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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:26, 15 April 2006 editDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits →[]: not a vote← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:00, 22 April 2008 edit undoDroll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,518 edits force remake to clear entry at CAT:SHORTFIX 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{historical}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
Deletion reviews for userboxes should take place at ] now.
__TOC__
-----
: Please take general discussion to the talk page.
{{Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Userbox header}}
This process is about ''userboxes'', not about ''people''. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting userboxes prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at ].
If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier:
:'''<code><nowiki>{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~</nowiki></code>'''


Similarly, if you are a administrator and a page you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
== April 14, 2006 ==
===]===
<div style="float: left; border:solid black 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: lightblue;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | ''']]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user believes a ''']''' consists only of ''']'''.
|}</div>{{-}}
*Kept by a ], then unilaterally speedied by ]. Recommend restoration. ] (]) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Please take general discussion to the talk page.
*TfD is irrelevant, the question is it it a valid T1? Is it 'divisive or inflammatory'? You decide. I say yes, '''keep deleted'''. Do you think it is not divisive>? --] ] 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Quite clearly a T1 deletion, also wasn't unilaterally deleted by Sean Black another editor had tagged it for deletion. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as Pgk and Doc. ] ] 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*Keep deleted (If I'm allowed to, seeing as how it was my deletion) per my rationale in the deletion summary and on Stifle's talk page.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', T1 all the way. ] ] 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', this is why we made T1 -- ] 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''', informs other users of said user's biases.--<tt>]</tt> ]]] <small>(])</small> 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
**How is that a valid reason to overturn a speedy deletion? It's still divisive and inflammatory. There's lots of potential things you could do or say to "inform other people of your biases" that are nevertheless illegal in most jurisdictions. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - valid T1, as above, below, etc. - divisive template. -]<sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. ] (]) 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*Purely out of interest, how does one multilaterally speedy something? --]<sup>]</sup> 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*:A unilateral action is one taken by a single person without the support of anyone else. A multilateral action is one taken with the involvement and/or support of other people. ] 15:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
::This is basically the proposed new policy that, unlike articles, categories, images and other templates, userboxes are so precious to Misplaced Pages, and such a loss when deleted, that they should enjoy the special privillage of a unique exemption from speedy deletion. I'm surprised no-one has formally suggested it, it is such a cool idea. --] ] 16:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:::'''+1, Insightful''' --] 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Per Doc glasgow. -- ''''']'']'']''''' 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Where were all you people when I was getting harangued for voting to delete it in the first place? :] --] 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] • ] • )</sup></b></font> 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore.'''] 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**Sorry, but this isn't a vote. You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case. I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive. --] 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it, see below).
*'''Undelete''' No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--'''] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> ]''' 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. ] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' An expression that the editor is in favor of denying a basic human right to people, ''including fellow Wikipedians'' is divisive and inflammatory...a T1 bulls-eye. ] 06:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', not divisive ] 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


{| class="messagebox" style="background: lightgrey;"
===]===
|-
Recommend restoration with a TFD, perhaps, unilaterally speedied by ]. ] (]) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
| <div align="center">] of templates can be done by administrators under ] if the template falls into this category (often referred to as T1): '''Templates that are divisive and inflammatory.'''
*'''Keep deleted''' as above, and to be even-handed. --] ] 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as above, again another editor had tagged for deletion so wasn't unilateral. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as above. I'll point out that there's no method for two editors to delete something&ndash;there's no bilateral deletion here. Pgk is quite right that someone else had tagged it first. ] ] 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*Keep deleted per Doc and Pgk.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', T1 all the way. ] ] 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', again, this is why we made T1 -- ] 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''', informs other users of said user's biases.--<tt>]</tt> ]]] <small>(])</small> 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
**How is that a valid reason to overturn a speedy deletion? It's still divisive and inflammatory. There's lots of potential things you could do or say to "inform other people of your biases" that are nevertheless illegal in most jurisdictions. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - valid T1. If there were ever two divisive templates, I think we've found them. -]<sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. ] (]) 15:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Per above. -- ''''']'']'']''''' 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] • ] • )</sup></b></font> 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore.'''] 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**Sorry, but this isn't a vote. You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case. I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive. --] 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it). I do not need to supply a reason other than ''I think this should be restored'', the implicit reason (on this page) is ''invalid T1''. Since you ask, however: it is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics does not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive. ] 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
***Actualy, it is not a vote. It is a discussion to determine whether this is validly deleted under T1. Any comments that do not address that issue (or call for deletion/undeletion on other grounds) may be discounted.--] ] 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--'''] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> ]''' 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' (I repeat myself to humour ] Such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. ] 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted'''. Valid deletion. ] 06:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''--Not divisive. ] 07:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


The following is a proposed T2, but has not become stable: '''Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues.''' (as of 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
== Archived discussions ==
|}



''See ]''
__TOC__



== Archived discussions ==
''See ], ], ]''
* ] ()
* ] ( undelete)
* ] ( kd)
* ] ( keep deleted, ], massive endorsement)
* ], ], and ] Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
* ] ( kd, unanimous, ])
* ] & ] ( kd, unanimous, ])
* ] restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
* ] ( kept deleted. ]. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
* ] ( kept deleted)
* ]: ( keep deleted, ])
* ]: ( kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
* ] ( kept deleted)
*] ( kept deleted)
*]( kept deleted)
*] ( kept deleted)
* ] ( kept deleted)
*]
*] and ] ... it's complicated
*] ( almost unanimous keep deleted)
*] and others ( nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
* ] and ] ( kept deleted)
* ] and ] ( kept deleted).
* ] ( kept deleted)
* ] ( kept deleted)
* ] and others ( kept deleted)
* ] ( kept deleted)
* ] / ] (]: both kept deleted)
* ] (]: undeleted and relisted on ])
* ] (]: kept deleted)
* ] (]: kept deleted)
* ] (]: kept deleted) * ] (]: kept deleted)
* ] (]: kept deleted) * ] (]: kept deleted)
Line 78: Line 70:
* ] (]) * ] (])
* ] (]: recreated as redirect) * ] (]: recreated as redirect)
* ] * ]
* Pseudo-templates ], ] (]) * Pseudo-templates ], ] (])

Latest revision as of 11:00, 22 April 2008

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Deletion reviews for userboxes should take place at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review now.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcut
Purge - edit

Userboxes are sometimes deleted by administrators if there are thought to be valid reasons for their removal from Misplaced Pages. However, some userboxes may be inappropriately deleted. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Userbox debates considers appeals to restore userboxes that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Before using the Review, please read Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy.

Category:User undeletion lists a number of administrators who are prepared to honour good faith requests for the restoration of deleted content to your user space, for example if you want to work up a more encyclopaedic article. This does not require deletion review, you can ask one of them directly (or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard).

Purpose

  1. Userbox debates Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:
    • They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question (this should be attempted first - courteously invite the deleting admin to take a second look);
    • In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
    • An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.
  2. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

This process is about userboxes, not about people. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting userboxes prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators.

If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier:

{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~

Similarly, if you are a administrator and a page you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Please take general discussion to the talk page.

Speedy deletions of templates can be done by administrators under Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion if the template falls into this category (often referred to as T1): Templates that are divisive and inflammatory.

The following is a proposed T2, but has not become stable: Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. (as of 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC))



Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2, /Archive 3

Category: