Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Userbox debates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:34, 1 April 2006 editDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits remove personal attack← Previous edit Revision as of 19:44, 1 April 2006 edit undoBob, just Bob (talk | contribs)119 edits rv2 Tony Sidaway AGAIN - Misplaced Pages:Undeletion_policy#Restoring_the_page_.28for_admins.29: "should remain at least five days"... "personal attack" removed, but see my talk page, *it wasn't*.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{| style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; width: 100%; line-height: 1.25em;" cellpadding="2" {| style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; width: 100%; line-height: 1.25em;" cellpadding="2"
|style="font-size: 90%; align: center;"|] |style="font-size: 90%; align: center;"|]
|A ''']''' was held about a policy for user boxes. The poll ended on March 8th, 2006 without ]. |A ''']''' was held about a policy for user boxes. The poll ended on March 8th, 2006 without ].:
|} |}
{{Shortcut|]}} {{Shortcut|]}}
Line 25: Line 25:


== Current discussions == == Current discussions ==
⚫ ===]===
<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#000}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#039}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|#fff}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #000;" | '''{{{3|]}}}'''
| style="font-size: 7pt; padding: 1pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #fff;" | {{{4|This user is part of a pro-userbox insurgency and will oppose the sysops who delete out of process.<br>FREE THE USERBOX!}}}
|}</div>


Reason for deletion was "Enough" by MarkSweep. Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. The page is also protected.] 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*''']''' Per nom, created in good humor.] 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''; "in good humor" is not a valid reason for something in template space to exist. Misplaced Pages is not ]. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*This was deleted six weeks ago, and no-one seems to have missed it. It is clearly inflammetory, and whatever one makes of T1, this cleary fits that description. '''Keep deleted'''. --] ] 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD as disused'''. it divides only from those admins, if any (no-one in this discussion), who do routinely delete out of process, who should be separated from their buttons. Therefore not speediable. ] 19:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*:Sorry, trying hard but this is a bad-faith vote, and should be ignored. The deletion is in process (t1) you just don't not like the process and so you engage in personal attacks.--] ] 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Classic T1. --] 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

⚫ ===]===
<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#000}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: black;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: yellow; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #000;" | '''{{{3|]}}}'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 1pt; line-height: 1.1em; color: #fff;" | {{{4|This user doesn't like the phrase "userbox war", but instead prefers "'''The Glorious Userbox Revolution!'''}}}
|}</div>

Reason for deletion was "Will not be telivised'' by MarkSweep. Dosen't seem like a valid reason to me. Reason given seems glib and trollish.] 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''undelete''' per nom]
*'''Keep Deleted''' - Trolling template. No reason in the world it should stick around. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep deleted'''. Bad faith nomination, this obviously is divisive and inflammetory trolling, and it has been gone for 6 weeks without complaint. Even if people objected to mass deleting of boxes, this was clearly in process as a textbook t1. --] ] 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and list on TfD as unused''' Deletion appears to be in bad faith. ] 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Classic T1. --] 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
=== ] === === ] ===
<blockquote> <div style="float: left; border: solid #A39990 1px; margin: 1px;"> <blockquote> <div style="float: left; border: solid #A39990 1px; margin: 1px;">
Line 154: Line 181:
***'''Flamebait''' -1 '''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ***'''Flamebait''' -1 '''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' ] 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep deleted''' ] 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
**?... ] 19:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' The arguments presented seem to be: *'''Undelete''' The arguments presented seem to be:
**Misplaced Pages Review is a nasty place; which is no reason to delete unless we are going to sanction editors who belong to it. **Misplaced Pages Review is a nasty place; which is no reason to delete unless we are going to sanction editors who belong to it.
Line 279: Line 307:


''See ]'' ''See ]''
⚫ *] speedy keep deleted - bad faith nom
⚫ *] speedy keep deleted - bad faith nom
* ] (no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD) * ] (no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
* ] (kept deleted as protected page) * ] (kept deleted as protected page)

Revision as of 19:44, 1 April 2006

? A straw poll was held about a policy for user boxes. The poll ended on March 8th, 2006 without consensus.:
Shortcut
  • ]

"It should be noted that use of is strongly discouraged at Misplaced Pages, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."--Jimbo Wales

"I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time."--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"The simple fact of the matter is that in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion."--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Misplaced Pages as activists for a particular POV. I think users should realize that having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish other people's respect for you and your work. But, whatever, if people want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it. However... The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Misplaced Pages namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. They are attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." --Jimbo Wales

*g* Funny isn't it? I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Prior Discussions (5 January 2006):
Userboxes concerning personal beliefs of users were kept by overwhelming consensus

Keep 185, Delete 28

See Archive: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

Current discussions

Template:User userbox insurgent

File:MaskedIcon.jpg This user is part of a pro-userbox insurgency and will oppose the sysops who delete out of process.
FREE THE USERBOX!

Reason for deletion was "Enough" by MarkSweep. Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. The page is also protected.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox revolution

This user doesn't like the phrase "userbox war", but instead prefers "The Glorious Userbox Revolution!

Reason for deletion was "Will not be telivised by MarkSweep. Dosen't seem like a valid reason to me. Reason given seems glib and trollish.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User review

This user has a Misplaced Pages Review account, {{{2}}}

Previously undeleted after this DRV debate and kept unanimously after this TFD debate. It was speedied again by Kelly Martin, and restored by me. Mackensen has now speedy deleted it again. Since I have no interest in wheel-warring over this, I am bringing it back to DRV for further discussion if needed. The last deletions were clearly out of process. Speedy undelete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course not. You merely linked to a notorious anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying site, and stated I am of the opinion that many claims and "fact" about the holocaust have been exaggerated or flat-out falsified. Oh, and referred to me as "Jewjg". But certainly not a neo-Nazi. Jayjg 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You are free to read my statements in whichever way you choose. I am going to interpret yours as trolling and a violation of WP:NPA... I cannot read it in any other way. As I have said further down on this page, I called you "Jewjg" not as a slur, but because I despise you. Why would it come as a surprise that I do, particularly seeing the way you are trolling me here? --BIu Aardvark 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it would come as a surprise to me because we've hardly ever interacted, to the best of my recollection. But I do appreciate your clearing that up; you didn't call me "Jewjg" as a "slur", but because "you despise me". Do you call everyone you "despise" a "Jew"? Just curious. Jayjg 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, Blu Aardvark is currently blocked and cannot respond to these serious points. I would rirect the reader to his talkpage where he has offered a fuller reply, and is able to discuss. --Doc 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
According to This, The most popular URL in the Misplaced Pages IRC Channel was http://www.jewsdidwtc.com . So who are the real neo-Nazis? . The Psycho 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a GNAA thing, as you know, because you've posted about it elsewhere. SlimVirgin 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, GNAA and high ranking Misplaced Pages admins are good friends! Why do you think Gay Nigger Association of America survived 9 consecutive votes for deletion attempts while this little harmless userbox is being deleted!? Because high ranking Wikipedians are racist against black people. The Psycho 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep deleted. Has no conceivable purpose toward our goal of writing an encyclopedia, advertises a forum filled with trolls and dedicated to attacking Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. Inherently divisive. Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring "I am a troll". There is no reason whatsoever why Misplaced Pages needs this template. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. For the last time, speedy deletions are by definition in-process. The only matter that can be up for dispute is whether this fit the speedy criteria. First of all, Misplaced Pages Review, as a hotbed of trolls and the brainchild of a banned neo-Nazi, is divisive to many Wikipedians. This fits T1. Beyond that, this template serves as a link farm for a forum which has little notability outside the Misplaced Pages community, and even then many sysops have never heard of it (to say nothing of regular users). Finally, there is no encyclopedia utility in this template. It does not refer to anything on the encyclopedia. It does not aid in the creation of articles. It does not advertise a needed skill (as the Babel templates). In short and in summation, if this is undeleted than our slouch towards mySpace will progress and we'll be powerless to stop it. Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha, "for the last time." Yeah, right. So long as there is speedeletion of anything there will be weary administrators explaining that speedy deletions are inherently in process. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
divisive to many Wikipedians yet many sysops have never heard of it (to say nothing of regular users). Not really that devisive. The wikipedia review idea is harldy new. I think it dates back to Sollog although he added is own unique style (heh). The only legit way to remove something restored by VRV is is XFD or WP:CP so the claim that speedy delete is legit in this case is open to question.Geni 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "speedy deletions are by definition in-process". I disagree most strongly with that sentiment. Speedy deletions are only valid if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion or if the Wikimedia board, Jimbo Wales, or his delegates decree them. The consensus determined this was not a T1 candidate, and since it does not appear to fit any other CSD, this is not a valid in-process speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. I really wanted to ignore this discussion but this comment just made me vote restore. Does not fit T1, is actually quite useful informative, and the only divise thing about it is the endless deletions and discussions thereof. And with every speedy being in-process... Umm, no. Unless you're trying to confuse process fetishists, I can't see how this statement makes sense whatsoever. Or would it be in-process if I started deleting random pages because I don't like them? Only a valid speedy is in-process, and since there are multiple people disagreeing if it was valid makes its validity doubtful at best. I'd file this one under WP:IAR (and there's very good reasons for invoking that non-rule at times, whether this is one of those times is what we are discussing here), nothing else. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, here is the box. But you need to know that wikipedia review is an anti-wikipedia site, with regular posts from users banned by the community, neo-nazis, and trolls (and a few others). The question is, is having a template on our servers to make it easier to link to this assisting this encyclopedia? --Doc 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Doc. These guys have lost all credibility because of the close association between some of them and various Neo-Nazi and anti-semite groups. Their kind of trash don't need free advertising on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This is a link to a site whose sole purpose is to abuse and carry out personal attacks on editors here. The contributors show nothing but bad faith and a desire to disrupt. For the most part the users are not in good standing here and there's no reason to give them space to continue their abuse. Furthermore, this is nothing more than link spam...it doesn't add to an article and has no value in the creation of an encyclopedia. It is not our purpose to promote external websites, and in fact doing that is against policy and further grounds for deletion. This is a valid deletion. Rx StrangeLove 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: why should we provide free advertisement for people who want to rip us apart from within? —Phil | Talk 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on TfD. This is clearly not a clear-cut-enough case for a speedy deletion; if it is deleted at all, it should be done so by consensus, not by using force to override (repeated) consensus, as is being done here. We have identical templates for numerous other noteworthy websites, like deviantART and LiveJournal, and none of those have been proposed for deletion or speedy-deleted; singling out this one just demonstrates Misplaced Pages's bias. Being tolerant of dissent, and not characterizing an entire community of editors as "neo-nazis" or "trolls" just because some of their views are unpopular or one of their members has a twisted ideology, is key to Misplaced Pages's neutrality and openness. There's nothing divisive or inflammatory about the template itself, which means it cannot possibly fit T1; it's only "divisive or inflammatory" if you happen to already feel "divided" or "inflamed" by the website it links to, which is a matter of your own personal views and inclination, not of anything the template states or implies. -Silence 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Poor Misplaced Pages admins, always getting fursecuted by the "ill-informed" masses! We know so much better than them about what's good for the community, but they overturn our decisions anyway. Good thing we can fight back by deleting the templates they voted to keep without any respect for process. High fives all around. Ashibaka tock 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the phrase "High fives all around" made the the above comment gold.Mike McGregor (Can) 10:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages Review is inflammatory not because of its criticism of Misplaced Pages, but because the community behind Misplaced Pages Review is inflammatory. I'd also like to add that TfD debates about inflammatory userboxes are notoriously unreliable; most people against them have better things to do than dicking around with userboxes. Call it T1, call it IAR, call it whatever you want. The userbox is offensive, and was deleted properly. Ral315 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The arguments above have convinced me that this isn't a template that all can be comfortable with. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious undelete out of process deletion, consider bringing RfC against people who delete it against the will of community. And that neo-nazi stuff? What the hell were you smoking? MSK seems to hate nazis with passion.  Grue  17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, no one's talking about MSK. Misplaced Pages Review was founded by Alex Lindt, noted Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier, who not incidentally was banned from Misplaced Pages. Also, please don't blank an on-going discussion. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Alex Linder is banned from Misplaced Pages Review, get your facts straight for once. The discussion is not ongoing, it concluded a long time ago and it's pretty much estabilished that the template should be kept. I will block anyone who redeletes it for wheel warring and disruption.  Grue  17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, he is now–after blocking people who outed him. Note where I said founded. Semantics appear a lost cause here. Moreover, you seem to be aware of his existence, so what's up with pooh-poohing the accusation further up the thread? A little Verwirrungspolitik, or just simple inconsistency? Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Misplaced Pages Review who aren't banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • CDRome may be an anti-semite, but that is unconfirmed. Igor may also be, and the evidence for that is even stronger than that of CDRome, but again, it's unconfirmed. There are no anti-semites who at present are active on Misplaced Pages Review, unless you are implicating that I am one, which I resent strongly. As for Alex Linder, he has never posted to Misplaced Pages Review... Igor Alexander and Alex Linder are two different people. Igor Alexander and User:Amalekite are likely the same person, however. --Blu Aardvark | 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • CRome is confirmed as the Disruptive Apartheid editor, a notorious anti-Semite. Igor is confirmed as User:Amalekite a neo-Nazi Stormfront member. These issues are not in debate or question. And, of course, Misplaced Pages Review also has at least one Holocaust denying moderator who referred to me as "Jewjg"; I believe you know him quite well. Jayjg 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Confirmed by whom? Yes, it's highly probable that Igor is User:Amalekite, just as it is highly probable that CDRome is your Disruptive Apartheid editor, but nobody can confirm either as fact. The evidence is exceptionally strong that they are, and I don't dispute that, but nobody has absolutely confirmed it, and the users in question have never stated that that is who they are. As for me, I have not in any way denied the holocaust. I believe in open-minded evaluation of all things, even politically incorrect subjects. According to the limitted research that I had done, and the limits of my knowledge, I was able to acknowledge that things may have occured differently than is claimed. As new evidence is pointed out to me, I adjust my conclusions appropriately, and I have done so. As for referring to you as "Jewjg", I only did so because I despise you, you fucking ass. (WP:CIV! WP:NPA! Read the statement above mine and reprimand the admin-troll). I don't have anything against Jews, or any other race for that matter. I do have something against you individually, but can you honestly blame me? --21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Here's one quote from Blu Aardvark, expressing what seems to be support for User:Amalekite, the neo-Nazi who founded Misplaced Pages Review: "I read that stormfront thread, and it was very educational. Set aside the initial knee-jerk reactions a person often has when confronting Neo-nazis, and evaluate the evidence open-mindedly, and you can see that he had a rather excellent point, which he expressed in a rather civil manner (most of the time, anyway - he did use the term "kike", but he later explained that was because he simply wanted to excercise the right to use the word ..." Yes indeed, Amalekite's only error was to use the word "kike." SlimVirgin 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Screw you, SlimVandal. Of course I support Amalekite... he was banned from Misplaced Pages in violation of the blocking policy, but from what I have read, both on- and off- site, he was not at all acting in bad faith in his editting of Misplaced Pages, and may have had a lot to contribute. I don't agree with his politics - I despise them - but I recognize that he has the right to hold those politics. It's called "Freedom of expression". --Blu Aardvark | 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Jay quotes you above as having said: "I am of the opinion that many claims and 'fact' about the holocaust have been exaggerated or flat-out falsified," after linking to a notorious Holocaust-denial site and calling him "Jewjg." Forgive me for not realizing that you despise Amalekite's politics. SlimVirgin 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, Blu Aardvark is currently blocked and cannot respond to these serious points. I would rirect the reader to his talkpage where he has offered a fuller reply, and is able to discuss. --Doc 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Grue, I can't believe you just undeleted the template and blanked this discussion. A lot of us are admins too, and if we all did the same thing you just did we'd be wheel-warring over whether the template should be deleted or not. Obviously that's unacceptable, and that's why discussion takes place here. You can't just close down the discussion and enforce the result however you want it, because that implies that you are somehow "more equal" than the rest of us, and you aren't. --Cyde Weys 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It was not me who deleted this template without prior discussion. I'm just enforcing Misplaced Pages policy.  Grue  17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages also has a speedy deletion policy that includes patent nonsense pages and divisive templates like these. --Cyde Weys 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Speedy deletion cannot override consensus to keep. "This user has an account on Misplaced Pages Review" If this is offensive for you, I don't think you can handle such stuff like autofellatio. You know, Misplaced Pages is a dangerous place. Don't click that "Random article" link, who knows where you might land...  Grue  17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • There is a consenus to keep delete developing here, and your 'speedy undelete' has just overriden that consensus. That looks like an abuse of admin powers to me, and your blankng of this debate looks like contempt for the community and for consensus. --Doc 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Obviously self-blowjobs and neo-Nazism are on the same plane. Excuse me while I set your strawman on fire. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Just where does it talk about neo-nazism? You are the one violating Godwin's law here. Consequently, you lose.  Grue  17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • The box doesn't talk about neo-nazism, no, but the fact that the forum in question was founded by a neo-nazi is well-known, and a major reason why a number of us are rather irate about this. One cannot Godwin if there are actual neo-Nazis involved, and I'm surprised that you're trying to pull that one (especially after the auto-fellatio moral panic gambit; that seems to be favored around here). Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Never having expressed an opinion on userboxes before, my first thought is none of them make the encyclopedia better. Most are neutral in that respect and some are potentially divisive. Mostly it seems like an excercise in user vanity. But that's a discussion for another place, I suppose. Regarding this particular debate my opinion is Undelete. First because the deletion short-circuited 2 debates that resulted in undeletion and keep, and I find the argument that speedy deletion is always "in process" to be peculiar to say the least. Second, undelete because the userbox is not divisive or inflammatory as I interpret the phrase. It is sufficiently far away from racial and ethnic slurs, for example, to not meet those more obvious criteria. If there were no userboxes and instead some users put on their user pages some plain text announcing that they had disagreements with wikipedia and there was a discussion at a linked forum, would we go around censoring their user pages? If some people on the forum have views that do not in any way comport with civilized society do we condemn all the users through guilt be association? The case for and against "Review" is more complex and as it has already passed TfD it does not seem like a speedy candidate. Thatcher131 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think we would censor this statement if it was on people's userpages, but you don't seem to understand that what is up for deletion here is a template, not something on someone's userpage, and is inappropriate alongside the rest of the encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • And you just forgot that it's not for deletion here, but for undeletion. Misza13 18:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Unless I am much mistaken about userboxes in general, a userbox template is just a tool to make it convenient for multiple users to add the same bit of information to their user page. How exactly is it bad to have a template that says "I participate in an anti-wikipedia forum" but acceptable to state it manually? Thatcher131 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • "Userbox templates" are not a separate thing; they are still in the template namespace, you realize. So they have to adhere to the same rules of being encyclopedic like all of the other templates. Being on a userpage is entirely different than being in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • So basically this is about a technicality. Users can link to web sites critical of wikipedia but not by using a template because of where the wikimedia software requires templates to reside. That's a bit like a dictatorship saying we allow our citizens complete freedom of speech on the internet, but private ownership of computers is illegal. Is this debate really about the use of the template namespace? And can it be that if someone posted a bit of html code on their user page to allow other users to create a userbox without a template that no one would object? Thatcher131 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your argument that something must be encyclopedic just because it is in the templatespace is misleading and faulty; certainly something that harms the encyclopedia shouldn't be tolerated in templacespace, but that doesn't mean it has to hold to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines that specifically apply to articles and reader-facing templates. Deleting userboxes on grounds so semantic and trivial as the fact that they begin with "Template:", which is purely a matter of organizational convenience (to make it immediately obvious that they're templates, not userpages or whatnot), or as trivial as the fact that they're not subst'd or copy-pasted, which is again just a matter of convenience and makes no substantial difference, would be like deleting Category:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and all other Misplaced Pages-space categories, or Category:Wikipedians by interest and all other User-space categories, just because they begin with "Category:" like article-space categories (but even worse, since unlike those two classes of categories, this class of templates does make it obvious that the templates are userpage-specific through the "user" note). If a category is specifically designed to only be used in userspace, it is a userspace category and does not need to be held to the same standards as article-space categories; likewise, if a category is specifically designed to only be used in Misplaced Pages:-space, and only Misplaced Pages-namespace pages are kept in it, it does not need to be encyclopedic, NPOV, referenced, or anything of the sort (though unlike userspace-specific categories and templates, it should preferably be directly related to editorial tasks, though there are plenty of exceptions, like the "joke" policy pages). So, like usercategories and wikipediacategories, usertemplates (and, more specifically, "userboxes") should be held to essentially the same standards as userpage-imbedded code, with the caveat that it should preferably be something that would be of use to a significant number of users (since if only 1 or 2 people are going to use the template, it's probably more efficient to simply use the raw code).
  • Your campaign against userboxes, which are at worst a harmless fad, though well-intentioned, is misguided and disruptive. You should be patient and wait for a consistent policy on userboxes, then help implement it, rather than doing what you are doing and simply blindly voting "delete" on 100% on every userbox that is ever nominated for deletion, regardless of the reasoning or the situation with other, similar boxes, on the vain assumption that your personal views on userboxes, unsupported by any policy or guideline, are the ideal way to deal with every usertemplate. Your arbitrary mass-deletions are only furthering tensions and causing more infighting and factionalism, whereas things had actually calmed down quite a bit before the speedy-deletions started up once again. What's so bad about leaving things more or less be until there's a policy to implement? T1 clearly isn't relevant to this case or appropriate to draw on here, since it requires a lot of interpolation and reaching to find anything divisive or inflammatory about simply stating one's account on a webforum, regardless of the forum's origins or nature. So there's nothing in Misplaced Pages's policy or guidelines that condones speedy-deleting this, especially after two discussions and votes established a consensus for keeping the template; only non-speedy deleting it, through the proper channels (Misplaced Pages:Templates for Deletion), may be acceptable. -Silence 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist on TfD if you wish. Misza13 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. You can't ban a userbox based on your personal opinions about the site it links to. You may dislike the community, but personal taste is no reason to censor something.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge that dogged out of process behaviour (it's beeen debated and kept twice) will be ultimately rewarded. That's bad for the encyclopedia. Avalon 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete and do not relist on TFD. This has already been speedied legitimately, restored after discussion, and kept after a valid TFD. There is no reason to repeat this, and the deletion was not a valid speedy. --Blu Aardvark | 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Personally, I think that Misplaced Pages is great and that most of the criticisms are quite over the edge. HOWEVER this does not mean that I agree with actions that supress the opinions of people that hold a different view AND violate wikipedia guidelines or policies. If the majority says "delete this template", then delete it, but if the majority says "keep this template" then it must be kept. If you really want to get this template deleted then start another Articles for Deletion or even Request for Meditation / Request for Arbitration process - simply speedydeleting the template is, in my eyes, an abuse of power. CharonX 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. As Kelly said, having this on your user page is equivalent to saying "I'm a troll." The forum consists largely of neo-Nazis and other banned users making serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, in some instances libellous. We shouldn't give it a platform. SlimVirgin 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I'm usually one for a pretty high bar of "is this inflammatory?" when it comes to deleting userboxes. This is inflammatory. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Raul654 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete People contest the speedy, it was listed on TFD with strong consensus to keep two weeks ago also. Give it a month before relisting it. I also find the flagrant disregard for process troubling. While WP:NOT a bureaucracy we do try to stick by consensus. TFD and DRV had consensus. Speedy deleting it because you disagree with that consensus is asinine. Also, chill out with the wheel warring. kotepho 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: at this point this discussion must be considered invalid, due to off-site politicking in relation to it. The decision to keep or delete this template should be made according to first principles, not according to a pitched voting battle. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, because informing people who might not otherwise have noticed your abusive actions is a Bad Thing. There is no "vote-stacking" going on... most of the regular contributors on WR either are not active on Misplaced Pages, or will probably vote to delete it anyway. Any obvious sockpuppets can be picked out with no trouble whatsoever. --Blu Aardvark | 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Serves no encyclopedic purpose; it can only assist inflammatory trolling. Jayjg 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and get Martin and Grue and whoever else cares about this idiocy to settle this with duelling banjos at dawn, because if two polls haven't solved this nonsense yet a third won't. So it's obviously time to try something that makes a bit more sense. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, no substantial purpose but trolling. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. WR is a childish forum, with sub-Usenet "discussions", and I can't see why links to it should appear anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I agree with those who think that sticking this template on one's page is equivalent to saying "look at me everyone, I'm an idiot with a chip on my shoulder", but I don't see that as a reason to allow people to do it. I'd add that, to those who don't know what it is, the box makes it look as though the User has some special status within Misplaced Pages when they don't (well "special" in the "I'm Ralph, I'm special" sense, I suppose). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete. I wonder at the many ways in which people try to disenfranchise Wikipedians. Are people creating new accounts here just to weigh in? (Hint:this page has been protected all along). Perhaps they are existing members gathering off-site because they can no longer gather on-site. If an invite like "These debates are often a little, well ... unrepresentative, so new contributers would be welcome" may be posted on WP:AN/I, may it also be posted in the Category talk:User review? or Template talk:User review? or why not on an off-site page? IRC #wikipedia is, after all, an off-site channel- is that OK, or do we discount those voters as well? When did assemblages of Wikipedians become so odious that they had to be stamped out at all costs? Why should an assemblage of Wikipedians have to justify- repeatedly to whichever admin happens along (again)- that they gather and interact? StrangerInParadise 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, if the disruptive nature of this userbox wasn't evident in the nature of the site it links to, this DRV and the furor surrounding it is evidence enough. InkSplotch 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Inflammatory and divisive. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete and work on articles. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this #$%@ delted this template is just dumb, if someone really wants to announce their Review status, have 'em subst the box. Jeez. -- Dragoonmac - 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
They can't subst the box on their pages if it's deleted. There's nothing to subst. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of unencyclopedic crap. -GTBacchus 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. per above. Gflores 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and speedy delete any variations anyone attempts. Troll badge. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Absolutely disgusting, all of this. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I don't think this userbox per se is in any way inflammatory or divisive (whether Misplaced Pages Review is is a different question). The arguments about neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are pure strawmen. Volkswagen was developed by Nazis, does that make you a Nazi for driving one? Wagner was an anti-Semite, does that make you an anti-Semite for listening to Tristan and Isolde? Of course not, and neither does having a Misplaced Pages Review account make that person a troll, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite. On the other hand, Jimbo has made it clear that he will not tolerate criticism of Misplaced Pages on user pages (which is what this userbox amounts to), and since this is his website, that's his prerogative. So torn between saying "Keep because Misplaced Pages policy does not prohibit it" and "Delete because Jimbo's feelings do not allow it", I'm unable to vote at all. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of straw men, no one has said that having a WR account makes you a troll, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite. What has been said is that it was founded by a neo-Nazi, and continued for several months to attract people with the same views. Efforts were recently made to clean it up, and were partly successful, but those views nevertheless continue to be expressed, and some have been quoted above. That aside, the forum is full of defamatory material and unpleasant personal attacks, which is reason enough not to offer it a platform. SlimVirgin 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they did. Doc Glasgow wrote at the top of this discussion "linking to a hotbed of neo-nazis and trolls". Mackensen called it "a hotbed of trolls". Kelly Martin wrote "advertises a forum filled with trolls" and especially "Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring 'I am a troll'." But the point is, whether WR is divisive and defamatory is utterly beside the point. The question is whether the userbox under discussion itself is inflammatory and divisive, and I just don't see that it is. The statement it makes isn't even an opinion, it's just a neutral statement of fact. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no question it's full of trolls, but they're not being called trolls because they have a WR account. The user box is inflammatory because most of the posts on the forum are personal attacks, some of them very serious. The box is basically saying: "I know I'm not allowed to make personal attacks against Wikipedians here, but I'm a member of a website that does allow it. Here's a link." There's no reason on earth we should give that mindset publicity. SlimVirgin 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at the facts here:

  1. Template deleted by MarkSweep after removing it from many users' pages. Reason given for deletion is "orphan" - he in fact made it an orphan, justifying it's deletion (in fact even then, there is no policy to delete "orphaned" templates). http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Log/delete?user=MarkSweep&page=&limit=100&offset=303 shows that he deletes a lot. Note the link isn't even the first page, there's many hundreds of deletions by him, but he seems very opposed to userboxes mainly.
  2. After the majority voted to undelete PREVIOUSLY ALREADY here on Deletion Review, the template was then:
  3. Listed on TfD by a neutral party to gain additional consensus for keeping. The result to keep was unanimous.
  4. Template restored as it passed both DrV and TfD with community consensus.
  5. Deleted by Kelly Martin completely unjustifiedably, out of process, no policy cited only "we don't need this".
  6. Kelly Martin's activities reported on the Incidents subsection of the Administrators' Noticeboard as abusive activity. No action taken against the former arbitrator.
  7. Template restored again.
  8. Mackensen this time deletes, again totally ignoring everyone except the small group of administrators pressurizing for this template to be deleted.
  9. Template restored by Grue, who is then blocked by NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), someone who has engaged in userbox deletions on a mass scale with Kelly Martin previously.
  10. MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) then deletes the template yet again, totally ignoring the previous DrV and TfD's here and here.

This shouldn't even be here. It has already passed both DrV and TfD. The admins who are ignoring both community consenus and process should be desysopped immediately. Is this an April Fool's Day joke or are some people just out of control with too much power than they should be trusted with gone to their head?

This template is the same as any other website userbox at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Computing. There's nothing that could be considered controversial in the actual template even, all it is a link to a users' account on a different website than Misplaced Pages. The problem here is that some administrators seem to just not want anyone to know about the existence of the site because of some of the activities revealed there. Bob, just Bob 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Copyright Nazi

Template:User Copyright Nazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was deleted on March 16 by MarkSweep. Reason was our old friend: "T1 CSD." If someone can share with us the contents of this userbox, it would be appreciated.

  • Keep deleted comparisons of anything less than genocide to Nazis are extremely offensive, and are thus divisive and inflamatory. Where 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, for goodness' sake get off your horse. I call my cleaning lady the "Cleaning Nazi". Remember the "Soup Nazi"? It's just part of the idiom. Would it be OK to change it to "Copyright Robespierrist"? Or is that wound still too recent? "Copyright Inquisitionist"? How far back do we have to go here? Herostratus 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • How about a little politeness and sensitivity? Just because we can behave like this doesn't mean we should. I know a lot of people would be extremely offended by this. Sam Korn 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Right, sorry, I had assumed that it said something like "This user is a copyright Nazi" - a way to poke fun at oneself. Now that I know what it said, I would not have written that. You can't call other people Nazis, I agree. Herostratus 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Where. Some things are just in "Don't go there" territory. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment- What were the contents of this userbox, was it something about supporting copyright status for Nazi materials or saying that one is a "Nazi" about copyright? Homestarmy 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It was rather like "This user opposes copyright Nazis" or something. Basically a stronger version of {{User copyright}}, IIRC. Misza13 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
"This user hates Copyright Nazis" to be exact.Geni 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Cynical, can you drop me a line on my talk and point me in the direction of this consensus you mentioned above? thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No, of course he can't, because no such consensus exists. There is no consensus on anything at all regarding userboxes. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF

MarkSweep arbitararily deleted a parody userbox that was in my userspace.

A subst of the userbox shows the contents as:

ABF This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.


Deletion log shows:
18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

If you check the userbox, it was (and is) linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody).

"Don't" is not a reason. A logical reason why you don't agree with it (posted on my talk page) is more acceptable. I cannot support such out-of-process deletions of people's hard work.

I restored it, then tagged it for deletion (because by restoring it, I might not be following due process). — natha(?)nrdotcom 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue there is no excuse for this sort of incivility. Please comment on the issues and not the person. Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete . It's like that one poem-thingy, "we will fight them in the sea, we will fight them on the land" etc... "We will delete them in the mainspace, we will delete them in the userspace," well, the Userspace is for personal work and stuffs, there is no reason to delete boxen there -- Dragoonmac - 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, it could be interpreted as a parody, so it is not a clear-cut enough case for it to be speedy-worthy. However, I would support its deletion in a TFD, since it could also be interpreted as being serious (unless something was added, like a villain picture that someone suggested, to make it obvious that it was a parody). Where 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You mean this? I admit I'd prefer it over the old too.
This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.


— natha(?)nrdotcom 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objections over that. Where 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. Unfortunately we can use use public-domain and GDFL-licensed images in userboxes... Herostratus
I know that's accurate in template-space, but has that been established for user-space userboxes? RadioKirk talk to me 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost 100% certain that it would apply to userspace too. Basically, you can only freely use images that are public domain or GDFL, except to illustrate an article that bears directly on the image. Too bad but there it is. Herostratus 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Possible use = joke. Shared humor promotes good-faith, love, and fellowship. Xoloz 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template: User evol-X

This userbox was speedied by NicholasTurnbull, on the grounds of "Criterion T1 - divisive/inflammatory". This userbox was intended to be a spoof of the evolution/creationism userboxes—it's a joke, not an attack.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted - Stupid and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't belong in template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted useless at best, inflammatory and trollish at worst --Doc 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, but impressed with the uniformity. I'm fairly certain that I remember this userbox. Maybe I don't, nevertheless, it is annoying that I do not have it here for reference. If someone would like me to change my vote, please provide a copy for my reference to explain why. StrangerInParadise 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Undelete and TfD At this point, the burden of proof is on those speedying userboxes. The text might well convince me that this was justified, but it isn't here. Septentrionalis 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's really not funny; but this is the sort of judgment call which ought to be TfD'd. If it were TfD'd, my vote would probably be Conditional Delete; a broadly smiling Stephen Jay Gould picture might give a different impression. (Darwin was a Victorian, with long-exposure photography; there may well be no picture of him smiling.) Septentrionalis 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete until someone can tell me what its contents were. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Weak delete as possibly inflammatory and really dumb, although it's not really taking any side on the issue. I don't really see it as "trolling," but I do agree it should be kept out of template space. P.S. Had I abstained, I would have never found out what the userbox said. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Would it not be better to abstain if you don't know? FWIW, the box was a picture of Darwin and a (copyright violating) picture Henry Morris with the text This user wants to see a staunch evolutionist and a fundamental creationist locked in a room together with a pistol taped to the ceiling. If that's not trolling, what is? --Doc 08:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Why is it not a point of process that a subst of the userbox in question be listed before deleting it? StrangerInParadise 11:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    By whom, where? We don't list speedy deletions. So why should one subst it before deleton, and where? They only get listed here if someone later believes that the item should be restored. Userboxes should not be treated differently from any other deletion.--Doc 12:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should have a separate log; this discussion might be less acrimonious if these deletions weren't speedies. Septentrionalis 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per the expanded T1: "Divisive, inflammatory, and worst of all not funny". --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Wanting to make jokes about evolution and creationism is one thing, but when you bring pistols and locked rooms into the picture, that's a bit harsh. Plus if that picture's really a copyright violation, I dunno what to tell ya. Homestarmy 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Sam. It being the last which is the clincher... Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Egging people on to shoot each other is beyond ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    However it may be less painful than a protracted edit war.Geni 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yep, and I'd oppose deleting it if someone decided to speedy it again after a consensus to undelete here. In this case however, I believe this is a valid T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    What has that got to do with edit waring? Joke man ok not very funny but still.Geni 09:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I would prefer an edit war over bloodshed. Alright, I see there are policies against edit warring and no policies against shooting eachother... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If you want to joke around about faith, do it off-wiki or keep it strictly on your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This template is strictly for userpages.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a template "strictly for userpages". All templates are templates. If it's strictly for userspace then it would be in userspace. --Cyde Weys 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean like the Babelboxes? Yep, finding those on articles all over the place. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop being thick-headed. You know exactly what I mean. There's nothing separating encyclopedic templates from silly templates. And yes, I actually have seen userboxes used to vandalize articles. --Cyde Weys 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NPA. If userboxes are found in articles, remove them. That doesn't mean they aren't intended for use solely in user space. (That's why they all have the word User in them.) Angr (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive