| Revision as of 15:28, 5 November 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →Landon Ashworth: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:32, 5 November 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →Userfied Userboxes: closing (overturn -- with one exception -- no relist)Next edit → |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====Userfied Userboxes==== |
|
|
In this DRV, I'd like to overturn the decisions by admin ], who has deleted ''9 userfied'' userboxes, most with the summary ''Divisive template''. Now, I might be mistaken, but I believe that's T1. T1 is for template space. I'm using red links on ] to get what I can find, but I might have missed some. Remember, we're not talking about template userboxes, but userfied ones. -]<small>(]·])</small> 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
**'''Comment''' ] would like to extend this DRV to explicitely include (all userboxes in userspace also deleted by Centrx): |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] - very ironic |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] - deleted as "unused userbox"? |
|
|
*] ]]/] 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Overturn'''. T1 doesn't work for user space. If you really want to push to get rid of these, go through MfD. The whole idea of ] these in the first place is that as stringent of rules do not apply to user space as do to template space. If these boxes had been slanderous or attack natured I would say to take it to MfD or even CSD, but these are basic identification boxes. --] 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn'''. As above - If it's in the user space, it really cannot come under a template CSD. <strong>]]]</strong> 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''', per ]. Let's do what ], which was to use reason and dialogue to persuade people that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be used for political flag-waving, all the while allowing users to do pretty much what they want in Userspace, and insisting that POV boxes not remain in Templatespace. This is a good compromise that effectively ended the so-called userbox wars, and I disagree with any attempt to start up that horrible quagmire of drama again. Those opposed to userboxes would do well to get on the ball as far as trying to convince people through dialogue that political userboxes are inappropriate. Please, let's not try to short-circuit the process of dialogue and acculturation; it leads to bad things. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''', per Martinp23. — ]<font color="green">]</font>]<sup><font color="purple">]</font></sup><sub>]</sub> 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' Userspace != Templatespace. Please don't apply CSD to spaces they don't belong to. ]]/] 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn All''', including the ones that I didn't nominate, and including any future ones found. -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**How about ]? —]→] • 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Maybe G10 but not T1. Also, citing one clear attack item does not justify a dozen or more simple identifcation items. Using the extreme does not justify actions against the middle. --] 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*The Ministry of Truth ones is a sockpuppet using Misplaced Pages as his personal playground. —]→] • 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**What exactly is your response/excuse for the first nine? -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I already explained to you why they were deleted. You should consider that explanation more carefully before making open-ended statements that would entail you wasting your time wading through thousands of deleted pages. —]→] • 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Yes, I have read your response on your talkpage. As you may be aware, userspace is not covered by the speedy deletion criteria of templatespace. You might also want to read ], especially the bit about ] and the final bit where he PRODS with the reason "per the emerging consensus that the German solution is best". I do not want a "Userbox War 2". As to your comments regarding ] - I was not aware that (s)he was a sockpuppet, but you also know that non-abusive sockpuppets -per se- are not forbidden. See ]. ]]/] 00:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and restore''' all of the deleted userboxes. The whole purpose of the ] was to permit userboxes like these since they're not allowed in the template namespace. Speedy deletion criteria for templates don't apply because of this. These userboxes don't look like they violate any of the normal rules for properly-userfied userboxes, and deleting them could upset the compromise that the German Userbox Solution provided. —] 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**The compromise is to smooth relations with Wikipedians, not because userboxes have any inherent value and Jimbo repeatedly states that userboxes of this sort are not normal and accepted behavior. The compromise does not apply to someone who created an account purely to create userboxes. —]→] • 05:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I agree with this comment. The compromise userbox migration (formerly known as the German Solution), is not based on the idea that userboxes have a rightful place as part of Misplaced Pages, simply that we wanted the fighting to stop. On the other hand, I agree with Cswrye that the compromise is delicate enough that deletions like this could be a threat to the peace. -]<sup>(])</sup> 08:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn all except ]''' T1 does not apply to userspace. No valid reasons for deleting others visible in deletion logs or provided in the explanation here by the deleter. '''Also overturn''' the talk pages where they had them, the only one I've found was: ]. ] 02:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn all''' except the one GRBerry pointed out, per above. T1 doesn't work in userspace. --''']]]''' 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' to those saying "T1 doesn't apply in userspace" - I don't think that's true. More accurately, T1 has generally been interpreted far more leniently in userspace than in templatespace. In template space, a userbox simply has to be unrelated to the encyclopedia to count as "divisive". In userspace, only very divisive JEWSDIDWTC-type boxes are generally taken to be "divisive". This is all per the German Solution and Jimbo's endorsement thereof. -]<sup>(])</sup> 08:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Is it really necessary to muddy the water on where T1 can be used and to what degree it should be applied in different spaces? For a situation like JEWSDIDWTC, G10 is if anything more applicable. In most, if not all, cases I believe there are other deletion criteria which can be used on items like this in user space without dragging a template criteria in. --] 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Would it not be better to keep all the existing "User X" userboxes and use the German userbox solution on new ones?? --] 10:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Just to make my position clear, I support the deletion of ] - this box was a direct violation of "no attacks" which is deleteable under ]-G10. Regarding the deletion of the ] userboxes, I do not know if or if not (s)he was an abusive sockpuppet, if so I can somewhat understand the actions, though I believe there were better options, like allowing users to adopt the userboxes. Finally regarding the other userboxes, merely being political as in "This user supports %PARTY%" is not and should not be a reason for speedy deletion in userspace. Otherwise its only a small step until "This user is a ]", "This user is an ]" or "This user is ]" are deleted citing similar reasons. Honor the compromise we found (based on ] which was also ]), lest we get another continuation of the userbox wars. ]]/] 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Overturn and restore.''' Either Misplaced Pages has administrative integrity or it doesn't when it comes to clear messages by Jimbo on more latitude for userboxes in userspace. The greatest danger of allowing such deletions to hold is the alienation and departure of ''many'' serious editors who happen to at least not hate userboxes, but also definitely hate authoritarian ] by overbearing admins. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' all except the one GRBerry pointed out, per above. T1 doesn't work in userspace <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
*'''Overturn and restore''' all but the JEWSDIDWTC one. Actions such as these speedy deletions can easily be seen as the admin community's attempt to destroy all userboxes in direct contravention of the userbox migration compromise that showed such promise in ending the wars. The basis of that compromise was that T1 doesn't apply in userspace. T1 was merely a convenient excuse for user-hostile admins to destroy userboxes right and left, despite Jimbo's exhortation to not go on any deletion sprees. I mean, how can a userbox saying "this user is an organ donor" be divisive and inflammatory?...yet it was deleted under T1. Destroying that compromise will only result in the resumption of the userbox wars and the associated perception among the peons that admins don't care about them. As for JEWSDIDWTC, even though T1 doesn't apply in userspace, other CSD most certainly do, and nobody is saying that userboxes that violate other CSD shouldn't go as well. ] 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**...and if a non-sock-puppet account is needed to hold the ones from ], they may be placed in ]. I'll do that in the name of stopping the insidious, underhanded, sneaky destruction of the userbox migration compromise. ] 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' and restore all templates with exception to the "JEWSDIDWTC" one, and possibly censure whoever it was responsible for creating it. 20:29, 1 November 2006 |
|
|
*'''Overturn all''' (except the JEWSDIDWTC one mentioned above). we have a clear policy on userfied userboxes, the deleting admin has violated it. Suggest he reads ] and learns what the word 'template' means. ] 09:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' - speedy deletion is not the forum for Miscellany for Deletion - ] is. See ]. -- <b>]</b> <sub>(]) (])</sub> 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn all''' (except the JEWSDIDWTC one mentioned above). This guy must not like Userboxes... ] 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn all''' with the exception of the JEWSDIDWTC userbox. Simply because someone dislikes something does not allow them to ignore clear rules , subjectively decide what should be deleted, or , worst of all, suggest that people have no right to use a userbox that illustrates how it feels if it offends no one. --<font style="background:black">] ]</font><sup>]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>]</sup> 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I received a request from the creator of the JEWSDIDWTC userbox asking "Would it then be acceptable to reword the template to "This user believes in jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks" or something akin to that?" , which would not be so much of an attack template (what about "This user supports the Association Against Jewish Involvement in WTC" or "This user supports anti-Semitism" or "This user supports the Nazi party" or...actually, one of the userboxes above is "This user identifies as a National Socialist." Do you really think that one and similar ones should be restored, when it wasn't even created by a Misplaced Pages editor in the first place? If not, why not that one but the Stalinist one is okay, etc. and where do we stop deciding we approve of a certain viewpoint but not others?). —]→] • 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Also, though it is easy to say that the Nazis are an extreme case (though you are apparently voting to undelete it and its swastika, along with several similar ones), what about "This user supports Hamas" (or "This user supports the destruction of Israel"), or "This user supports the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam", etc. —]→] • 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**:To answer your question above, no I don't think any of them should be restored. I think all the stupid POV userboxes should have been deleted last new years when Kelly started the job. That turned out not to be workable, though, and as you point out, I don't see how deleting some userboxes and not others could be workable - that's just like starting a hundred small grass fires everywhere one party gets their box deleted and their opponents don't. I think that's one of the better arguments against having the cursed boxes in the first place, but it doens't fly. People don't believe or don't care that userboxes are a sign and an agent of a more and more politicized Misplaced Pages, and I don't know what can be done about it. Deleting the occasional handful of boxes just seems pointless, and likely to upset people at random, which is kind of worse than just letting it go. Sad, isn't it? -]<sup>(])</sup> 11:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***You know what, it doesn't help when your telling us what these say and saying we're all hipocrites, when we can't see any of the boxes. From the titles, I don't see anything inflamitory. If each box just says this user is a {whatever} or this user supports {party}, then I don't see anything bad about them. Someone saying the Jews caused 9/11 is an attack page, and we can tell from the title. We can't tell how inflamitory each one is from the titles. Remember that. It's been 5 days now. We can see where the majority lie. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****Regarding the Ministry of Truth one, you should be pretty accepting of the fact that it is a sockpuppet, most likely of a user banned for some disruption, who is creating these userboxes ]. There is no benefit whatsoever to keeping useless and unused user pages created by a user whose only edits have been to create them. Also, there is clearly a user box called "Stalinist", for example, just based on the titles; why would supporting a regime that killed millions of people and deported millions of others from their homes be acceptable but supporting the Nazi party would not? —]→] • 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Also, if the "majority" can't see the userboxes, then they obviously aren't making an informed decision. —]→] • 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****The JEWSDIDWTC userbox is actually not so much an attack as it is a stupid Internet joke. Regardless, what about a userbox that stated "This user supports the www.jewsdidwtc.com website", which portrays itself as presenting a legitimate theory. What about the several other examples above, such as Hamas, or perhaps supporting the "Cultural Revolution". Why not "This user is an anti-Semite", that's not an attack box, that's making a possibly true statement about oneself. In the end, any decision about which user boxes are appropriate and which are not is a decision about what political groups are legitimate (and the user's own political group is of course legitimate). Unless we think it is good to have swastikas and supporters of so-called "hate groups" on user pages, or unless we forbid political user boxes, that decision must be made. How about some of the rightist parties in Germany? If it is okay to have userboxes that states "This user believes that the '''death penalty''' should be imposed and '''''used more frequently !'''''", would it be okay to have one that stated "This user believes that drug dealers should be killed." be okay (and this is a punishment for drug trafficking in Singapore). How about "This user approves of abortion" (how about a fanciful userbox that even says "This user thinks killing babies is good"). What is going to happen on a major election year anyway? —]→] • 20:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****How many people does a regime have to kill before supporting it is offensive? My arab friend here says "no Stalinist ever called me a sand-nigger." He finds "User Republican" pretty offensive. I think it's disgusting to make judgement calls about which political positions are offensive to hold - we're basically drawing a necessarily arbitrary line, and saying to some parents that their dead babies don't count, but other parents' dead babies do. That's ''ugly''. It sure as hell has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. How did we get into the business of making moral calls about political userboxes? Oh yeah, we didn't delete them all a year ago, when we should have. I wish Jimbo or ArbCom would just ban them outright. It's clear the community doesn't care enough to do the hard work of educating and persuading, so we just need to be whipped into line, and lose a bunch of editors in the process. Otherwise, it'll just get worse and worse. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****There's a userbox in my space that says "This user believes that there are some crimes for which no punishment less than the death penalty is appropriate." I'm sure some folks would find it offensive. However, nobody throughout this entire debate has said that they would remove such wording from a user's page ''if it was there in plain text and not in a userbox''. That is what's so utterly nonsensical about the anti-user admins. Jimbo has clearly said that getting rid of userboxes while allowing the same things to be said outside of them on users' pages is ridiculous (the comment about "pamphlets"); why are people still carrying on this crusade? ] 21:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******No one has mentioned it because this discussion has been all about deleting pages with criteria, etc. It would depend on the situation, but there is indeed a difference between putting a colorful, glowing badge on the user page with flashy logos and calmly explaining a particular point of view using some reason. The problem is the same whether it is a separate Template page or whether it is simply a picture of a swastika with no box. It merely becomes murky if someone is describing who they are and what they do in plain text. —]→] • 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Helpful? No. Relevant to Misplaced Pages? No. Disruptive? Absolutely. '''Keep deleted'''.--] | ] 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Overturn and restore all.''' Freedom of speech is important and user namespace is sacred. – ] ] 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Including the "Jews did WTC" and "This user is a Nazi" (w/swastika) one, and others created by the sockpuppet? Did you read the above discussion? —]→] • 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Also, how about "This user is a pedophile" or "This user enjoys having sex with small children". Those aren't attacks and according to the bizarre interpretation of the template CSD they don't qualify. —]→] • 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** If someone states on their userpage that they're pedophile, Nazi, whatever, they'll either end up disliked and/or excommunicated and they'll go away, or they're just immature children who do it for fun and they'll leave Misplaced Pages when they see no one cares about what they do. Userboxes are just userboxes – words and images in a colourful box. They can't cause much harm. – ] ] 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Words and images in a colorful box can't cause much harm? Students of propaganda and advertising would disagree rather strongly with that claim. It turns out the slogan is ''far'' mightier than the sword, that a rallying flag can inspire a genocide, and that littering a space with political slogans actually transforms the place into a politicized community - the antithesis of what a neutral encyclopedia should be. Who knew? -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I don't see why they would go away. They are still able to edit pages and do whatever they want on Misplaced Pages. People whose accounts and IPs we actively ban from editing keep coming back, so I don't see why someone who obviously doesn't care whether he is welcomed into "the Misplaced Pages community" would leave. —]→] • 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** Centrx, as you notice I did not include the "Jews did WTC" in the list above and seperately stated that I endorsed your deletion of this attack userbox. I did not see the contents of the sockpuppet created boxes so I cannot say if they were offensive or not (one needs the "Bit" to see deleted stuff as you know), but I did see that you deleted a box that said "This user supports the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party.". Now you make it seem like we explicitely demand restoration of such offensive content, which is untrue. We have CSD-G10 for "Jews did WTC" and its ilk. And if you are understandebly offended by some guy who thinks it is funny to have a userboxes "This user is a pedophile", well that's what MfD is for - and I guess MfD would get it deleted nice and quick, and if the users insists you THEN can whack him with CSD-4 "recreated material". But how high do you rate that chance that MfD would delete a userbox saying "This user supports the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party."? ]]/] 00:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***"This user believes that Jews were involved in the September 11th attacks" is not an attack, and "Jews did WTC, LOL" is a joke, and "re-created material" only applies to substantially similar material, so "This user supports the Nazi party" and "This user is a Stalinist" and "This user is an anti-Semite" are all different and would require separate MfDs if indeed the peculiar assertiong that the inflammatory template CSD does not apply to userspace. Also, why are you nominating things for undeletion when they were not even created by a Misplaced Pages editor, when you have no idea what's in them, and when you didn't ask me or any administrator what they were? —]→] • 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** ''Comment'': One of the userboxes somehow got substituted in here. I assume it was an accident. It does not seem to have any connection to the surrounding discussion. I have removed it from this discussion thread. If it was intended as an example of something, please replace it with a link, not the userbox itself. ] <small>]</small> 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**** Why did I nominate them? Because after looking at a few other userboxes (or rather their names) you deleted it looked like you just arrived and said "this is a good day to delete userboxes". I asked you to undelete them or to give us a better explanation. All I got was "divisive and inflammatory... sockpuppet... I already said why I deleted them, go read there.". You offered me no convincing argument, no substantial example, that you did not just select two dozend boxes, plus a few authentic deletion candidates, and then speedy deleted the whole bunch. If the boxes in your selection had been ''"Someuser/box/hatejews Otheruser/boxes/killchristians Thirduser/box/diegaysdie'' e.g. Attackboxes or something like that I think few would have opposed that. But your deletions seemed to have no such selection criteria. It was more like a bit of this, a bit of that. '''So far I still have no explanation from you what makes "This user supports the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party" (to name a really odd choice of yours) so divisive and inflammatory, so utterly evil and repugant that it needs to be speedy deleted along with an anti-semitic attack box'''. And as for the MfDs - just lump them together in one big MfD ''"Someuser/evilbox1/, Someuser/evilbox2, ... , Someuser/evilbox22 - all boxes created by Someuser, (s)he made no notable contribution to the Misplaced Pages, all boxes should be deleted because (reason)"''. ]]/] 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
====]==== |
Okay, it's fixed. NO ADVERTISING OF ANY KIND. Will you please not delete the page this time? I'm new to Misplaced Pages, and I simply modeled this page after other pages I had seen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davisrichardg (talk • contribs) .