Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Yet another T2 topic - drawing lines

First section

Here's another spin. If we have T1, which seems to have stuck, but we don't have T2, which seems to have trouble sticking, then we have to decide which beliefs and ideological stances are divisive and or and inflammatory.

• user Democrat, user Republican, user Libertarian, user communist, user anarchist, user fascist, user Nazi
• user human rights, user free speech, user pro-choice, user gun rights, user drug legalization, user legalize prostitution, user legalize pedophilia
• user Christian, user Moslem, user Catholic, user Atheist, user Pagan, user Scientologist, user Satanist
• user Parliamentarian, user Kiwanis, user Salvation Army, user ACLU, user NRA, user KKK, user al qaeda

If you support T1 and not T2, then you have a way of deciding in every case whether a given belief is divisive and inflammatory? I suspect that the grey area is densely filled in, and that drawing lines across it would involve arbitrary and largely indefensible decisions. "Sorry, but your political party massacred more people than his, so your box gets deleted, but his stays." "Wikipedia supports calling for free Tibet, but free Palestine... not so much."

I dunno, am I barking up the wrong tree here? Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing polemical about saying "This user is a Republican" in a userbox However, saying "This user is a Republican who thinks EVERY STINKING DEMOCRAT MUST ROT IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a different story. --D-Day 22:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this user is a white supremacist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Borderline racism. Why, is there a userbox that says that? --D-Day 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned with the more obvious ones. Those definately should stay. I am not quite sure on how to decide the more borderline cases besides precidence. I particularly have no problem with userboxes that say, "I am a Nazi," or, "I am a white supremacist." I have problems with userboxes that say, "Die {{{your favorite slur}}}," &c. But most likely those three would be considered devisive and inflammatory—I wouldn't object at all to that decision. We would just need to decide on a case by case basis at the beginning and develop a precidence for similar types of borderline boxes. —David618 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is no god.": divisive

"This user is an atheist.": not divisive. —Ashley Y 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidently I'm stupid, because I am unable to see how labelling people as "ises" and "isn'tes" — i.e., dividing them up — isn't, ahem, "divisive".

James F. (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what devisive means. In this case it means causing rifts instead of merely dividing people into groups. Call it semantics but that is what I believe the meaning to be. —David618 00:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it does, does it now? That's a new one on me. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because that's not necessarily the sense of "divisive" that was meant, and I don't think that's what was meant by "divisive". "Divisive" may be interpreted as literally "this userbox divides people" (i.e. any sort of categorization), but "divisive and inflammatory" and the context of the pedophila boxes suggests to me that the phrase more probably means "it causes heated controversy in the community". The "polemical" word choice of the ArbCom decision also suggests the same. --AySz88 00:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my impudence, but I would immodestly say that I am particularly well-situated to judge as to what particular sense the term was meant, given its source.

James F. (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I might may have misunderstood, but I thought "its source" would be Jimbo? How would you be able to know what Jimbo meant by T1? (Now that I think about it, hasn't anyone asked Jimbo what he meant?) --AySz88 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its source was actually Sannse. Jimbo endorsed it but did not originate it. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that devise devisive should be changed to something more clear. For the time being: because devisive goes along with inflammatory it is logical to conclude that devisive has a similar meaning. —David618 00:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

David, "divisive" is derived from the word "divide", not "devise". Very different meanings; be careful. James is making the same point that I was: unless we go with all or nothing, we're going to piss off a lot of people. Who are you to say one userbox is inflammatory and another one isn't? There, in fact, is no fair place to draw that line. The only fair possibilities are all, or none. To do anything else would be to take a stand on which issues should and shouldn't count as inflammatory, and we can't do that. Without T2, there is no way to apply T1 fairly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get devise from? The word divisive can have different meanings and neuances like all English words. Semantics must be used to interperate the meaning of devisive in T1. —David618 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I got "devise" from your post above, where you typed it. I was trying to politely point out that the word is spelled "d-I-visive, not d-E-visive, because it's a form of the word "divide", not the word you used, "devise". I thought you might not be clear on that point. I'm sorry if I was confusing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My appologies. I see what you mean. Thanks for making it know to me. —David618 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of userboxes saying "This user is a communist", "This user is a libertarian" and so on have been routinely kept deleted where reviewed after deletion under T1. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Tony.

On an unpopular note (but then, what figgin give I to ochlocracy?), I perceive even location userboxes to divide people, and at one and the same time be wholly pointless - except, of course, on the pom-pom-waving, MySpace-doting, "community"-building non-contributors' front, where I understand they help to build "networks". Net-doesn't-work, more like it.

James F. (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Was T2 on the policy page at the time the review occurred? —Ashley Y 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that matters? Do technicalities suddenly have weight here, and it wasn't announced? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If the review looked at the policy page and saw T2, they might come to a different decision than if T2 were not there. —Ashley Y 01:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok.... which particular review are we talking about, then? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever reviews Tony is referring to. —Ashley Y 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As he said, they happen routinely. That's before T2 was written down and while it was there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "this user is an admin" divides people up in the same way. But clearly such a thing is not intended to be covered by T1. I think this is a rather disingenuous argument. —Ashley Y 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "this user is an admin" divides people up. It divides them up by function on Wikipedia. This is an extant and necessary division. "I am a socialist" or whatever is an unnecessary division, and it's obviously what the T1 criterion is intended for. I think this objection smacks of wikilawyering. We know what we mean so it's silly to get into semantic quibbles. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Section Break

I think I must not have been very clear making this point at first. It's this: if we try to live with T1 and no T2, then we have to make a bunch of decisions that amount to political stances: "This opinion is T1, that one isn't." There is no fair way to make those decisions. T1 without T2 is a broken policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We've managed fine for months without T2. Political, polemical and religious crap gets deleted, end of story. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, we're not disagreeing. I'm pointing out that if you delete some ideological boxes, you have to delete them all. This is for the benefit of people who want to get rid of user Nazi, but keep user Christian, and believe that they're holding a defensible position. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that a religious userbox is as devisive as a fascist one. I don't like religion but it is not on part with the Nazis. It's not like the catholic church still burns heretics. —David618 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything even remotely close to that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it in terms you might prefer: once T1 is policy, then so is T2, like it or not, written down or not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 is only against divisive and inflammatory userboxes. Stating a belief that is not inflammatory should be kept. —David618 01:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And who gets to decide which beliefs are inflammatory? You? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If only. I am for consensus whenever possible. Groups of userboxes should be reviewed and whatever is deemed "devisive and inflammatory" should be applied to all similar userboxes. That is essentially what you want but you groiup unrelated subjects together. —David618 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, David, I think we're close to being on the same page... now you're suggesting that we go ahead and make a bunch of decisions - keep this, delete that, etc. I'm saying, while those decisions may seem easy for friendly boxes like "user Christian" and for nasty boxes like "user fascist", that when we get borderline cases, those decisions cannot be fairly made. We'll have to tell someone "sorry, your box goes, while that other one stays", even though the two boxes aren't very different, just very close to the boundary that we choose to draw. Drawing that boundary is impossible to do without inadvertently taking a lot of political stances that we don't need to be taking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I argue that what a consensus of Wikipeidians agree upon is fair. —David618 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about cases where we can't reach a consensus? You're taking those into account, right? Now, we've basically got this one big argument going on about userboxes. Imagine a hundred of these arguments going on, over every borderline case. The only solution will be to get rid of all of them. So, let's skip the drama, and do that now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I say: come to consensus on general cases. Is it "devisive and inflammatory" to state that you hate {{{whatever}}}. Those can then be applied to individual userboxes. The only arguement would be under what category the userbox fits. We need to try to make the categories as definate as possible to stop arguements. It is rediculous to argue that many of these userboxes are "devisive and inflammatory." T2 is causing a lot of debate already, so just focus on the truely inflammatory ones—the majority of users would agree that a lot of the borderline ones are inflammatory. —David618 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, this is a response to GTBacchus' comment]] Actually, another solution to cases where we can't reach a consensus is to keep all of them. It is the logical equivalent. Even more, that is the standard resolution of xFD cases with no consensus - they get kept. So having the opposite position be a basis for speedy deletion amounts to a very hard to justify conclusion. I've said before, and I'll say it more strongly again, that I believe there is a chance that some form of T2 could become a criteria for deletion, but that it will not be possible to build consensus for T2 as a criteria for speedy deletion in any short time frame. Maybe with continuous discussion for the next 3-5 years a consensus as a speedy criteria could be built. GRBerry

I agree with your arguement. However, I believe that any criteria that prohibit beliefs, personal opinions, &c. would be opposed by too many people even for other types of deletion. —David618 02:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will assume the premise that we must delete all userboxes or keep all userboxes. Why not keep all userboxes that don't violate existing policy? We don't even need T1 to delete boxes that are egregiously bad. If interpreting T1 is such a heavy burden, just chuck it. Leave the boxes alone unless they are actively harming the project. Nobody here has shown any evidence that userboxes harm the project in any way. I say, delete T1 from the policy page. We managed fine for years without it - I think we can safely remove it. --My Spandex Heaven 02:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... we got along fine without T1 when there weren't a bunch of userboxes, of course. Then they started growing like a cancer, and the advent of T1 is a response to that. A problem arose, and we addressed it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I believe that truely divisive and inflammatory userboxes should be deleted, if we can not fairly follow T1 then we should scrap it. —David618 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't scrap T1, for various reasons, among them being that we'd be flirting with the law, and also that Jimbo made T1 policy, and it's his website. We can and should fairly follow T1 by getting rid of unencyclopedic, just-asking-for-trouble, fire-starting ideological userboxes. Get all the ideological partisanship the hell off of this website; it's at odds with our project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo did endorse T1 but also said: "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." If T1 is being used to delete any template that pertains to beliefs then it should be removed. —David618 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's that quote from? It doesn't seem to be at WP:JOU with the others. Regardless, I think this conversation is a part of reflecting on this issue as a community. I'm just trying to work out the arguments, which I find somewhat complicated. I have an idea what's at the core of it, and I suspect there's an elephant in the room that nobody's mentioning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote seems remarkably like the one that went on this page after he reverted the deletion of T1 after its initial planting by another user. Also, how would we be flirting with the law without T1 as a speedy deletion criteria? Also, in what world is saying "This user is a Christian" a "unencyclopedic, just-asking-for-trouble, fire-starting ideological userboxes". Statements of personal belief are part of what it means to be a human. Your belief in what you think wikipedia is may actually be called divisive and inflammatory, by reference of the fact that this whole page is filled with discussion about the issue, and that the policy page is protected as a direct result of your belief that the deletions themselves relieve division, or which you can provide precious little evidence of the wholescale problem with any beliefs in userboxes on wikipedia. --Ansell 10:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. The folks wielding the stone tablets forgot one. Why am I not surprised? They certainly went on a spree of deletion... Jay Maynard 12:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what the problem with POV userboxes is. If it's OK to say "This user is an atheist" directly on one's user page, why is it not OK to do the same with a template? And frankly I don't see how it's any more "divisive" that saying "this user is an administrator", which also "divides" in only the most literal sense. —Ashley Y 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As for borderline "divisive and inflammatory" cases, that's what TFD is for. It's like any other deletion dispute: let the community decide. —Ashley Y 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This argument over the precise meaning of the rule is an inevitable consequence of creating a highly subjective speedy deletion criterion. In this way, this rule is just as bad as having a speedy deletion rule for "non-notable", "offensive", or "uninteresting" articles (which we don't have for good reason). Do userboxes disrupt the community? Maybe so - but a rule that can be so broadly interpreted that it lets people delete any userbox they don't like is even more disruptive. Deco 03:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deco, you may be right about that, but it kind of begs the question, why have these things around at all if they're bound to cause disruption? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to some of this disruption caused by userboxes? I mean apart from debate on whether POV userboxes should exist? —Ashley Y 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely an elephant in the room. Ashley, please give me a few minutes - I'm cooking dinner and my arm's in a sling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As our revered founder once said: "Get these motherfucking snakes off of my plane! And I don't mean that as an order, or an edict, just an expression of opinion."

Seriously, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It follows that Wikipedia's facilities will not be abused for other purposes. If you want a little pastel box saying "I'm an X-ist", go elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the "Userbox lovers don't care about Wikipedia" crap. And did Jimbo's statement have anything to do with userboxes? And if so, where is the link proving he said that? --D-Day 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a parody. Also, I haven't said that userbox proponents "don't care about Wikipedia." I have said that putting aforementioned opinionated little pastel box has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And for quoting Jimbo, see [1], where the "current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace [...] is that they are damaging to our culture". Jimbo thinks they are damaging to remain in template space, and I agree, what's under discussion is the best way to do that [move out of template space], not whether or not it should be done. Regards, MartinRe 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN has nothing to with creating an encyclopedia. ArbCom has very little to do with creating an encyclopedia. Your subpages have nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia Department of Fun has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's Facebook has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Heck, Jimbo's user page has little to do with creating an encyclopedia. Do you see those getting mercilessly speedied at will? I agree some things don't belong in here, but most userboxes do have something to do with creating an encyclopedia: They help uncover user biases, helping to reach the goal of neutrality, and they declare a user's interest, which other editors can use to recruit them to work on those articles that talk about their interests. --D-Day ^{What up?} 13:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of your examples are easily disputed. But that's by-the-by. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that you have given good examples of unencyclopedic activities that are tolerated on Wikipedia. The difference with all of the above is that we don't put them in template space and invite other editors to transclude them on their userpages. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They're still taking up server space. And Jimbo's page encourages people to edit it. And you're subtlely encouraged to put your picture on facebook. But that's OK. You support those pages' existence, so they must be OK. --D-Day ^{What up?} 13:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I don't have a problem with User:Jimbo Wales or the facebook. They all perform useful functions as part of building the encyclopedia, and they do so in a non-viral manner. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the facebook help anything? It's MySpacey crap that gives new users the impression that Wikipedia is a social-networking site. --D-Day ^{What up?} 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's plausible, I suppose. I was under the impression that the facebook was of use to people arranging to meet one another. This is the sole purpose for which I have had occasion to use it. I've hardly ever heard it discussed and I don't see it being promoted in the same way as userboxes. Editors do not, to my knowledge, spend most of their time on Wikipedia producing a facebook entry. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, how are userboxes being promoted or taking up most of the time of any editor, other than the current debate? --AySz88|Talk16:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The facebook isn't being discussed here, but one possible benefit is that it's easier to say rash words to a typewritten name than it is when you can visualise the person you're talking to. So, in that way, it encourages people to be civil. Also, this enclyopedia is written by people, so having a list of authors (or their pictures) isn't unreasonable. Wikipedia isn't a social-networking site, but that is not to say that social networking doesn't exist, it does, but so long as the primary aim of the networking is to contribute to building the enclyopedia, and not to be a social network in its own right, that's fine by me. Regards, MartinRe 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is better served by editors proclaiming their opinions up-front rather than pretending that they become "neutral" the moment they start editing. Userboxes are a convenient way of doing this. —Ashley Y 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an arguable case for people stating their biases. This can be done by individual users who want to do so writing about themselves in English on their userpages, or else voluntarily disclosing their biases in discussion. Although this argument is often trundled out whenever the deletion of userboxes is challenged, this clearly isn't the purpose for which userboxes are commonly used. Their use in relatively non-contentious contexts ("this user wears levis", etc) is advertising, promotion and endorsement. This is also certainly true of the belief-based userboxes that are the target of T1. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the purpose for which belief-based userboxes are commonly used is to proclaim ones beliefs up-front. This better serves neutrality. —Ashley Y 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This has come up several times before. Userboxes are neither the only way, nor a very good way to declare one's biases. Userboxes are colorful little stickers that appear to be fun, club-housey asvertisements of one's bias. Pretending this whole dispute is about people who want to declare their biases in the service of neutrality is rather deluded. The purpose for which they're generally used in unencyclopedic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I started putting userboxes on my userpage in order to show by biases. I thought that it was important for me to show certain things at the time and userboxes were the best way. It's good that userboxes are "colorful little stickers;" a long list of text is much harder to find perticular things in. —David618 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring suggestion

I think we've had a lot of repetitive discussion lately and would welcome any reasonable attempt at radical refactoring. Obviously I'm far too involved to undertake this. Anybody else want to give it a go? You'd have my full support. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'm (relatively) fresh to this debate. As I see it there are two types of user boxes:

• Those which, if you have them, show you are better able to edit an article eg Mathematician makes you better at editing Mathmatics articles
• Those which, if you have them, make you worse at edting an article eg Political candidate for party X make you worse at editing articles where that party has a strong POV prejudiced opinion.

So one idea is to allow relatively neutral ones which show where you can help WP (and hence get invitations to chip in), but remove ones where the only reason to ask for help would be stack a poll or edit war in one particular direction. Stephen B Streater 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "This user is interested in mathematics" kind of stuff is pretty unexceptionable and I don't know of such a userbox that has been deleted (aside from Template:User pedo, which stated "This user is interested in pedophilia."). Belief-based userboxes tend to be very controversial, especially in the light of our neutral point of view and concerns that there is a promotional component to their creation and use. They're being phased out, basically. See Jimbo's comment about this [2]. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also by wikipedia having the POV userboxes displayed in offical space gives the indication that wikipedia encourages people to "pick a side". This implied factionisation of wikipedia users is what I believe Jimbo meant by being "damaging to our culture"[3] Regards, MartinRe 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, how about a subpage for all the T1/T2 discussions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of such subpages. The discussion is relevant, but just very repetitive. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of having a subpage would be to make it easier for the rest of us, who don't care any which way about userboxes, to follow any debate that might arise about the criteria for things that matter. (Really, both sides of the dispute are incomprehensible to me. Why is it so important for some people to use ugly HTML soup to declare their biases? On the other hand, why does Tony insist on claiming as an axiom that "I like brussels sprouts" in plain text is OK, whereas "This user likes brussels sprouts" in ugly HTML soup is somehow evil divisive promotion of brussels sprouts? Do you think people who read userpages are so easily swayed that a splash of garish color is likely to change their opinion about anything? Or do you thing that people who use userboxes stupid enough that they think their readers are that easily swayed? If not, why would the HTML soup be a sign of trying to actively promote BS?) Henning Makholm 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Both are promotion. The difference is well explained by Jimbo, and has been repeated a number of times now so I won't do it all over again. --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to one of those repetitions? I have not seen any coherent explanation of what the big deal is on this page. I also have not seen any coherent explanation of how the mere assertion of an opinion, disjoint from any attempt to argue its validity, could possibly count as "promotion" in a company of intelligent human beings. How is "User:Foo is a communist" different from "Vladimir Lenin was a communist", and why would the former be more effective at convincing anybody than the latter? Henning Makholm 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the following (so of course I think it brilliant ;) and someone else added it to the UserBox page where it has remained for three months (to what avail I don't know):

The primary purpose of user boxes and user categories should be to alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing. For instance, if you speak a second language or have professional expertise in a technical field, other users will know they can contact you for assistance. User boxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV rather than show expertise are generally discouraged.

I actually think this should be a line of policy with "generally discouraged" changed to "may be deleted." Deciding what "reflects a POV rather than show expertise" will, of course, be subjective but this provides a common referent. Jimbo liked it anyhow. Marskell 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me. Given the heat being generated here, perhaps a debate should precede POV deletion claims. Someone who is an expert in Green Energy could come under 'technical expertise', like my sister who has numerous qualifications and many years experience as a Mechanical Engineer in this area, or could just be some guy who has personal issues and as picked on renewable energy. This dichotomy is apparently already present, and (by convergent evolution as I haven't found the current userbox pages yet) in my earlier post. So I'll support the current wording. "Generally discouraged" allows a grey area to stop life-and-death struggles. I'm moving towards "is strongly discouraged" to discourage WP:SOAP. Stephen B Streater 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

T1/2 & Beliefs About Wikipedia

What about beliefs regarding Wikipedia. Shouldn't userboxes be allowed to express opinions about Wikipedia itself. It's not as if someone is going to make a userbox that says, "This user believes wikipedia should promote Nazism" (though on thinking about it I wouldn't be too supprised. after all we have been arguing for quite some time that makes little difference in the real world). —David618 02:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if a user created a box stating "This user believes wikipedia should promote Nazism", it would do no damage. So yes, userboxes should be allowed to express opinions. Period. --KCUf 06:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The nazism one would be deleted as inflammatory and, if reviewed, would be kept deleted. It would be an obvious troll. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, KCUf, if you seriously believe that "it would do no damage" then your judgement is rather brought into question.

James F. (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the userboxes and don't see a need for speedy deletion. Is the above userbox really going to "hurt" anybody while its getting deleted/nuked?? I would find that box useful, 'cause I could go to the guy/gals page, see the box, understand that he/her is a troll and act accordingly. I have more trouble when I am not sure of an editors agenda/POV and have to spend alot of time researching it before I can act. Just my 2 cents. --Tom 16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we don't have that many trolls who want to promote nazism on Wikipedia, or to pretend they want to. If they do want to do so, they'll find their own ways of doing it. Let's not give them the right to abuse template space in order to carry out their trolling. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Editors with an extreme agenda make it clear from their editing, so an additional userbox is unnecessary. Other editors, while they might have a POV, might not always edit from that POV, and might have written a perfectly NPOV article, (or even an slightly other direction article if they tried too hard to be neutral). In those cases, assuming what they wrote was biased to their POV solely on a little box on their page and acting accordingly would be incorrect, and even counterproductive. Regards, MartinRe 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a neutral editor. Everyone has PsOV, and even when people make an effort to write fairly, as they should, their POV is always present. Much better to state it up-front so you can better work with editors with other PsOV, and thus come closer to neutrality. —Ashley Y 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're in the habit of checking every editor's userpage before you edit an article, it's of limited use. If an edit looks biased enough to check the page, chances are you know what the bias is anyway. In any case, this is not about whether declaring potential biases is good or not (I think not, for reasons above) this is about the use of template space to do it. Assuming you believe POV must be declared, do you have a reason why it must be declared using template space? Regards, MartinRe 17:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

<==

The benefit is probably more that the editors themselves are acknowledging their own bias than the fact that the boxes let others know about their biases. Encouraging the acknowledgement of one's own biases, I think, should be encouraged; thus appropriate for Template space.

Granted, not everyone who uses userboxes might view it that way, but that's why I'd sketched an idea to make it more likely that people do view them that way. AySz88|talk 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need userboxes to declare a point of view. You can write "I'm a socialist" or "I'm anti-abortion" or whatever on your user page. This is an encyclopedia so all editors are supposed to have a reasonable grasp of English, so writing a short English sentence should be very easy. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The userbox has a better chance of grabbing people's attention than standard text. AySz88 is 150% correct. Letting your biases known should be accepted, as long as it doesn't trickle into articlespace. --D-Day ^{What up?} 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even so, a userbox in user space has the idential look to a userbox in template space, so whether displaying biases is good or bad is a moot issue really for this debate. Regards, MartinRe 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Letting your biases be known is accepted, we're just arguing over a particular format that has side-effects. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Those side effects may include nausea, headache, diarrhea, heartburn, loss of sleep, intense stomach pain, and abhorence of user pages. Some pregnant women should not use userboxes. Talk to your doctor before using any T1 template. Ooops, sorry about that! You mentioned "side effects", and well...

But Martin is right. (again) I plan on subst-ing my userboxes with the {{userbox}} format today. Someone looking at them wouldn't know the difference. Question is, are they still taking up userspace because of the {{userbox}} format? --D-Day ^{What up?} 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the best thing. If you want the boxes, I don't think there's anyone on the wiki who would say you can't have them. The problem is the transclusion, template space, whatlinkshere and categories. And those all go away, for the purposes of this discussion, if you use {{userbox}}. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not something should be a template has a lot to do with whether it should be encouraged, because the existance of something in Template space encourages the thing's proliferation - Jimbo's reasoning of whether userboxes were appropriate for Template space hinged on his opinion that their proliferation "attracted the wrong sorts of people" (or some similar wording). If userboxes should be encouraged instead of discouraged - because userboxes encourage acknowledgement of editors' biases - then it would be beneficial to put them in the Template space. --AySz88talk 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbos exact wording is at [4], but if your arguement is based on Jimbo being wrong, then I don't think it'll fly on a website owned by him. FWIW, I think he's right, advertising POV templates does suggest that wikipedians should "choose a side", which is not what we're about. It's like going to a wedding and being asked "bride or groom?" when you know both of them. Oh, if you're interested and believe POV should be declared, you (or anyone interested) can try what I propsed at User_talk:Ashley_Y#Neutral_editor. I declare no bias on my user page, but if that has affected my editing, it should be obvious by now. I'm the guinea pig. Analzse my editing, show a bias, and give me a userbox that would have helped. Regards, MartinRe 22:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what my point was; you said that whether or not expressing bias is good or bad is a moot issue - however, I don't think it's a moot issue, because that issue is important to deciding whether some T2 userboxes are beneficial and should be encouraged, and that's important to whether or not T2 userboxes should stay in Template space. --AySz88talk 23:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. that's it. If someone comes here to promote something, our message to them should be an unambiguous "go elsewhere." We should state that message loudly, clearly, repeatedly and with one voice. We cannot do that while we have things that look like promotional messages on our userpages. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(Who knows which level of indentation this should really be...) Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith is directly relevant here. One of the points that I was trying to make in my long-winded subsection above is that editors shouldn't need to label each other. Ardric47 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and leadership

Wikipedia works on consensus. Where there is no consensus, leadership is required to create one. Various attempts at leadership have been tried, for example deleting suspect userboxes or initiating discussions, but none of these have yet yielded a consensus. This is my attempt to draw out a consensus.

Here are my observations as a relatively new user of WP:

• WP is a social place where people can discuss almost any topic, contributing and learning
• A typical new user takes WP pretty much as it is, or leaves
• Userboxes contribute a lot to how new users see WP and so to how consensus on WP will evolve

So what are the consequencies of possible userbox policies:

• If we allow any userbox, WP will become fun and controversial, an informal meeting place with an encycopaedia tacked on
• If we abolish userboxes, WP will become a less attractive place for new users, narrowing the contributor base

I propose:

• We allow userboxes listing expertise in a particular area "I am a concert standard musician"
• We allow, but discourage, factual userboxes about a person which do not involve out-of-the ordinary knowledge "I have a baby"
• We exclude soap box style boxes: "Nokia make the best mobile phones"

This policy will:

• Focus new users (who with current exponential growth will soon be most users) on the encyclopaedia aspect of WP
• Allowing a simple way to add attractive graphics to user pages, making WP more attractive
• Move the User pages towards information more relevant to building an encyclopaedia

Stephen B Streater 11:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, admins, and consensus

Jimbo doesn't like POV userboxes (WP:JOU) and would like to see them gone. However, it's clear that he wants this to happen by the usual Wikipedia practice of obtaining consensus, and not by administrative action. How does one obtain consensus for one's views? By "changing the culture, one person at a time".

Instead, a bunch of administrators decided to implement Jimbo's wishes through administrative action. Furthermore, they were careful to make sure that at no point were their actions to be subject to obtaining the consensus of the community. This is why the deletions were done under CSD rather than TFD, since TFD involves obtaining consensus. This is why T1 was surreptitiously broadened rather than a new policy proposed, since new policy involves obtaining consensus.

It's clear to me that T2 and all the userbox deletions done under it were done without consensus and are therefore out of line. Those deletions should be restored, past DRv decisions notwithstanding, until consensus on this issue has been obtained or Jimbo abandons his attempt to obtain consensus and makes a binding decision. —Ashley Y 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, aren't you advocating digging something up so we can rebury it later? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping Jimbo might change his mind, actually, since the consensus process works both ways. —Ashley Y 19:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the above by Ashley Y is tripe. T1 was clearly endorsed by Jimbo, and arbcom, in the discussions of which Jimbo has access and sometimes participates, endorsed a broad interpretation of it in the Tony Sidaway arbitration. Everything since than has been attempts by some parties to roll that back by misrepresenting the correct T1 speedies as action without consensus. Why? Because T1 has proven itself valueable again and again at review, and Wikipedia is slowly taking back the encyclopedia from those who propose that it should be abused for non-encyclopedic purposes. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, for the benefit of all of us, could you comment on Jimbo's words about "changing the culture, one person at a time" and "not going on any deletion sprees". What weight do you give those parts of his statements? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's hopeful comment in late January became somewhat academic after the events of early February. See the pedophilia userbox wheel war arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like ArbCom, but not Jimbo, actually endorsed a broad interpretation of T1. So this broad interpretation didn't come from Jimbo and doesn't come from broad consensus, and therefore has no authority. Also, regardless of how effective you feel I am at this purpose, I have a specifically encyclopaedic purpose in including POV userboxes on my userpage (currently on a subpage). They supplement the opinions expressed in English on my userpage. —Ashley Y 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to characterize ArbCom as "no authority". Jimbo created ArbCom and gave them authority. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't have authority to create new policy, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started.3F. I don't think the "slow evolution" clause counts either, for something so contested. —Ashley Y 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a mistake to declare that arbcom has no authority to create new policy. Nothing in the arbitration policy that I'm aware of says that they cannot. They're rightly wary of doing so, but in practice I think it's fair to say that they do create new policy. As examples I'd suggest probation, general probation, revert parole and personal attack parole which are all general delegations of power by arbitration committee to individual self-selecting administrators or (in the case of general probation, a self-selecting group of three administrators). These are all examples of policy created by arbcom with the effect of substantially extending the powers of the administrators as a whole (and of course completely circumventing the traditional consensus-based flow of power). --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo monitors decisions, and he communicates with arbitrators. If arbcom's interpretation was wrong he'd tell them (and us!) By contrast, you can see the recent comments Jimbo has written for himself and you'll see that, in fact, he's somewhat ahead of arbcom on this.

I think that my problem with your view of affairs, Ashley Y, is that I think you wrongly believe that the administrators are overstepping their remit. If this were the case, the deletion reviews, which are open to all editors and not just administrators, would be consistently saying "slow down" or "stop". I'm just not seeing this. The reviews are returning mostly green lights. Thus the deleting administrators, Jimbo, the arbitrators, and the Wikipedia consensus seem to be as much in accord as could be expected on any issue. The suggestion that administrators are just acting rogue here is insuppportable. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think undeleting userboxes would make anyone feel much better - the damage is done. I agree that deletions shouldn't have been made under T2 when the policy change was made without consensus, but if they didn't have T2 they probably would've just deleted them under T1, which is so vague that it can be interpreted to include the same cases. I think it's T1 we really have to worry about - if we want to restore consensus-based policy, I think the first step would be to get Jimbo's permission to make T1 something we can revise instead of an infallible proclamation. Deco 19:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

All deletions are subject to review. Where the T1 deletions have been reviewed, they're most often endorsed very strongly. This gives us confidence that T1 is a good policy capable of a robust and broad interpretation. Of course the people who want to continue to abuse Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes don't see it that way. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

From my subjective view on Deletion Reviews of Userboxes I would disagree that they have been endorsed strongly. There was a consensus to relist the User Christian template for instance. How would that happen if T1 was so broadly applicable. Could you give evidence as to your point about full-length deletion reviews which were clearly endorsing T1. User:Ansell 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait... You disappeared the evidence a few days ago... How will I ever make up my own mind about them. User:Ansell 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the best place to find those discussions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User Church of Christ, deleted, but hardly without protest, or direct reference to T2 for delete votes. [5]

{{User Christian}}, listed at TfD after a controversial Speedy by Mackensen in response to vandalism by Tony and Cyde, survived TfD almost unanimously [6]

{{User Ideal Dictator}}, listed at TfD after a successful deletion review after a speedy delete under T1

{{User_independent_Iraq}} Deleted under T1 after a successful deletion review and a (slightly, leaning far towards keep) no consensus TfD

{{User darwinist}} Did not run to its length before being closed by Tony with a Close, kd, stupidly high proportion of endorsements although the actual proportion was at the time of closing, all of 26 hours after its nomination, was 5 to 15, hardly a total unanimous action.

It seems clear that the speedy something and then decide whether it can come back through a two week process, which has been followed by successful readmissions is hardly worth the saving in effort by a speedy deletion. User:Ansell 01:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the following quoted sentence mean? I cannot parse it.

It seems clear that the speedy something and then decide whether it can come back through a two week process, which has been followed by successful readmissions is hardly worth the saving in effort by a speedy deletion.

Looking at the above, you've listed three templates that were clear successes for T1 (Independent Iraq, darwinist, church of christ).

You have also falsely accused me of being involved in vandalism of Template:User christian. Basically you're presenting poor quality evidence. Please take this process more seriously. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question about the whole userbox deletion thing

If this has such broad support, and is so widely accepted, why is it being driven by so very few? When I look over this talk page, one voice seems to stand out. The chart above shows that even of the actually divisive userboxes listed, half were deleted by two people. Concensus should not have such a volume component. I'd ask, as nicely as possible, if perhaps it wouldn't be a good thing for the loudest voices (including me) to just step back for a while? To let other people do the talking and deleting, so that we can perhaps hear what other people have to say?
brenneman ^{L} 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If Doc, Cyde and the other administrators who have taken to speedy deleting any and all userboxes would be willing to take a break from deletion, it would probably go a long way toward resolving this issue, IMHO. --70.213.250.24 03:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a relevant question. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger. What matters is that the community supports the decision, which is clearly the case. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the case? I think you may be deluding yourself, Tony. --70.213.250.24 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm going on personal experience and the results of the deletion reviews. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, so Tony is consensus, and DRV can be dispensed with. It is all WP:SNOW, right? --70.213.187.48 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Jimbo. It's not just Tony and I ... most people are saner than us to actually get involved in this nonsense. --Cyde↔Weys 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cyde. Don't forget Jimbo said to avoid mass deletion. How is that going? --Cjytop 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, can we hold off on the back-and-forth sniping? I'm trying to make a reasonable suggestion: That those people (from both sides, ideally) who have the most extreme positions just step back. If there actually is wide-spread support etc. etc. than we don't need the special love that only one admin can give. Same goes for the kicking and screaming from the other side: Surely some middle ground can be found, and if you (whomever I'm pointing at) won't back off than perhaps stop saying there is consensus? - brenneman ^{L} 05:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about this too. 70.213.250.24 listed four userboxes on DRV. They were deleted three times by three different admins, two of which who deleted two of the four userboxes. None offered any explanation, just the sterile "reverted edits by ... back to version by ..." Since WP:DRVU is gone, I figured that listing any UBX on the regular DRV was acceptable. Apparently it's not? Or it's not acceptable by an anon? Hbdragon88 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

At some point, it's not cool to drag the same userboxes back to DRV again and again. Are we obliged to re-explain an arbitrary number of times why they're gone? Their code is readily available if anyone wants them in userspace. There's also such a thing as a three revert rule - the anon made that same edit about a dozen times, jumping around about six IPs and as many throwaway accounts. That same anon was also making vandalistic edits, and at some point, a troll is a troll. I tried dealing with him reasonably, but as soon as I asked a question he didn't like he started vandalizing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good, now I have an explanation. That other account that also restorted the userboxes was also 70.213.250.24 too, I suppose? Well now I have my explanation, so I will vanish. But it would have made a lot more sense had it been explained in the edit summary. Hbdragon88 06:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know why I'm bothering to read this, since I have no hope of affecting policy, and I've already turned my userpage into the bland, homogenous pap that Tony and Cyde want. I don't believe there is compromise to be found here. Some folks don't want userboxes, period. (If they simply objected to having them in template space, why would they vote against a proposal to move them to another readily-accessible space?) Some folks think they're of value for the encyclopedia. Where is there middle ground between those two positions? To move them to users' pages destroys their utility as readily-specifiable, easily editable expressions of who a user is, especially if there is no central directory listing them.

Step back? I stepped back, because I got disgusted and made to feel unwelcome. If I step back any further, it will be away from Wikipedia entirely. Jay Maynard 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify

I do not understand this response (italicized).

• Nevertheless, discounting such voices will discourage vote-stacking.
  • It can be argued that this is an attempt to have it both ways: while votes don't count, nevertheless they do count when one side wishes to use them to make a point. Which is it? Do they count, or not?

Can the poster clarify? In practice, many closers determine the result of a discussion by counting the raw vote and then adjusting it for various factors, including the presence of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. If this were generally extended to count the Fooian Nationalist contingent as (say) two voices, they would have no profit in more than two of them arguing, which ought to give them less incentive to vote-stack. I do not see what double standard is being used in this observation. Septentrionalis 00:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two arguments here:

1. Userboxes allow vote-stacking. Vote-stacking is bad, because it distorts the Wikipedia decision making process.
2. Wikipedia is not a democracy; thus, voting doesn't count, and admins can (and have) delete userboxes even in the face of an overwhelming Keep vote.

These two arguments are the converse of each other. If voting doesn't count, what difference does it make that someone has gone out and drummed up a bunch of votes? If voting counts, why are things being deleted even though the vote said to keep them? This argument is self-contradictory, and yet nobody's questioned it until I posted it (and re-posted twice when Tony deleted it). Jay Maynard 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't talk like a troll. People might begin to treat you like one. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Jay's argument makes sense. The above is not trolling, by any reasonable interpretation. If you fail to understand it, or don't have an answer for it, that doesn't make him a troll. Is your problem with reading comprehension, or with assuming good faith, or what is your problem here? I'm sorry, that was unhelpful. Do you not understand Jay's argument here? Which part of it is unclear? I think it's a valid argument, and I'm thinking about a reply to it. I don't see how he's acting like a troll. It seems to me that you might be forgeting your civility here, and that I certainly just did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! A laudable display of character by GTBacchus. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'm trying, possibly not hard enough, to not dismiss your arguments, but instead answer them, and trying, possibly not hard enough, to assume good faith on your part. You, OTOH, have dismissed some of my arguments as "is this serious?" and "trolling". Yes, I'm serious. I'm not raising arguments here that I don't consider serious, and I'm not trolling at all: I believe in every argument I've raised, and I'm not arguing just to be arguing.

What leads you to believe I'm not being entirely serious? What leads you to believe I'm trolling? Why should I assume good faith on your part when you refuse to take me and my arguments seriously?

I'm getting really tired of being the target of personal attacks such as this and being labeled a "MySpacer". My patience, for this process and for Wikipedia's governance, is wearing quite thin. Jay Maynard 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

With regards to votestacking vs "votes don't count" being in conflict, I would agree that it looks somewhat strange, but I would suggest that's because "votestacking" is an inaccurate term in this context, it's more like "consensus skewing". Consensus only really works if you have have "reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together". I'm also of the opinion that it works best with a smaller representive sample group, as with more people the discussion increases in complexity (c/f The Mythical Man-Month). Because of this, adding people by "vote stacking" to a discussion will skew it unfairly, and if vote stacking occurrs on multiple sides, the discussion often disintegrates into chaos. While you could say that if a majority of a group express one preference, that must be the consesus, that it only really true if the group is representative, but when votestacking occurs, the group has a selection bias, and the outcome is unreliable. Regards, MartinRe 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well put. Thank you, MartinRe. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Every discussion at Wikipedia is subject to selection bias in the form of self-selection. Only those who are interested, motivated, and are aware of any discussion participate. Please explain to me how any discussion at Wikipedia, particularly those on controversial subjects, are based on a representative sample group? In my mind, this appears to be more of a straw man argument used to protect the transactions of a nonexistent mythological group. Rfrisbie^talk 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point is so much about whether your sample is representative or not in the absence of vote-stacking. The idea is that, if one side vote stacks, it's meaningless because it's unrepresentative, and if you try to make it representatives by letting both sides stack, then you get chaos.

If the process is working, the discussion isn't in terms of POV anyway, but in terms of policy, and what's best for the encyclopedia, so we shouldn't need a representative sample. MartinRe's good point, which I was applauding, is noting that it doesn't have to be a vote for a group of fourteen POV pushers to mess it up. When AfD gets flooded with votes, AfD stinks on ice. Anyone who's spent time there knows that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My broken-record reply to that is points of view are not evil, nor are they possible to avoid. The antithesis of "NPOV" is not "POV," it's "bias." (Wikipedia:Describing points of view). In my view, the best way to neutralize votestacking bias is increased participation. When the "true value" of a discussion is "no consensus," then so be it. That's the real situation when policies are necessary. (And they can't be established by consensus in such cases. It's a leadership responsibility.) Addressing instances of votestacking when they occur is far superior to stifling value-neutral technologies that can be used in many more useful situations to promote valid means of collaboration on the project. Rfrisbie^talk 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were about numbers, the best way to "neutralize" "vote-stacking" would be increased participation. Since it's about discussion, that strategy succeeds in drowning out all rational discourse and replacing it with multiple mobs. The best way to deal with discussion flooding isn't more flooding, from another tap. What's more, your broken record doesn't actually address the way I was using the word POV. I meant "point of view", and not as a Bad Thing. It's a value-neutral thing that deletion discussions are not in terms of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if a policy discussion is posted on the Community Portal, e.g., "A one-week poll has started on TheTrueSora's proposal regarding moving userboxes to a userbox namespace." that gets a lot of participation, how is that a "bad" thing? Rfrisbie^talk 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly encourages the idea that we're about polls and majorites, which is a destructive idea. Still it's not a targeted piece of spam, delivered to talk pages of all the users in a certain POV-based category. That not only encourages thinking of discussions as votes by placing value on numbers, but it suggests that the discussion/vote/whatever is somehow about people's POV, when it isn't. On the other hand, if a bunch of people show up and start advocating for some POV, it suddenly becomes about that, which is bad.

I hope I'm making sense. I feel that I might have slipped into repetition by now, which is never a good sign. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What was the question?... :-) I'll take a break and do some more reading before I comment anywhere else on this debate. Rfrisbie^talk 20:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives to T2

Should the section be entitled simply alternatives to T2, as it does not seem to be the existence of T1 that is being debated, it is simply its interpretation that has been actively debated. T2 on the other hand has had both meaning and interpretation actively debated. Ansell Review my progress! 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Interpretation of T1 and alternatives to T2"? Too wordy? Jay Maynard 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a split into two sections addressing each issue may be appropriate. Ansell Review my progress! 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 and T2 are too closely linked to split them into different pages. —David618 ^t 17:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For one example of this, some editors hold the good-faith view that T2 is the proper interpretation of T1; T2 cannot be reasonably discussed without addressing this argument as long as it continues to be held. Septentrionalis 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Divide T2 by date?

Would it be helpful to break down T2 by creation date to assist the transition, as before we can reduce the number of userbox templates we have, we have to first stop that number increasing, surely? I would easily support a T2 (or even a harsher version of it) if it only applied to templates created after a certain date (e.g. June 1), and templates created before that date were userfied in steps, if required. I'd even suggest that existing templates (and any new ones created) should have to be userfied by default, and to move into template space, there should be clear consesus that this is required/useful to the project (as opposed to requiring consesus to move them out of template space). I have no problem with speedy deleting invalid templates created after a policy change, but for material that existed prior to that change, I think jumping straight from "tolerated" to "speedy delete" is not the way to go, and there should a middle ground of "depreciated" first, where no new ones are created, and old one are converted. Regards, MartinRe 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, why would anyone want to "reduce the number of userbox templates we have"? — Timwi 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Various reasons, see the debates above, in the archives and elsewhere. Happy editing! Hiding Talk 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... obviously a majority does not want to reduce the number of userbox templates, or else there would not be such clearly-visible opposition to it. So stop trying it, especially using such weird tricks! — Timwi 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If there really were a majority against deleting userboxes, then we wouldn't be very successfully deleting userboxes. Tony Sidaway 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, a group of admins were to add CSD policy without first obtaining consensus. —Ashley Y 22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, that consensus does not overrule offical policy, and consensus can not superceed WP:NOT, no more than a unamious keep vote will stop a copyvio being deleted. I agree broadly with Tony Sidaway about the end result, my main disagreement is the method of getting there. I think we are all trying to ensure that WP:NOT is adhered to, all we are trying to do is try and find a consensus about the best way of doing that. Trying to find consensus to change WP:NOT, however, would be doomed to failure by definition. Regards, MartinRe 00:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone has said before, WP:NOT shouldn't be a speedy criteria it requires a subjective determination. --AySz88^-^ 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But we haven't found consensus on whether WP:NOT applies. —David618 00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, AySz88, the "someone" you refer to was me. Quite funny having my own words quoted back at me :) And yes, WP:NOT shouldn't be a speedy, in my view, but many of the speedy critera do have some subjective determination, A7 for instance, what is regarded as a "claim for notability?" And as for whether WP:NOT applies, I think user pages are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia would apply to most cases. How relevant to enclyopedia editing are most things? My personal opinion is that if you have a bias, it's either not worth mentioning, or if it's strong enough to mention, it would be better to contribute in sections that you are more neutral, in which case you don't need to mention it. Regards MartinRe 00:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC) (aka Yossarian for that last comment :)

There is a greater tendency to agreement on whether A7 or G4 apply than T1 has ever had. Septentrionalis 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New userbox policy

The May Userbox policy poll has been ratified as an official policy on the English Wikipedia. Rfrisbie^talk 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "ratified"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I didn't count to ten, check the history. "How many admins does it take to close a proposal?" :-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am all for the May Userbox policy, but I do not see consensus. —David618 ^t 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this how T1/T2 policy is to be created "by consensus"?

Is this how Wikipedia policy on T1/T2 is to be created "by consensus"? Rfrisbie^talk 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Oh yes, people edit war over written policy all the time. It doesn't stop us doing things. We work according to Wikipedia policy, and in a certain sense we create it, while the written policy struggles to catch up. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)" (User talk:Tony Sidaway#Template:User liberty)

Tony goes to far in his beliefs on who makes policy. Policy comes from (1) a proposed policy being adopted by consensus, (2) a slow evolution of convention and common practice eventually codified as a policy, or (3) Jimbo Wales, the Board, or the Developers (WP:POL). Nowhere does it say that a few administrators can just create policy. —David618 ^t 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)