Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Userbox debates‎ | Archived

Template:User ProIsrael

Sean Black deleted "Template:User ProIsrael" for reason: Divisive. This template said simply "This user supports the continued existence of a free and independent Israel." Exactly how expressing the desire of a nation not to be "wiped off the map" is divisive is beyond me. Isn't "this use advocates the use a [[serial comma]" also divisive to some degree? —Aiden 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:User varied sex

This user enjoys a varied sex life. (Alternating between hands does constitute "varied", right?)


A userbox celebrating masterbation. I deleted this on May 8th as blatently unencyclopedic, a waste of resources and potentialy offensive.

ask? 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Endose my deletion I believe it was appropriate use of IAR to remove pointless crap from wikipedia template space. We don't need to celebrate wanking here. --
    ask? 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Undelete encyclopedicity is not a CSD.  Grue  16:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, per above. It's funny, though crude. –
    Talk | contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: this does nothing to promote the building of the encyclopedia in any way, shape or form. —Phil | Talk 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted More junk, some could find offensive perhaps some might find some vague amusement in it for a passing second, can't see any actual value in it, userfy if you must. --pgk(talk) 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Sceptre's action was an out-of-process undeletion of a valid speedy. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Enough is enough. "Funny" is not an adequate justification for wasting everyone's time with these templates. Nandesuka 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete it really should have gone through TFD because I'm not seeing how it fits T1 or T2. Divisive and inflammatory? Not really. Divisive or inflammatory? Still no. Professes a personal belief, ideology, etc? Not seeing it. Also, when did arbcom make 0WW policy or for that matter when did arbcom start making policy? Kotepho 17:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A long time ago. Please don't make the mistake of rules-lawyering. The Arbcom has made it abundantly clear that "wheel-warring," the undiscussed reversion of an administrative action, is grounds for desysoping. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has made it clear that a pattern of undoing admin actions without discussion or doing it multiple times is disruptive and grounds for desysoping. I fail to see how saying "blah blah restored it against arbcom decree!" is relevant or even useful to the discussion of the merits of the original speedy deletion. Kotepho 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relevant so long as people vote undelete because the deletion was "out-of-process." Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undeleted and list at TFD. Undelete a Speedy Deletion is acceptable (though it should be communicated to the original sysop). Deleting it again is what gets the wheel spining. — xaosflux Talk 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and put me down as a "strong delete" on the ensuing TFD discussion. It's stupid, but unless it was speedied as patent nonsense, stupid isn't a
    CSD. I will 100% agree that it is "potentially offensive" and I have no desire whatsoever to see it, but "potentially offensive" is not "divisive and/or inflammatory". I 100% believe is should be deleted, but there is no criterion for speedy delete that fits the bill and thus, it should not have been speedied. BigDT 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted. It should not have been speedied, but
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there's really no sense in reanimating a dead userbox so it can be re-killed according to process. That's the very definition of when process has gone too far. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted per GTBacchus. Not a T1, so it should have just gone straight to TfD. But we can discuss it here just as well as we can there, so there's really need to revive it just to ship it off.
    AmiDaniel (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted - non-encyclopedic, doesn't belong as a template. --Cyde Weys 18:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per T2. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to GTBacchus, the guidelines used for speedying are what needs fixing. That said, I don't support reanimating it just for the sake of TfDing it though unless there's some reason to believe this doesn't fit the crisper T1 and would survive a TfD. Keep Deleted (and I can't believe this arose on my birthday... ) The user could and should userify it if they wanted to. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion to close - Template no longer has any incoming transclusions, thus there is absolutely no reason it needs to stay in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Object. No incoming transclusions is not a deletion reason for a template. Deletion on this ground destroys historical page versions, and future applications. — xaosflux Talk 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Does not meet the requirements for T1 ("divisive and inflammatory") nor for T2 ("express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues"), anymore than any of the other "relationship-status" boxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality, ergo a speedy-deletion is not justifiable by current policy. No real viewpoint is being expressed here, and a quirky little "fun" template like this could hardly be considered "inflammatory" by any stretch of the imagination, plus the speedy-deletion has now been disputed by several users. So why not bring this up on TfD and let it be discussed by the community at large? Borderline templates like this, falling into "grey areas" where no policy clearly endorses or forbids them, are the ideal templates to bring to TfD, since they're the ones that need the most discussion and review (in turn helping us build more study consensus for future deletions of similar boxes). DRV is a review of process, not a "backdoor TfD". -Silence 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete per silence. This did not and does not meet t1 or the new t2 under discussion...Mike McGregor (Can) 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with Fire "Celebrates masturbation"? Ewww..... Homestarmy 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Is non-encyclopedic, and therefore doesn't belong as a template. Clearly, this is a "viewpoint on a controversial issue." To pretend this isn't inflammatory and designed to provoke is beyond credulity. Take it out of template space. - Nhprman 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. All userboxes are "potentially offensive". So are all articles. That isn't grounds for deletion. Sarge Baldy 20:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Does not meet CSD. If you really don't like it list on TFD. The Ungovernable Force 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Per Ungovernable Force. While sex and masturbation may be controversial issues, I am not convinced that in this case it rises to being T1. The proper venue is therefore TfD. JoshuaZ 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is beyond stupid. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Triceratops Accident

' This user revived a Triceratops from a fossil and attempted to ride it. However, it went around the neighbourhood eating every plant in sight.


Cyde deleted this 93:22 6 May as nonsense. He then redeleted it as a recreation. 23:27 6 May.

This is silly; but it's not political; it's not divisive; it's not inflammatory. In short, it's not T1. (And it's not

patent naonsense
. Nor was the recreation G4, which excludes speedies; at that point it should certainly have gone to TfD.) How did speedying it, and so biting the newbie who made it, help to build an encyclopedia?

Template:User antiuserboxdeletion

AD The user is against the mass deletion of userboxes

Deleted as unessecary T1. It is not offensive or demeaning in anyway, and was simply deleted because it reflected POV against userbox deletion. The userbox was rather popular, and simply expressed some views against unecesscary userbox deletion. The Republican 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Darwinist

  • Deleted by
    User:Doc glasgow
    , citing "CSD T1."
File:Darwinist-symbol.png
This user is a
Darwinist
.

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 Charles Darwin considered inflammatory? Netscott 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:UBX/Communist

Last deleted version (?):

This user is a Communist.

Version as of last TfD:

This user is a Communist.

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
ʘck 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 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 Wikipedia, and politics has no place here. Nhprman 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted OK, that's just stupid. Dont feed vandals. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Okay in userspace if it actually linked to Communism, not okay in templatespace. RadioKirk talk to me 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Tony. And delete all political Userbox templates. They do not help write an encyclopedia. Nhprman 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and bring back to TfD. Per this ALREADY passing a tfd: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 4 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 Cyde 1 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. — xaosflux Talk 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could this entire debate be the end result of a 4/1 joke gone horribly wrong? — xaosflux Talk 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, as will all such political opinion userboxes. --Constantine Evans 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, Why are we wasting our time with these? It's common sense, supported by T1.. Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Gmaxwell 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Clearly falls under
    AmiDaniel (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Undelete., I'm renting Good Night and Good Luck, and savoring the many ironies, for example: it's OK to be a communist on Wikipedia, so long as you are not a card-carrying communist. —StrangerInParadise 05:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - per T1 -- Tawker 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.  Grue  06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, this is no better than its opposite. Wikipedia 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? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TheJ
    ʘck 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Template:User No Marxism

[The leftists] are VERY aggressive against boxes they oppose -- well, the aggressiveness here towards the only anti-communist box has definitely not releaved the pressure. --Constanz - Talk 06:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User infidel

inf This user is an infidel.


Cyde (talk · contribs) speedy deleted citing T1 on 2006-04-30. This template was previously restored on 2006-03-10. It is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion and is currently used by approximately 78 users.

  • Speedy Restore --William Allen Simpson 14:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Does it divide wikipedians by belief? Yes. It is thus divisive, and t1 is valid. The fact a lot of people are acting in a manner that is officially discouraged is irrelevant. People may not like t1, but it is policy, and to restore this would be a travesty of policy. --
    ask? 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We clearly interprete things differently. Fine that's why we debate here. But please do not call my views 'dishounst'. 'Infidel' is not even a neutral discription of belief - it is clearly pejorative. --
ask? 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize if my comment offended you; I meant that it was misleading and inaccurate to say that a statement like "if it divides Wikipedians by belief, it may be speedy-deleted" is listed anywhere on the
WP:CSD policy page (and it is indeed misleading), not that you were deliberately deceiving people. Clearly we do disagree on interpretation of this policy; I've explained why I interpret the policy as I do, so could you explain how you have interpreted "divisive and inflammatory" to mean "anything that divides Wikipedians by belief", which is pretty clearly not the criterion's intent? Also, note that pejorative self-identification is, with few exceptions, completely acceptable; pejorative identification of others is what's completely unacceptable. The difference is obvious; self-identifying as "queer" or "gay" is 100% acceptable, despite the fact that those words can be (and have been in the past) quite pejorative. Likewise, "atheist" has extremely negative connotations for a large number of people in the world, just as much as "infidel" does, yet people who don't believe in God choose to use it as a self-identifier anyway. If it's what makes them happy (and clearly, since 78 people use this template, it does), let them define themselves and their beliefs as they wish. But above all, let's not institute religious morality into Wikipedia's policies by saying that it's inflammatory to not follow a religion. That's just asking for trouble. :/ -Silence 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If you think I deleted this because I think it's inflammatory to not follow a religion, you clearly don't know me. You might want to take a refresher course on me at my user page. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, where did we even mention your reasoning for deleting it? I fail to see how your userpage has any relevance here; this is a review of a user-template and the relevant process and policies that apply to it, not of the ideology or biases of the deleter. -Silence 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - This was deleted as T1 and, lo and behold, it is T1. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Undelete I am as uninfidel as you can get, and I am not offended at all by this. --
    be a pepper too?) 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • OK, if that's how you see it, Cyde, I'm about as "infidel" as you can get (though I've never used, and never plan to use, this template, because I don't especially care whether I violate any religious codes and don't define myself in that way), and see it as an acceptable way for people to self-identify if they choose to do so. Let's not moralize as to what pejorative self-descriptions people are permitted to use; "atheist" is considered just as pejorative as "infidel" by many parts of the world, yet if people choose to describe themselves as "atheist" (or "queer", or what-have-you), there's no real harm in doing so. Pending valid justification for speedying this, undelete and list as TfD. -Silence 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted on the proviso that User:Cyde restore it within the user space of each person previously using the template. This was not "divisive" as the word should be defined for T1. RadioKirk talk to me 16:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted T1, the term is used deliberately as an in-your-face sort of approach to people who are religious. JoshuaZ 16:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on several previous arguments:
    1. Since these are self-identified, the template cannot be said to be "pejorative", as the most that can be said would be "self-deprecating".
    2. "Behold, it is T1" is proof by assertion. Under that standard, every User box that has ever been debated would be considered divisive, as every debate is evidence of division!
    3. This T1 deletion after previous restoration is wheel warring.
    4. So far, there has been no justification given for speedying this.
    William Allen Simpson 16:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See my above rationale for why it is T1. JoshuaZ 16:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no rationale. I see opinion and proof by assertion. --William Allen Simpson 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you have to resort to attempting to dismiss something using specious reasons, you're basically admitting that you can't dismiss it using rational ones. --Cyde Weys 18:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict with Cyde) Ok, making this slightly more explicit: Premise 1) The term "infidel" started out as a term used by certain religious groups to label with strong negative connotations those of other religious backgrounds. Premise 2) Since then, the term has been adapted by certain groups as a deliberate use of a negative term, similar to the use of "queer," but with a deliberately anti-religious connotation (for evidence see Internet Infidels). Premise 3) Terms with deliberate negative connotation and/or used deliberately in the context of a belief system one disagrees with are divisive (see precedent for User box of Fascist). Conclusion: This box is divisive and hence T1. JoshuaZ 18:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate in users' spaces. Not T1-worthy, but not without understandable controversy (absent further clarification from an individual user, "infidel" can mean anything from violent anti-Christian to rebellious teenager). RadioKirk talk to me 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Infidel", on its own, cannot mean "violent anti-Christian" or "rebellious teenager". Please read dictionary.com's definition of "infidel". If anything, "atheist" is more divisive and inflammatory than "infidel", because the word atheism has the secondary meaning "Godlessness; immorality."; "infidel" doesn't even have that. -Silence 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With appropriate respect, I disagree. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't support your interpretation any more than mine does, actually. Where does it say "violent anti-Christian" or "rebellious teenager"? Also, everyone knows the American Heritage Dictionary is the only true dictionary. >;D -Silence 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Anyway, it may not be explicit, but the wide range of potential meanings can be extracted therefrom. Those against the U. S. occupation of Iraq, for example, often use "infidel" to mean "violent anti-Muslim"; the M-W definition "a disbeliever in something specified or understood" could include rebellious teenagers. RadioKirk talk to me 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did atheist mean immoral? Last time I looked statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes per capita than theists. If anything it's the theists who are immoral. --Cyde Weys 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... Are you joking? You can't tell the difference between the sentence "the word atheism has the secondary meaning 'Godlessness; immorality.'" and the sentence "atheists are immoral"? That's just deliberately missing the point. Please review the dictionary.com entry on "atheism", and if you want to digress into a debate on the ethics of theistic viewpoints, feel free to do so on my talk page, where it's more relevant. -Silence 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not joking, I was disagreeing with the secondary meaning, which seems to be nothing more than theist propaganda. By the way, one of my other comments is still missing from this page .. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with a dictionary definition does not make it any less of a definition; dictionaries record common usage, not "what words should mean", which would be absurd. Arguing against a definition in a dictionary is like arguing against a fact in an atlas: really silly. And surely you realize that hundreds of words in the English language mean what they mean because of "theist propaganda", or to be more accurate, the near-omni-religious culture we live in. "Holiday" isn't necessarily religious in modern usage, but the language is nonetheless biased, as we're forced to use a word derived from "Holyday" to refer even to secular days. Fighting against a language is fruitless. Instead, fight against the fact, which was never in dispute or in any way related to the discussion here: obviously atheists aren't immoral, and I'd even agree with you that atheism is, at least in some ways, more ethical than theism.
And, I didn't readd your comment because I assumed, since you noticed it, you'd re-add it as soon as you wanted wherever you wanted. I chalked down the delay to you perhaps rewriting part of it, since I changed my comment in the time before the posting (since I agree with you that "This user is a nigger" would be much less acceptable, but disagree with you on the analogy: "user=n" would be more comparable to "this user is a faggot" than "this user is an infidel", and I'd assert that "this user is an infidel" is instead comparable to "this user is queer", whereas "this user is an atheist" is comparable to "this user is gay". So, do you want me to re-add the comment, or do you want to do it yourself? You weren't at all clear in your post to my Talk page. -Silence 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Previous Templated boxes in which the user self references him/herself as a "Fascist" were deemed divisive and inflammatory. If that precedent holds, then "infidel" - which is a well-known term within the context of religion, especially radical Islam - is definitely of the same vein, and should be deleted, even if the term is self-applied by the user. Nhprman 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/list at TfD This is intended as a "self-descriptor" -- a user applies the term infidel to himself or herself. Given the above arguments over semantics, it is clear that the term has a range of meanings: it is unclear whether any (or all) of them are inflammatory. While I don't think the T1 was a great overstep or anything, it is clear that there is a debate on the merits necessary to distinguish (or fail to distinguish) this userbox from "This user is a 'Religion X'" subtype, generally allowable. Xoloz 18:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Restore --Jamie Battenbo 19:32, 30 April 2006 (BST<DataType>)
  • Undelete and list at TfD. It is as much divisive as the language Babel boxes. If inflammatory, then only towards it's bearers. And you can ask Cyde for his opinion about cursing/flaming on oneself. Finally, Cyde deserves a slap (not necessarily with a large trout) for not ahrering to speedy deletion rules. Let's cite the first template around. From {{
    13 T C 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Aren't you a member of Community Justice? Can you tell me how that squares with suggesting someone needs to be slapped? I think you need to cool it.
Rx StrangeLove 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
<smart-arse comment>"Disagrees" is neither possessive nor a contraction, you infidel!!!</smart-arse comment> ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While obviously you can belive they both exists their teching have some fairly fundimenatal contradictions over issues such as the divinity of Jesus. Of course Gandi claimed to be both but I don't think he could really be described as a solid follower of either.Geni 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What's going on down there? We're 23 billion miles off course!" <bseg> RadioKirk talk to me 02:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have hope! (Unless you're an infidel!) Perhaps we're soon
13 T C 11:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Point one: these boxes are NOT in Userspace - they're in TEMPLATE SPACE. Point two: Templates like this one challenge other users to create even more offensive ones. That's not why we are here on Wikipedia. Please read the official policies on
    WP:NOT regarding why we are here. Point three: Spending your time defending worthless userboxes is not a good use of your time, either. Please stop trying to keep them cluttering up Wikipedia. Please educate yourself on the issues before wading in. Nhprman 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You seem to know wikipedia policies very well, but have you ever heard about
WP:NPA? It's very interesting, you'll see. You who are talking about "offensive" userboxes, maybe you should use a less offensive tone when addressing other users. IronChris | (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If someone obviously can't tell the difference between Template space and User space, pointing that out and suggesting that they get better acquainted with the project is a not a personal attack. If I was the closing admin I'd discount that vote on the grounds that the editor didn't know what (s)he was discussing. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope not; userboxes exist in template space but are only tramscluded into user space; and therefore can be legitmately viewed as either. Septentrionalis 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & TfD, this is stretching T1 a bit far, and definately not a speedy. --AySz88^-^ 04:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Every userbox speedily deleted is brought to DRV. The only reason that admins prefer DRV over TFD is that DRV requires a 50% to delete a userbox while TFD requires a majority, say 2/3 to delete. Also by speedily deleting userboxes, they simply dissapear and are listed as protected versus the global notification to all users of a userbox in TFD procedure. Let's review.
TFD
  1. 66% majority to delete.
  2. Global notification to every user of a certain box.
DRV
  1. 50% majority to delete.
  2. No notification to users of a box.
  3. Deletion discussion is in an obsucure corner of wikipedia.

T1's only purpose is to rig the voting in the favor of the userbox deletionist. It's time to bring the userbox debates back to TFD--God Ω War 05:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um... please read
    WP:FAITH. I can't believe sysops (in general, naturally) are maliciously deleting templates knowing their actions will be given the stamp of approval by DRV regulars and thus be over and done with quicker. If you are concerned about the mismatch of voting percentages please bring it up on the appropriate talk pages and something can be done about it. Although, arguably, I'd say the reason for this smaller percentage is that DRV has a different audience, of whom more are likely acquainted with policy thus making it easier to reach a satisfactory decision (read: one that doesn't defy policy, which I've seen at the end of countless Afds). GarrettTalk 07:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No the reason for the different percentages dates back to the deletion wars when the deletionists were concerned that Votes for undeletion would become in effect a second VFD. Orginaly Votes for undeletion was controled by policy wonk deletionsists who only cared if there deletion was within policy. Unfortunely this broke down for a number of reasons.Geni 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well I've been quite out of the loop deletion policy-wise so I guess I've missed these things... but then again it's because of crap like that that I took a break from it all in the first place. Sigh. GarrettTalk 09:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,
WP:IAR suggest that those admins who feel that userboxes are bad for Wikipedia would take whatever actions to get rid of them with as little dispute as possible. Hence, speedying if at all plausible under T1 (which this isn't), and waiting for the DRV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
However if the admins who want to keep them took the same atitude the wheel wars would get anoying.Geni 22:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely why I believe
WP:JIMBO should impose a moritorium on the creation and deletion (you can't have one and not the other) of userboxes until a policy is finalized. RadioKirk talk to me 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
"Aw, for the love 'a... I for one am getting a little tired of people these days recoursing to the bonfire to expunge anything they don't like or find offensive. Don't like
editorial cartoons? Just riot and threaten death upon the publishers until they stop printing them. Go through the local library and destroy any book you personally disagree with. Don;t dare ignore or gasp engage with a viewpoint you disagree with, because you'll end up contaminated. If we hold to that asinine standard, there is going to be nothing left, and we'll be left sitting upon the ashes of another Library of Alexandria
, because I gaurantee you there is something that offends everybody. I will die before I let that happen."
Free speech and humour aren't a bad thing, especially in an encyclopedia. Unless it insults someone or a category of people, which this userbox doesn't. IronChris | (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're bringing up the
War on Christmas strawman and you think it helps your argument?! --Cyde Weys 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
NOTE: This comment was originally by Pat Payne, as I said. I don't even know what the war on Christmas thing is. And it was hardly the central argument, nor is it the purpose of this debate, so why leave a comment on it at all? This discussion is already long enough. IronChris | (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who chose to repost it though, thus you take some responsibility for the veracity of its statements. If you don't really stand by what the quote says you shouldn't be posting it, or you should at least be examining it in a critical light. By posting it in the way you did implies that you agree with it, and I have every right to disagree with it in turn, and you can't just turn around and say, "Oh, well I take no responsibility for it, someone else said it." --Cyde Weys 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are most absolutely right. But let me point out that it was just one small example among others. So why are we discussing this? It's not what the debate's about. May I remind you that we are talking about the infidel userbox. Regards, IronChris | (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many people here seem to find this box funny, and suggest undeleting on those grounds. I'm appalled at the notion. Muslims take very seriously the difference between themselves and those who are not a member of their faith. This isn't true for all Muslims, of course, but it's true for many of them. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and we welcome contributors from every possible ethnic, cultural, and national background. This template is a juvenile slap in the face. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Infidel" doesn't specifically mean muslim, or any other social or religious category for that matter. It is a very general term meaning someone who doubts or rejects a religion, see the infidel article. If it just meant muslim, then I would totally agree with you, but I had never interpreted it that way before. IronChris | (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mackensen is claiming that "infidel" means non-Muslim; but that just makes Ironchris's point. Septentrionalis 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master

This user is a
sock puppet of SOCKPUPPETEER
.
This user is a
sock puppet master
with multiple minions to do his/her bidding.

Both were deleted by

AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. Yes, they were part of the official
    AmiDaniel (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted Redirect to {{
    ak|on|it!> 09:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (updated 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply
    ]
    However, as of May 1st (just three days ago), a sockpuppet was an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The redefinitition of the term to mean a malicious account was only recently implemented and IMO incorrect. The point is that there may have been reasons for deleting them per the rewrite, yet they should not have been deleted without gaining consensus.
    AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Undelete these have a definite value to the project if placed on a userpage by its 'owner'. And the template 'what links here' could be used as a quick way of identifying sockpuppets Cynical 09:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{sockpuppet}} already does that, and abusive sock users (the ones we're really wanting to track) don't usually identify themselves by choice. GarrettTalk 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted the first one per
    ʘck. Undelete the second one - frivolous use of template space but that is not yet a legitimate basis for deletion. Metamagician3000 01:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and speedy keep first, Overturn and TfD second. The first template is certainly useful and not malicious, so I'd hope that's just a misunderstanding that'll be cleared up soon. The second shouldn't be speedied, as it's not obvious to me (and apparently others) that it's divisive or inflammatory. --AySz88^-^ 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC) clarified 07:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Change vote to overturn, speedy keep, and reword both to repair the userboxes to their original function. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful template IMHO. Lincher 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (possible explanation) I've been looking into
    Wikipedia: Sock puppetry#Tagging your declared multiple accounts
    , and I think people might wish to take a look the context in order to see how the templates were (I think) intended to be used.
    To anticipate an argument, even if, since the rewrite, some users have been treating the userboxes as jokes, their primary purpose was legit, and the userboxes should be repaired to their original functionality instead of deleted. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please read this I'm the guy who produced the whole mess when I rewrote the
    WP:SOCK page is going through a major change in terminology at the moment. Until few days ago, a sock puppet used to mean "an alternative account" and therefore could be used for useful purposes and was legitimate. And users which had more than one account used this template to mark that. Then we changed the terminology to reflect common sence: now "an alternative account" means "an alternative account", and "sock puppet" means "an alternative account used for disrupting the policy of Wikipedia". If you state you have 2 accounts, you are not a sock puppeter. If you use 2 different accounts to cast double votes - you are a sock puppeter. As simple as that. The template in question reflects the old terminology. Therefore, this template should be undeleted, then all of it's occurences should be replaced with {{User Alternate Acc}}. Maybe a bot could do that. When every instance of the template in question is repleaced with {{User Alternate Acc}}, then it should be deleted. I'm terribly sorry for not doing this before. I just forgot about the template :-( I hope everything's clear now... --Dijxtra 12:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't think it's exactly that simple. Many people (myself included) feel attached to the userbox versions, since they are 1. smaller and 2. more light-hearted. So perhaps with a slight change of wording (to fit within the new policy) they could be kept as alternative versions?
13 T C 13:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Possible, but then we would have to move that template. Mentioning "sock puppet" in the name of the template is just not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijxtra (talk • contribs)
Agree to moving the template, and that's the best solution I can think of (though leave a redirect behind). --AySz88^-^ 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is supported by wikipedia under certian conditions. Running a bot under your main account is a great way to anoy RC patrolers. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 shows that people are prepared to accept the idea of sock accounts although generaly not as admins. I have yet to run into any significant oposition to well labled sock accounts.Geni 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:User against Saud

This user is opposed to the House of Saud.

This has survived T1 and Tfd in the past so why has it been deleted now? Please restore. --Horses In The Sky 16:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. The objection to T1 speedy last time (10 March) was "T1 is still too controversial for implementation." This is no longer true; T1 is now a strongly established deletion criterion. This is a divisive and inflammatory template whose sole purpose is to express opposition to the royal family of a country. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Strongly established? Hardly. I'm not the only one who proposed reverting T1 and all actions taken under it, before generating a sensible, understandable, policy. (I accept that reverting might include sending to DRVU or TfD without actually undeleting.) As for the template — my vote would be Undelete and send to TfD (where I'd probably vote to Delete.) And it's still probably not really T1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "whose sole purpose is to express opposition to the royal family of a country". Would you be so offended if the userbox said this user is opposed to capital punishment? or fundamentalism? or opression of women and religious minorites? or nepotism? The list goes on because that is what the House of Saud stands for and as far as I know, noone apart from administrators has found this userbox a problem and it has been used on many userpages.--Horses In The Sky 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand my point. I have no love for the Saudi royal family, and I'm not at all offended by the statement. I would absolutely support a T1 on a userbox that "this user is opposed to capital punishment, or fundamentalism, or opression of women and religious minorites, or nepotism." Expression of such opinions is divisive and inflammatory, even though I happen to agree with them. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please provide a convenient list of said boxes? Template space is inappropriate for such activity. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll never understand the instistence on sending it to TfD even though you think it should be deleted and it will be deleted there. That's ludicrous and it wastes everyone's time. If you want it deleted, you want it deleted. Don't make some kind of stupid
WP:POINT and vote "undelete and send to TfD". --Cyde Weys 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This is Deletion Review. If someone thinks it has a shot in TfD even though they think it should be deleted, you are supposed to vote to overturn and TfD. --AySz88^-^ 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get that idea from?! This is to confirm if templates were correctly deleted under T1. A template can easily be T1 and still have people in here clamoring for its undeletion; we have some real lunatic MySpacers in here who are voting "undelete" on everything. We're basically just ignoring them. But we don't appreciate other people going along with them for some kind of weird process wonkery reasons. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sending something to TfD if you think it should be speedily deleted under T1 makes no sense, but if someone thinks it should be deleted but not under T1, sending to TfD makes sense. --AySz88^-^ 19:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the 'royal We' Cyde, or
ask? 19:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
To
WP:AfD? If you don't like it, change the policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian
Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist

This user is a transhumanist.
File:Antitranshuman.jpg This user is against transhumanism.


Deleted by Dmcdevit for being divisive - see his reasoning at User_talk:Mareino#Transhumanism. I don't agree with this reasoning, and I believe that they should be recreated. This is a simple philosophical statement, and is not supporting or opposing any group of people by a philosophical, impresonal notion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But one box is opposing one group of people, I don't understand how "anti-transhumanist" isn't opposing transhumanists? Homestarmy 01:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have a rule forbidding the creation of divisive userboxes - one with word against or anti, unless there are applicable notable terms. But I don't see how the template user transhumanist is divisive, and you can make any template divisive by creating an anti-version, can you?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why im not sure if I want to even vote on this, one seems divise but the other doesn't to me :/. Homestarmy 12:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about 'undelete first, keep second deleted'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archived/Archive_2&oldid=1082508133"