likely diverge in content from one instance to another. Still, this seems to be the best available solution outside template space. --Speedy Deletion is not a Toy 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)