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 18:44, 10 May 2006 editGrue (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,507 edits →[]: close - undelete← 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 
(989 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{calm talk}} {{historical}}
Deletion reviews for userboxes should take place at ] now.

-----
{{Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Userbox header}} {{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 ]. 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: 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>''' :'''<code><nowiki>{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~</nowiki></code>'''
Line 11: Line 11:


Please take general discussion to the talk page. Please take general discussion to the talk page.
]
__TOC__


{| class="messagebox" style="background: lightgrey;"
== May 10, 2006 ==
|-
===]===
| <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.'''
* by ], citing "CSD T1."


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))
<div style="float: left; border:solid black 1px; margin: 1px;">
|}
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #EEEDEE;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #FFFEFF; 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}}};" |<center>This user is a ''']'''.
</center>
|}</div>{{-}}

the citation of CSD T1 appears specious and not very logical. How is a userbox that allows a user to identify with the scientific theories of ] considered inflammatory? ] 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


*'''Undelete''' for lack of qualification under the ''inflammatory'' reasoning. ] 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' - And who refers to themselves as a "Darwinist" anyway? The only time I've heard someone using that word is when creationists are being incredibly ignorant and railing against the perceived Darwinist conspiracy. If you want to proclaim that you understand science, you don't need to use a silly userbox to do it. Just do what I do. Here's a direct quote from my userpage: "I'm mostly interested in anything having to do with science, including but not limited to, ], ], ], ], ], and ]. I'm also interested in ], mostly because of the negative influence on science it's been having lately. I am an unabashed ]." --] 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''keep deleted''' Evolution and Creationism is a very inflammatory issue (if you don't believe that, look on the talk pages of related articles and some of the comments from people on both sides). That's clearly what this template is about not about happening to agree with some general scientific theory. And I'll try to refrain from making puns off the word "specious" ] 16:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
: ]? LOL! Nice comment! ] 16:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - As a reminder to everyone, we're not saying you can't say that you support ], ], ], ], or whatever. We are just saying that it's inappropriate to use template space to do so. --] 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per JoshuaZ and Cyde. ] ] 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Following this logic, I suppose the following ] userbox should be deleted as well: <div style="border:1px solid #d9a14c; margin: 1px;float:left;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #ebd4a2;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #d9a14c; 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;" | This user believes in ''']''' or ''']'''.
|}</div><br clear="left" />
] 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Correct, in fact someone who has more time on their hands (I need to do real work right now) should go throuhg and substitute and delete it. ] 16:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:::It doesn't take lots of time, it just takes a bot. Unfortunately, my Userboxbot proposal was shot down, so I can't substitute it before deleting it (which I have done). --] 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Yeah you can, just do it by hand. ] 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Nah. --] 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Fine, I'll do it. There is only ~90 instances. ] 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You have more patience than I do, that's for sure. --] 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I'm never doing that by hand again. {{tl|user progressive creationism}} {{tl|user theistic evolution}} {{tl|user theistic evolution2}} {{tl|user evolution2}} and {{tl|user evol-0}} through {{tl|user evol-4}} and {{tl|user evol-N}} if someone fancies deleting more. ] 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Haha, I don't blame you! See, by bot would be much better. I'm taking care of these others too. --] 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''kd''' and isn't the fish supposed to be facing the other way and with two feet instead of... i'm not sure what those things on the bottom are, tentacles? ] 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Gasp! That's not a Darwin fish! That's ]! Ok, joking aside, if this userbox does get kept soemone should find a better picture for the Darwin fish. ] 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
***Seriously, I think that actually might be the Cthuhlufish (rather than the Darwinfish). --] 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
**** No, the Cthulhu fish has more prominent tentacles both above and below the mouth. You need to brush up on taxonomy of bumpersticker fish. ] 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*****I'm afraid it is you who needs to brush up on developmental biology of bumpersticker fish. That image is clearly of an infant Cthulhufish. --] 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleting''' all bumperstickers - and we should take out the creationist ones at the same time. --] ] 17:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' as per JoshuaZ's and Cyde's reasoning, above. It's clearly an inflammatory issue. And keep deleting opposing views, as Doc suggests. ] 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Darwinism is a proven scientific theory. There is nothing divisive about science. This template is perfectly NPOV. ] 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Waaait a minute, if "science" isn't divisive, what's all this ] stuff about? ] 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:Um, Grue, ] actually has some pretty significant flaws in it, particularly seeing as how it was proposed before the physical mechanism of inheritance (DNA) was even discovered. Darwinism ''does not'' refer to the current modern synthesis of evolution. Also, scientific theories are never proven, only disproven. --] 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Wish the great compromise had gone through to move all of this to user space then maybe this issue could go to bed once and for all. --] 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', T1. ] ] 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

== May 9, 2006 ==
===]===
'''Last deleted version (''?'')''':
<div style="float: left; border: solid #de0000 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: black; background: gold;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #de0000; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" |]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a ''']'''.
|}</div>
{{-}}
'''Version as of last TfD''':
<div style="float: left; border: solid #de0000 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: black; background: gold;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #de0000; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" |]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a ''']'''.
|}</div><includeonly>]</includeonly>
<noinclude><p style="clear: both; padding-top: 2em">
{{-}}
*Deleted by ], citing "CSD T1." Had already been restored twice, by ] and ]. At time of deletion, contained a link to ], which is obviously inappropriate. I'm asking for the template to be restored '''without the link'''. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 21:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and bring to TfD - does not meet T1. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Just as T1 as its opposite. ] 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Notice where the word "communist" links to? --]]]] 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' That's why I asked for it to be restored without the link. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' certainly T1 and especially given the link to a vandal. To undelete without the link would seem unneccessary as we already have {{tl|user Socialist}} {{tl|user Socialist2}} ] ] {{tl|user Democratic Socialist}} {{tl|user libertarian socialist}} {{tl|user libertarian socialist2}} {{tl|user Christian communist}} {{tl|user marxist}} {{tl|user Trot}}. Further I'd like to ask the jabberwock, given your userboxes declare "This user stands at economic right 0.50", do you ''really'' wish to use this box on your userpage - or is this some abstract WP:POINT you are making?? (Even, if you do want to use it - you can copy the code from above).--] ] 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' No, I certainly don't want it on my userpage, but I don't see how that's a criticism of my actions. Shouldn't policy actions be viewpoint-independent? I think this should be undeleted because I support others' agreement with this viewpoint, not because I agree with it myself. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:In response to your point about it being unnecessary, not all socialists are Communists, and not all Communists are Marxists, Trotskyites, or any of the other alignments (Democratic, libertarian, or Christian). <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 21:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::So this is entirely hypothetical. You are standing up for, and forcing us to have a debate for, a hypothetical user who might hypothetically want to use this, and might hypothetically not consider himself a Marxist, Socialist, Christian etc, and might not (hypothetically) be imaginative enough to creat his own bumpersticker or copy the code from someone else? Don't you think that's a little bit of a waste of our time, given that we're here to write an encyclopedia? --] ] 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::This "hypothetical" person created the template, and more hypothetical people might want to use it. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::Too bad for those hypothetical people then. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. You aren't allowed to just do whatever you want to do. --] 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::::And if those hypothetical people really care about their userboxes? And if they're upset enough about the lack of process in the speedy deletions to ]? Is it still "too bad" for them? <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::::: Yes, too bad. Contrary to your belief, Misplaced Pages isn't about "process" and whatever other rot these people might want, it's about writing an encyclopedia. --] 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::::::] anyone? To rephrase the above message, "How about a nice cup of tea?" ] (]) 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I'd suggest that some of these people care about the encyclopedia as well, and that if you're interested in writing an encyclopedia, you should consider whether the loss of their contributions is worth it. For example, Tony, specifically related to you is ]. Was whatever policy victory you achieved worth his departure? I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't, I'm asking you to think about it. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - T1, like the other political/ideological userboxes. ], y'know. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This is a classic T1.
** A statement of personal belief can be made on one's userpage.
** Using Misplaced Pages infrastructure elements such as public transclusion, templates and whatlinkshere turns that statement into something else--a way of promoting divisiveness on Misplaced Pages--and also mobilizes Misplaced Pages in a manner that is clearly inflammatory.
** That is to say, people seeing Misplaced Pages public resources used in this manner tend to assume that Misplaced Pages is promoting such divisiveness, when the reverse is true, with the result that ever more divisive statements are created using the same resources.
** This has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, except insofar as it empowers those who must not in any circumstances be given access to Misplaced Pages at all: those who use it to promote a political point of view. --] 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' ] ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Tony. ] ] 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and keep just like ] ]. ] 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' T1. ] ] 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', T1. And the statement "keep like all of the other political userboxes" makes no sense, since a bunch of those other political userboxes are also T1, and will be deleted in time. --] 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' -- <small> ( ] ] )</small> 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' it's not trying to be negative I think :/. ] 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
**Being "negative" has nothing to do with it. --] 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
***Well the way I see it, in order for something to be divisive or inflammatory, it'd have to be pretty negative, either in tone (I.E. opposed to Marxism) or ideology (Nazism). Sure, Communism is really negative, but not all communism has to be your typical Stalinism type thing :/. ] 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:::*Whether it's Communism or some other -ism is irrelevent. Announcing our political viewpoints and getting to know other people who share those views are not the purposes of Misplaced Pages, and politics has no place here. ] 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' OK, that's just stupid. Dont feed vandals. -- ] - <small><sup>] <b>y</b></sup><sub><b>o</b> ]</sub></small> 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Okay in userspace if it actually linked to ], not okay in templatespace. ]] ] 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per Tony. And delete all political Userbox templates. They do not help write an encyclopedia. ] 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and bring ''back'' to TfD'''. Per this ALREADY passing a tfd: ] with a overwhelming result of Keep. The link on this was not pointing to the vandalism page as of the TfD, but was instead added by ] I've posted the version that surived TFD above. There has got to be a better use of our time then continuously deleting and resotring these templates. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
**LOL! That's a great one! I don't even remember doing it. Good old April Fools, too bad it only comes 'round but once a year. --] 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
***Could this entire debate be the end result of a 4/1 joke gone horribly wrong? — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
****Even with this revelation I don't think most people here are going to change their minds. Although it is kind of funny that April Fools strikes over a month after the actual day. --] 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep Deleted''', as will all such political opinion userboxes. --] 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep Deleted''', Why are we wasting our time with these? It's common sense, supported by T1.. Misplaced Pages is not MySpace. --] 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep Deleted''' Clearly falls under ]. ] (]) 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Undelete.''', I'm renting ''Good Night and Good Luck'', and savoring the many ironies, for example: it's OK to be a communist on Misplaced Pages, so long as you are not a ''card-carrying communist''. &mdash;] 05:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - per T1 -- ] 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' as much as I hate communists, I don't see why this userbox is either divisive or inflammatory. I urge those who provided no reasoning other than T1 to expand and explain it, otherwise their "votes" shouldn't be counted by a closing administrator. ] 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', this is no better than its opposite. Misplaced Pages is not a pulpit for one to declare Communist membership cards or anything else, for that matter. Is Iamthejabberwock taking the piss out of Tony here, or does he sincerely believe there's sufficient difference? ] (]) 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:*Honestly, I would rather that both this template and its counterpart be kept, but I think it's reasonable to interpret T1 as prohibiting attack or anti-boxes, and allowing support boxes, so that's how I'm voting. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' the concept of userboxes is apparently divisive and inflamatory, ergo all userboxes qualify for T1 even if it is about bunnies or kittens. ] 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' unless all other political userboxes go as well, particularly since {{tl|user marxist}} and {{tl|user Trot}} have already been deleted. It is simply stupid to delete the communist userbox but leave (for example) {{tl|user Anarchist}}, {{tl|user Christian democrat}}, {{tl|User progressive}}, {{tl|user Christian communist}}, etc. Of course the first version should be deleted, but once the link is corrected there's no more reason to delete this one more than any other ]. Why not list all the political userboxes up here at once, instead of doing them one by one? ]]] | ] 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:*I agree. Deleting all political boxes at once is a good suggestion. But I suspect that won't happen, because the idea of generating consensus through these discussions will create precedent for, and give momentum to, the deletion of future boxes when they are deleted. I'm being assured that this process is ramping up and the pace of deletions is quickening. ] 17:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

===]===
* Deleted under T1 some weeks ago by me. ] has without consultation undeleted it.
** I bring it here for endorsement of the original deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion. --] 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted''', valid T1, clearly divisive and inflammatory. --] 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' This does not help build an encyclopedia --] ] 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. T1 for the obvious-impaired. ] ] 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. ] (]) 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', correct application of T1. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', ditto everyone else. Mike Rosoft should not be undeleting clearly T1 templates. --] 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Clearly falls under ]. ] (]) 00:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep deleted''' per GTBacchus. <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)</s>
*:Changed to '''Speedy keep''' as I understand the current situation: it already survived a deletion review, and nothing has changed since then. I wish there was more transparency here so I could vote accurately the first time... <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', etc., etc. Correct application of T1. &mdash; ] | ] 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Userfy''' I'd say I hate being the odd man out, except...I don't :/. Now, since its in template space I suppose it's, well, not really Wiki template type material, but I don't see the harm in it being in user space, I mean, alot of people probably don't like Marxism, and it doesn't seem to be that mean a template...... ] 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' and early close this review, per Kotepho's's comments. Noted the prior actions on the ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*: The notes on the talk page give no grounds for keeping, much less "speedy keep", which would traditionally require a bad faith nomination (not the case here) or a withdrawal (which I decline to do). This unequivocally divisive and inflammatory template will remain deleted. --] 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:<s>'''Keep restored, list on TfD''' obviously there is debate among admins on this one, get consensus and do away with it, the project won't hurt by having this out there for a week. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to Speedy Keep above.
*::Ten or so against one isn't a debate, especially when the one was wheel-warring. ] ] 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I think this establishes that no abuse of administrator powers was involved in deleting the template. Would anybody like to redelete and close this? --] 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:If im reading the timestamps right, this vote is only like a little more than an hour old and most of the votes seemed to rush in during the first 30 minutes or something, I think a little more time would be nice :/. ] 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:: Why? We've already got a very strong administrator consensus in favor of my speedy deletion. --] 01:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' You should at least mention that it was sent to TFD after a ] that resulted in ]. Last I checked the multiple deletions of this template would fall under wheel warring too. ] 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Let's ask Mike Rosoft, who has restored this template a remarkable '''three''' times. Much of this occurred before T1 was accepted as policy (as it now is). Since then, Tony Sidaway deleted it, quite properly, and Mike Rosoft restored it, two weeks later, without discussion. That is wheel-warring. ] ]
*::It takes n+1 to wheel war. ] 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::Yes, but that's not a reflection on ''n''. ] ] 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::If it is done without discussion it sure is. ] 01:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Recreate''' In light of Kotepho's comments. Normally I would want to userfy, but speedy deletion after a TfD said keep is Out of Order. I hope some of the above votes reconsider in light of this. -- ] - <small><sup>] <b>y</b></sup><sub><b>o</b> ]</sub></small> 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Many inflammatory and divisive templates are speedied correctly after being kept at TfD. The campaigns to keep such templates are precisely the reason why we ''have'' a criterion for their speedy deletion. --] 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::I don't strongly disagree with that, excepting that this was ''already brought to DRV'' after being speedied last time, and it was decided then that it should be decided in TfD. That was less then a month ago. Continuously cycling this through the system is taking away valuable time from everyone involved. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::Quite. So why was it undeleted two weeks after the fact? It clearly wasn't missed. ] ] 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::Are you refering to these logs below? The TFD ended on ''7 March 2006'', and it was restored the next day after a consensus was determined by ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::# 2006-05-08 21:56:08 Mike Rosoft restored "Template:User No Marxism" (5 revisions restored: Userbox repeatedly survived a deletion vote, and was previously undeleted)
*::::# 2006-05-08 21:54:26 Mike Rosoft deleted "Template:User No Marxism" (Restoring, userbox repeatedly survived a deletion vote, content was: '<nowiki><noinclude>{{deletedpage}}</noinclude>'</nowiki> (and the only contributor was 'Tony Sidaway'))
*::::# 2006-04-25 15:51:46 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User No Marxism" (CSD T1)''
*:::::Are you suggesting that because noone wheel wared this template while it was in debate means it wasn't missed? — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::::: I would agree that it wasn't missed, simply because I had absolutely no feedback about this routine speedy deletion from anyone for two weeks. What seems to have happened then is that the original creator noticed and complained about the deletion--not to me, but to another administrator who is known for his repeated undeletions of templates validly deleted by administrators under CSD T1. --] 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Blatantly T1. ] 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Divisive and inflammatory? Sure, I can see how one could think that. ] 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Salt the earth'''. Blatantly T1, and an abuse of the template: namespace and userspace privileges. This should never have been undeleted. ] (]) 02:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Divisive and inflammatory, but then again, all political boxes (even the "pro" boxes) are divisive and have no place here. ] 02:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment by the creator of the template''' As already noted consensus has been twice for retaining this template (]). * Also, I think it's biased to remove the ''only'' anti-communist userbox in a situation when we have tens of different communist ones and all in all, hundreds of political templates. That's a thesis which I've already presented months ago, and the situation has not changed, on the contrary, new communist ones have arisen.
*:My opinion is that every more or less 'mainstream' ideology might have its userbox. We needn't have tens of communist userboxes, but one or two, and naturally we ought to have an anti-communist one as well. 'Divisive' etc thing is ridiculous -- all the political userboxes might be regarded as 'divise'; so far, mr ] has not started a complete userbox deletion campaign (leaving a doubt if userboxes except for the anti-marxist one seem too hard to swallow?!).--] - ] 05:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
* Your apology is politely requested:
** 15:51, 25 April 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Communist" (CSD T1)
** 15:51, 25 April 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User No Marxism" (CSD T1)
*Thank you. --] 06:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Had you read my notes through, you would have noted that I supported having both some communist userboxes (actually, i do not care much, how many we have, let'm be) and also '''the''' ]. After your two deletions noted above, the situation is following: '''not a single userbox opposed to socialist-communist-marxist''' etc thinking, although non-communism is clearly majority POV worldwide. So, we now have have anti-communism prohibited and following ideologies permitted:
*:] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] --] - ] 06:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::Exactly. It seems a very well organized clique on the Left is dominating by quickly responding to any attempt to delete, and are VERY aggressive against boxes they oppose. The answer is delete ALL political Userbox Templates but allow them as text on Userpages. That takes them out of template space and out of the realm of community debate here and elsewhere. ] 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::Well, if left was able to save their boxes due to good organisation, then the fact reveals that ''speedy deletion on basis of T1'' has not been exercised concerning 'red' userboxes. Also, all the templates could be deleted if the list would be composed and consensus reached. However, I think no admin dares to do so, for then he might face the whole community. Thus, a weird form of 'divide et impera' has been used.
*::::That's a good exposition of what's going on. ] 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
::::'' are VERY aggressive against boxes they oppose'' -- well, the aggressiveness here towards the only anti-communist box has definitely not releaved the pressure. --] - ] 06:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*:You are of course welcome to delete those userboxes also. --] 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::Consensus has been against, also, i'm not an admin and I'm against uncautious deletions.--] - ] 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::Consensus has ''not'' been against. We have a rough consensus of MySpacers who want them kept, a rough consensus of dedicated admins who want them gone, and a full consensus of actual encyclopaedia writers who don't give a damn either way and want the issue gone. By the way, I see you note {{tl|User progressive}} in your list of Evil Commie Boxen. Progressive? Get some perspective, dude! ] (]) 07:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::: The Myspacers are winning the debate, and as long as the Writers are complacent and don't care, the MySpacers win by default. The situation is not a good one. ] 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::::Myspacers winning? How do you figure? I would have said the opposite. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::::How can you look at the bottom of this page and say that the MySpacers are still winning? That's ''11'' "keep deleted"s in a row! <font color="silver">TheJ</font>]<font color="silver">bb</font>]<font color="silver">rw</font>]<font color="silver">ck</font> 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::::So 90% of userbox templates (User:Democrat/Republican/Christian Marxist/Loves the U.N./Pro-abortion, etc.) are sacrosant and can't ever be deleted, but they are NOT winning? Going after the "anti" boxes is a great first move, but if admins are stymied in their attempt to go further, they are losing the fight against the Myspacing of WP. - ] 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::::: Whatever gave you the idea that such templates are sacrosanct and cannot be deleted? --] 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::::::I personally do not believe them to be sacrosanct and I hope they ''are'' deleted soon. But to hear the pro-box arguments currently in fashion, unless it's "negative" (i.e. "User No___ " or "User Opposes ___") they cannot be deleted because they're not divisive. My view, though, is that politically oriented Userboxes are '''inherently''' divisive, and even inflammatory, since they inspire opposing boxes and divide the WP community into camps (or "tribes" as I've called them) who seek to save their favorite boxes and debate over their wording and design. And of course, they inspire the very kinds of endless debates we're having now, which are a huge distraction - though frankly it's a NECESSARY distraction, much like when a water pipe bursts in your house. It needs attending to, and I reject those who say "leave them alone" because you don't leave a menace alone, hoping it will go away. - ] 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete, keep deleted''', whatever you need to do to get rid of it. ] ] 08:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', T1 is not up for discussion here. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' TFD already decided that this one is not T1. ] 10:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:Actually, this tfd: doesn't address that at all, in that most keep voters cited no rationale whatsoever, and the few that did simply stated things like "discloses editor's POV", which side-steps the issue altogether. ] ] 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:: Indeed, the very strong support for the T1 deletion shown above also suggests that claims of a consensus that it wasn't a T1 are either out of date or incorrect. --] 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*:::Indeed, both of you cited no rationale whatsoever to delete this template above, so I don't know whether you think it should be deleted because of T1 or something else entirely. Remember, this is not a vote, just writing "<nowiki>*Keep deleted. ~~~~</nowiki>" is not enough. ] 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*::::In this case a Keep Deleted is a clear affirmation of T1. If we didn't agree that it was T1 then we couldn't very well vote to keep it deleted. You still haven't addressed the issue I raised. ] ] 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Clear T1. There's no other relevant issue here. ] 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted.''' Just userfy if you must. ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*<b>Undelete</b>, or userfy at worst. I don't think that it meets the speedy deletion criterion (which demands the userbox to be divisive AND inflammatory); and, if it were such a clear case, it wouldn't have been undeleted once and survived two deletion votes. (And, frankly, I consider it misguided to declare something no two users will agree about to be a speedy deletion criterion. After all, exactly what does it mean that a userbox is "divisive"? "Expressing an opinion somebody might disagree with"?) - ] 22:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
** So you think it's okay if a userbox is divisive but not inflammatory, or inflammatory without being divisive? Seriously? This sounds most unusual. The divisive and inflammatory nature of the userboxes in question have been established over a long period by the extremely bitter debates that the continued toleration of their presence on Misplaced Pages, an avowedly neutral encyclopedia, have occasioned. --] 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*** Misplaced Pages is neutral, its editors are not. We are supposed to adopt a N'''POV''' when editing articles, not "you cant edit here unless you have no beliefs." You'll prolly accuse me of exaggeration if you respond to this, and you'll be right. I have a tendency to exaggerate, and I have a Christian bias. I try to be as Nuetral as possible, but sometimes I can't help my biases, thats why its good to be able to identify them. Let anyone who voted ''Speedy Delete'' show me an instance where this box divided people (i.e. caused an edit conflict) and do it without citing the deletion review, ] are no good here, deletion review is about Admins overstepping their bounds. Sorry about the rant, but unfounded claims tend to piss me off, I should make that a userbox... (Just Kidding, please dont ban me Jimbo) -- ] - <small><sup>] <b>y</b></sup><sub><b>o</b> ]</sub></small> 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
****I might also add that all userboxes express a POV, and most are divisive (i.e. expressing that I speak German divides me from the non-German speakers.) The inflammatory part is key in speedy deletions: A userboxes saying "Non-German speakers are all idiots" is both inflammatory and divisive while "I speak German" is simply divisive. This userbox, given the previous TfD, may not be a clear-cut speedy candidate (though I personally can see how it is interpreted as inflammatory as well); however, I still feel that this userbox in any case portrays the image that Misplaced Pages is meant as a medium through which to profess one's dogmatic Marxist beliefs, which it certainly is not, thus my vote to keep it deleted. Undeleting and sending to TfD is just another unecessary link in the bureaucratic chain--what's the point in discussing whether to discuss something when we can discuss it here? (Though, as an aside, it does seem to be the "Marxist" way to do things lol.) ] (]) 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' -- <small> ( ] ] )</small> 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep Deleted''', as will all such political opinion userboxes. In the future, it might be advantageous to speedy delete opposites at the same time, so that we cannot be accused of supporting one viewpoint. --] 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Misplaced Pages is not a pulpit. If you want webspace to express your views get a hosted account someplace. --] 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - T1 -- ] 05:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)




__TOC__


==April 30, 2006==




== Archived discussions == == Archived discussions ==
''See ], ]'' ''See ], ], ]''
* ] ()
*] and ] ... it's complicated
* ] ( 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) *] ( almost unanimous keep deleted)
*] and others ( kept deleted) *] and others ( nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
* ] and ] ( kept deleted) * ] and ] ( kept deleted)
* ] and ] ( kept deleted). * ] and ] ( kept deleted).
Line 242: 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: