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 17:32, 31 March 2006 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 17:34, 31 March 2006 edit undoGrue (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,507 edits →[]: get your facts straightNext edit →
Line 56: Line 56:
*'''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. ] 17:23, 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. ] 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. ] ] 17:30, 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. ] ] 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. ] 17:34, 31 March 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. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 17:32, 31 March 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. --'''<font color="#0055aa">]</font>''' 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Revision as of 17:34, 31 March 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)

This subpage has calmed down a bit.

"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 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)

  • Keep deleted, linkspam - linking to a hotbed of neo-nazis and trolls. Utterly unhelpful. --Doc 12:40, 31 March 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)
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)
    • I don't understand this argument. Are you in favor of this template or not? It can be settled here. Requiring that it be undeleted and then shipped over to TfD to deal with just creates more work for more people. --Cyde Weys 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Undeleting and relisting on TfD is always process wonking; there is never any legitimate purpose for doing that. Make any argument you might have here, or drop it. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:27, 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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. I'm fairly certain that I remember this userbox. 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)
  • 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)

Archived discussions

See /Archive