Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Template deletion: Please expand on "Divisive or Inflammatory"

I would like to get a better understanding of exactly what the words divisiveand inflammatory mean within the context of the Criteria for speedy deletion.

It appears that the term divisive means anything which causes unity to be lost, or where people are therefore seperated as a result of the template itself. If this is correct then it would assume that any template which indicates gender, location, preference or anything else is actually being divisive (ie we seperate ourselves into male/female, us/other country, pizza eaters/non-pizza eaters). If there is somehow an implied level of divisiveness then it may be appropriate to expand on this and explain exactly what level is significant enough to meet the criteria.

• Is it based on the controversial nature of the topic that is causing the division?
• What consensus is required to stop those with a specific POV from misdiagnosing the level of controversy?
• What measure is in place when a sizeable group of the community disagree with its level of controversy and thus disagree with it meeting the criteria based on this?

It also appears that the term inflammatory is fairly straight forward and indicates the purposeful use of a template for no other reason than to cause trouble and discomfort in other members of the community. This could be seen as combining with diversiveness when the topic is agreed by most to be highly controversial in nature.

• Does the fact that some people may take a topic personally (where no personal intention is made) make it inflammatory?
• Can someone subvert this process by stating it is inflaming them simply because they dont agree with the topic?
• What measure is in place to allow those who are inflamed by a template to have it recorded in this way and thus provide enough eivdence to have it meet the criteria?

Ultimately there have been many cases where a template has been instantly deleted without any consensus from the community, where little or no outcry has occurred in the removal of such templates and where many people have been confused and sought answers as to why it was deleted so quickly in an environment which prides itself on being a group effort. Hopefully explaination of these terms and perhaps even a refinement of them will help in maintaining this sense of group effort and clarify the reasoning behind certain decisions.

Leaving these terms unquantified and as "broad" as they are may be seen by some as a means to allow individuals the right to speedy delete templates they personally do not like because the terms are so broad they can choose when it does or does not meet the criteria necessary. I assume we all want to avoid this do we not? Enigmatical 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most people believe this criterion is too subjective. I asked Jimbo if it was okay if we clarified it to make it more objective, but never got a response. I think we should go ahead and do it anyway. Deco 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates which attempts to be a summary of prior debate about this criteria. The summary is long enough that an article of that length is recommended to be split into multiple articles. GRBerry 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see all of that "discussion" but I see no resolution or even an attempt to head towards a resolution in the near (or even distant) future. While it is clear that mass deletion is frowned upon, it hasn't stopped admins from taking their time and deleting userboxes every now and then (Could this be a slow form of mass deletion which slips under the radar due to how infrequently it is done?). So where do we go from here? A prime example was the deletion of the Template:User transhumanist template. Personally I fail to see how this is either divisive or inflammatory. It is neither more divisive than male/female, religion or any other existing userbox nor would it cause anyone to throw their arms up in horror to hear that someone personally believes in evolving ourselves as human beings through our own technological means (other than some minorities who have a religious disagreement with it). So how does one get this template un-deleted when the person who removed it did so without any warning and with at least 50+ users who still had it referened on their user pages? Enigmatical 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to bring in an additional clarification here, I believe the "spirit" of the terms were to catch anything which would in common society cause a harsh and negative separation of people and/or cause great pain to rational and tolerant people to read. Thus things which are bigoted, racist, sexist, immoral, rampantly unethical etc, etc would be reason to be speedy deleted because it would be an offense to allow them to stay up for even the length of time it takes to debate the issue. It was not intended for topics where there is clearly multiple points of view, where each point of view is perfectly valid and where reasonable members (Do note the use of the word reasonable) of each point of view happily accept alternatives or have no problem in those alternatives existing. Does everyone agree that this was the original intention of T1 and T2? Enigmatical 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the precedent?

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) and Tom harrison (talk · contribs) recently both reverted an edit to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion [1] [2] which attempted to provide some clarification on exactly what the terms "divisive" and "inflammatory" meant. In both cases they stated precident as the reasons for removal. Precident would indicate that it should be extremely easy to find previous cases where these terms gained a clear and precise definition that could be used by those confused by these terms in the future.

I would like to ask both of these people if they would provide this precident, or at least a few examples of it so that other people can use this information to get a better understanding in the future. This should be an incredibly simple and fast task considering their reasoning for reverting in the first place. Enigmatical 03:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's rather self-explanatory, actually. Their obvious objections are twofold: first, that you highlighted "and", which I know at least Tony Sidaway opposed, preferring and/or. Second, as they stated, the definitions of "divisive" and "inflammatory" we utilize in judging templates may not actually match those of the official definition. (Such is bureacracy.) The final, less-obvious reason is stability: That was/is an insanely controversial regulation, effectively in existance only due to Divine intervention. Any changes to it will be considered contentious by default, and should be discussed ahead of time. As for what the precedant is, try reading the debate above. It'll take a few hours, but you should be able to answer your questions. --tjstrf 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Its self-explanatory.... yet your points neither answer the question or are accurate:

1. The word "and" has nothing to do with me and was there previously. I simply wikilinked the two words to the wiktionary definition and highlighted the operator. My edit did not change it from and/or.
2. If the words do not match their definitions then it is a clear indication that it needs better explaination as most people would take those words to be at face value would they not? Thus if the use of those words as judgement is different to what is commonly expected of them, it shows clearly why confusion is occuring. Given that as the "status quo", admins are quite likely to use these criteria to incorrectly speedy delete things because their own interpretation could be different
3. I did read the above and the fact it does take hours to read clearly shows that there is a need to extrapolate this "precident" from the large amount of material. Thus the statement that precident clearly shows the definition of these words must be flawed.

We still need to clearly define what definition is being used here rather than just pointing people to a very large and spread out series of talk pages and wiki discussions and telling them "its in there somewhere". Enigmatical 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the editors already answered the questions themselves. I merely restated and expanded their answers.

1. The highlighting emphasizes it. Emphasizing something that is begrudged by the userbox deletionists is obviously not going to be appreciated by them.
2. The words do match their definitions, roughly at least. Unless you think "divisive and inflammatory" means the userboxes must hunt people down, chop them into pieces, and light them on fire in order to qualify for speedy deletion. Additionally, things are at times purposefully left ambiguous so that they can be debated, interpeted, and applied in a case-by-case basis.
3. The current version is the only one people agreed on. Changing it without discussion can very understandably be reverted.

And finally, the precedent IS this gigantic debate, the talk pages, the TfD nominations and discussions, their talk pages, multiple essays, mailing list posts and even an arbcom case if I remember correctly. Expecting all of this to be condensed into some tidy little summary is absurd. The project page here, T1 and T2 debates, attempts to give the major points, and I'l assume you've read it. Isn't it clear enough already? Finally, if you really want a full understanding of any situation, you must go back to the original conversations. --tjstrf 06:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What I take from all that is that it is in the best interest of the admins to not have these terms made clearer and that they are purposely being left ambiguous so that they can arbitrarily apply them when they personally feel the need to and as long as they do not appear to go on a delitionist spree in doing so. Whats more, the "precident" being stated is not only so difficult to wade through and is large enough that nobody can possibly get a clear understanding (thus again supporting the original statement). It does seem to perfectly suit this point of view. Enigmatical 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All rules are meant to be interpeted and negotiable. Leaving them slightly ambiguous is for the better. It's not like this in any way hurts you. Finally, if you're too lazy to read the precedent when it's offered, that's your problem, it's not realistic to summarize all that text any more clearly than already has been done on this project page. So either read it yourself, or stop complaining. I wouldn't trust an individual unwilling to read the debate to make judgments about its results either. --tjstrf 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I dont appreciate being told to stop whining. We are both doing what we feel is necessary for the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole. While you see ambiguity as a benefit I see it as a scapegoat which has been used to subvert due process. We each have a right to our own point of view. I respect yours and your desire to support it, please do me the same courteousy. Enigmatical 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for any incivility conveyed, my statement about whining referred to the fact that you won't take the trouble to read the debate yourself, not your actual concerns, which are understandable though imo invalid. Ambiguity and open-endedness lends itself to fair case-by-case judgment a lot more than set in stone rules (which are forbidden anyway with the exception of the founding principles) or blanket determinations ever will. --tjstrf 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of T1 has never been clear; its authority is Jimbo's unexplained reversion to someone else's edit; and the result has been both inflammatory and divisive. (But all this is on the project page.) Septentrionalis 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you check on Jimbo on Userboxes you will infact find an explanation for his reversion, which means it is incorrect to say it was an unexplained reversion. Ansell 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's more there than the last time I saw it, which is good; but I don't see which you mean. Which section am I overlooking? Septentrionalis 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed taken the trouble to read the debate, I even stated so before.I wont be so bold as to say I have read and understood all of it, I don't think thats actually possible to completely comprehend the entirity of it for anyone. This is half the problem... There is so much to wade through it is easy to miss things and different people pull out different parts and state that its their interpretation which is the "whole point". After reading it I can see several deleted userboxes which should never have been deleted, while we still have religious useboxes hanging around well after (Yet it was the religious and political useboxes Jimbo was originally talking about). To me, after reading the debate it clearly shows that some admins have broken policy and speedied some useboxes which do not meet this criteria. Of course they will argue it does because they draw their own definition from the "precident" and we go full circle and end up in the same place we started... with no clearer understanding and no way to validate whe policy is adhered to or broken. And people say we don't need to clarify it?!??! Enigmatical 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo does say that "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project". That is enough an explanation for me. No need to use extra definitions for the statement he endorsed but did not actually create. Thats like trying to push his definition inside yours. Ansell 23:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the speedy deletion of a userbox that advocated organ donation. That's about as unpolemical as a userbox can get. Really, it's about stifling any shadow of people saying who they are and what they favor. Jay Maynard 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree there. I was not referring to specifics though myself. That would be a target that should still merit a Deletion review. Ansell 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And thats where the problem lies. Admins use this to speedy delete the userbox and when people complain and ask why T1 and T2 are stated as reasons. People then fairly and reasonably argue that the userbox does not qualify for either of those definitions but the admin in question states that he feels it does. End result? No discussion, no conscensus, no community spirit... the admin effectively ignores any correspondance and the userbox remains deleted. How on earth is that considered better for wikipedia than the userbox it deleted? I actually believe some userboxes bond the community more than divide them. If I go to a user page and see they have a userbox for transhumanism I think to myself "Oh wow, someone else who shares my view". This gives me some common ground with the person and thus is the complete antithesis of divisive. I dont think anyone could argue that such a userbox meets either condition but an admin decided it did and removed it on the spot. Enigmatical 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this problem originated from the distraction that is the German Solution being paraded as if it actually solved some portion of the problem. All it does is shove the issue under the rug, where the people who still care can easily find it and complain. --tjstrf 02:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what it does is place it in an area where Administrators are less able to speedy delete it without showing their bias, thus protecting it until such time as a resolution is found. The more this debate goes on the more I personally feel that a reasonable and mature use of userboxes provides diversity and an opportunity for readers to gain understandings of topics which previously they may never have known about when they read other people's user pages. Enigmatical 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)