Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This area of discussion is frequently a locus of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.
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 Wikipedia. However, some userboxes may be inappropriately deleted. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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.

May 11, 2006

Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist

This user is probably going to Hell.
This user is the Ideal Dictator.
This user is an elitist.

I deleted these three userboxes under criteria T1. "User Hell" seemed to me to be the definition of "inflammatory", and the others are almost by definition polemical or divisive. I don't actually want these undeleted, but these are the first userboxes I've deleted under T1, and I figured this was the appropriate place to put them up for review so if people think that I'm off the rails on these they can educate me. Nandesuka 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, what was in them? :/ Homestarmy 12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've temporarily restored User Hell as it just surrived a TFD here Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 30. — xaosflux Talk 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's my opinion that "this survived a TfD" is not a reason to undelete a speedy delete -- I view the criteria as somewhat disjoint. Inflammatory and divisive userboxes should be speedied, but it makes sense to send userboxes to TfD if there is not consensus that they are inflammatory and/or divisive. All that being said, I'm happy to let the debate continue here, and if the consensus is that it should have been kept deleted, I'll ask another admin to re-speedy it. Nandesuka 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:User Hell was very recently (May 6) kept on TfD by overwhelming majority. It should be undeleted ASAP. Don't know about the others though.  Grue  12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at these and I think User Hell is a bit different than the other two. Totally support CSD1 on that one, it's divisive all right. The other two I think maybe ought to go through TfD as they seem more like jokes than seriously divisive and therefore do not, in my view anyway, qualify under CSD T1. I'd end up supporting deletion, I see no reason for them to be in templatespace, but I think process is appropriate and should be used, in the interests of fairness. Perhaps we need T2-Tn to cover some of these sorts of things because really, they have little value as templates. Until then, though, I'm opposed to speedying them... PS, full marks for bringing this here on your own without prompting, Nandesuka! (PPS I did not know it went through TfD already when I wrote the above. Still think it qualifies under CSD T1 though) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't T1's, but they're rubbish, bilge, nonsense, crap. Delete/keep deleted/whatever. All three --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and send to TfD. I will then vote for deletion, because they are a frivolous use of template space. However, they are not T1's (even the Hell one looks more like a joke than an attack on religion) and I am not going to apply WP:SNOW with these; they might well survive the proper process. Metamagician3000 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all deleted. Not useful in writing an encyclopedia. Misza13 T C 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but that is a reason to vote against them in a TfD, not for speedy deleting them under T1. Metamagician3000 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete All then send the last 2 to TfD, (The hell one looks like it already ran that gauntlet) -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted abuse of resources, restoring useless things to list on TfD would also be a waste of everyone's time. --Doc ask? 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could save yourself some time by not visiting this page anymore.  Grue  15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand, I'm happy to visit it. But if people agree with these being deleted - voting to relist them for reasons of procedural nicety are wasting my (and your) time, --Doc ask? 15:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they weren't deleted in the first place, that would've saved everyone's time. As it is, people who used these templates should wait 5 or so days until they are undeleted, and vote in different places to get their templates back. That's what I call waste of time.  Grue  15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they weren't created in the first place, that would've saved everyone's time. If people didn't insist in reviews of every deletion of such unencyclopedic crap (we don't do that for articles) that would save everyone's time. To have to go through xfD is just more paperwork - those processes are designed to protect against the hasty deletion of encyclopedic content not to protect myspace nonsense. --Doc ask? 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list the last two on TfD, where a case can be made that they are divisive: if editors actually do object to something, like the late Nagorno-Karabakh box, TfD will delete it. Septentrionalis 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted more junk --pgk(talk) 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, don't belong as templates, and could be divisive. --Cyde Weys 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, irrelevant to building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete User:Hell, Delete the 2 others. Comments:
    • How can we vote for 3 userboxes at a time? Completely unrelated userboxes should be discussed one at a time.
    • User:Hell just survived TfD at 29 keeps to 4 deletes (!!). I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy and all, but speedying a template that was kept at over 7 votes to 1 is ridiculous. Particularly since (let's be honest) if a userbox makes it onto this page it has a 99% chance of being deleted simply because it is always the same anti-userbox people voting. NOTE that I am not an absolute userbox enthusiast, and I am in favour of deleting all religious, political and non-encyclopedic userboxes, but going at it one by one and disregarding previous TfDs etc. is bound to hurt or at least annoy some people, and it certainly doesn't show Wikipedia under its best light. Please consider the TfD and restore User:Hell.
    • A lot of energy and time is spent (wasted?) by many users here. Why isn't this effort put into creating a sustainable policy regarding userboxes? Something like User:Misza13's proposal (User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll) seems like a much more worthwhile effort, and it also has the potential of hurting much less sensitivities than this tiresome one-at-a-time deletion process. --IronChris | (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      We are putting this energy into creating a sustainable policy regarding userboxes, right here. The way we find out what that sustainable policy will be is by deleting a bunch of userboxes, one by one, seeing what sticks, what doesn't, and why, and applying what we learn here to an eventual rewording of the policy to match the best practices we discover through experience. It's an organic process, and this is how it's supposed to work. We don't just guess what a good policy will probably be and then vote on our guess. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list the last two on TfD. The first one was kept after a TfD vote and can be used to show a user's legitimate views. Just because someone might use it as a joke doesn't mean it's not legitimate sometimes. Would you delete the gay userbox just because someone could use it as a joke? -- Rocketgoat 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list the last two on TfD per everyone else. The first one seems quite divisive and iflammatory to me, but if it recently survived a TfD then there can be no justification for speedily deleting. The other two appear completely harmless. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Something surviving a TfD does not mean that there's no justification for deleting it. If a group at TfD decide to keep something in violation of policy, then they're wrong, and they get overruled. That's built into the system. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The approved way to overturn consensus is to produce overriding consensus the other way, either by persuading the members of the first consensus to change their minds or bringing it to the attention of more eyes, as Wikipedia:consensus recommends. Ignoring consensus is divisive and inflammatory, as this page should have made clear by now. Septentrionalis 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I'm a firm believer that community consensus trumps all, and saying that any admin can unilaterally act against the decisions of the community because of his own interpretation of how T1 applies is, IMO, dead wrong and just an invitation to begin wheel-warring. Wheel-warring, especially over something as insignificant as userboxes, is among the most counterproductive behaviors and should be avoided at all costs. I'll look over the TfD, and if there's anything fishy about it, I may change my opinion. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, that's not correct. What if consensus says, "let's go ahead and violate copyright"? What if consensus says, "let's forget about writing an encyclopedia and use Wikipedia as a free webhost"? Then consensus is wrong. Not even WP:Consensus supports your idea that "consensus trumps all". -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus established and supports those policies in the first place. If there is ever consensus to forget about the encyclopedia, WP has failed; and in that counterfactual case, we might as well make it a free webhost, and if necessary go looking for computers to replace Jimbo's. The queston of fact (is this a copyvio?) is also settled by consensus when debateable; the TfD seems to quite clearly show that deleting the Hell template is divisive. Septentrionalis 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In your hypothetical argument that the community would vote to violate a copyright, that's when WP:OFFICE comes into play. By "trumps all," I only meant that it trumps the whim of one admin. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and bury them deep as per GTBacchus, Cyde and Doc. Consensus cannot be allowed to overrule common sense, and it's clear that consensus is going against templated userboxes at this time anyway. We need a new definition of "template" if "I'm an elitist" and "I'm going to hell" are considered proper template messages. - Nhprman 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all, they are humorous and not inflammatory. Crumbsucker 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Undelete there is no T1 criteria that applies to humorous, harmless, and non-divisive, non-inflammatory, non-polemical boxes such as these. Speedy deletion particularly troubling in light of the recent TFD on User Hell. --Dschor 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 10, 2006

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]

  • Keep deleted The criteria for T1 under WP:CSD require neither offensive nor demeaning material. Instead it is intended for divisive and inflammatory material. Which this seems to be, because it's only purpose to raise controversy. Also the popularity of a userbox has no bearing on whether or not it can meet such criteria. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? This is probably a failure of language, because I initially interpreted "divisive and inflammatory" as pretty synonymous to "offensive" rather than just inclusive of that, probably because of whatever context was going on at the time (I think it was the pedophile boxes). The meaning really should be cleared up first, because apparently different people take it to mean different things.... --AySz88^-^ 03:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    let me clarify, I believe that offensive and demeaning typically fall under inflammatory, however I do not necessarily look at those terms as being synonymous. I was just trying to explain to what I thought was a misinterpretation of CSD T1 of this undeletion nomination. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete or delete eveything in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Wikipedic views, attitude and preferences. If we can have {{user anti-anon}} which goes against a foundation principle, then we can certainly have a userbox that expresses an opinion on the userbox conflict. Divisive yes, inflammatory no (though again, that's all in the eye of the beholder). Only concern here would be ballot stuffing, but that's an issue for a TfD. I may change my vote once a kind admin posts its contents here though. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have read through the edit conflict. The box has now been posted, and I stand by my opinion that is not inflammatory and rather defines the user as an inclusionist when it comes to userboxes. Nothing wrong with expressing that opinion with a userbox, IMO. It's just an interpretation of policy. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to keep deleted. In looking at it again, it does seem controversial and intent upon inspiring conflict. Perhaps if it had been worded differently, maybe "This user errs on the side of inclusion when confronted with userboxes" I could support. But the wording, "mass anhilation," seems to suggest its purpose is only to attack userbox deletionists. (Though I might add that, regardless of what userboxes someone has, true anti-userbox deletion advocates will make their beliefs well known.) AmiDaniel (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Opinions about boxes have nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia. Warring over Userboxes is contrary to WP's purpose. This box serves no other purpose than to support more warring, rally the MySpacers and transform WP into a social networking site divided into pro/anti deletionist tribes. Enough is enough. It has to end. Keep deleted per T1, (very) divisive.Nhprman 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is manifestly divisive is the practice of speedying userboxes without consensus. Septentrionalis 04:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of things are painful but necessary nonetheless, like going to the dentist. In a community this large no matter what kind of an action you take on some issue you're bound to step on some people's feet. The alternative, which you are suggesting, is to let this place turn into a free-for-all by doing absolutely nothing because you can never achieve 100% consensus. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    doing absolutely nothing has a lot to recomend it. It works a lot more often than people expect.Geni 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Allowing WP to turn into MySpace has very little to recommend it. It's a law of Internet Entropy that websites where users may post content will tend to degenerate into MySpace unless you input energy to keep them on task. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the connection between MySpace and userboxes? As far as I know MySpace doesn't have anything like userboxes. Thus, userboxes differentiate Wikipedia from MySpace even further. And deletion of userboxes makes Wikipedia more like MySpace! I'm not sure if it's a good thing.  Grue  09:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On MySpace you hve your own page which you fill up with things about you, your favourite songs, your views on the antiapartheid movement, who you want to go out with and a list of all your 'friends'. It is a social networking site. Wikipedia isn't. The Land 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? Yes it is. That's why Wikipedia succeeded and Nupedia didn't. Userboxeless user pages aren't much different from MySpace user pages. The pages with userboxes allow users to focus less on creating their user page, and focus more on building the encyclopedia.  Grue  12:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If only that was the case. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really obvious keep deleted - Jeebus, why is this even here? --Cyde Weys 04:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably tradition. Should be interesting when someone figures out that due to the wider defintion of template aprently being used by some User:Sam Hocevar/burninhell will need to be deleted.Geni 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete obvious t1 -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, meets the speedy deletion criterion for templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted correct application of T1. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - bumperstickers for wiki-partisans are inherently divisive --Doc ask? 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, grow up. And stop trying to bait people. And edit some articles. And stop touching your userpage, it'll send you blind. And get a haircut, you look like a hippie. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete userbox reflects the Wikipedia policy and position of Jimbo on the issue and as such cannot be divisive or inflammatory. If you don't like it, tough luck, but there are other wikis, you know...  Grue  09:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Doesn't help writing an encyclopedia. Misza13 T C 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. The Land 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. And I'm offended that my name wasn't dragged through the mud by the nominator. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUBST: then KEEP DELETED. This is an inflamatory template against editors and sysops, editors have the right to have this opinion, but this box is over the top. — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - this is a rare userbox that is both divisive and inflammatory. Metamagician3000 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted clearly t1. --pgk(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Doc. Wikpiedia is not the place for bumperstickers about Wikipedia policy. This is a perfect illustration of the problem Userboxes have become for the project. Nhprman 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Triceratops Accident

File:Triceratops.gif 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?

  • Undelete. Take such things to TfD if you think there is a consensus against them. (If it is undeleted, it will adorn my talk page.) Septentrionalis 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted misuse of general template space - I am quite willing to userfy to any userpage on request --Doc ask? 23:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - This doesn't make any sense. We routinely delete crap in main article space without having to take it through AfD, and that's article space, which is that actual meat of the encyclopedia. And now you're suggesting that for template space every single fracking thing has to go through TfD?! Users could easily create dozens of these damn things per hour. There's no default right to inclusion for silly unencyclopedic templates. --Cyde Weys 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples, please. What articles have been speedied without support from any clause of CSD? Septentrionalis 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cyde, I thought at the time of your RfA you pledged you were done messing about with userboxen? Yet I keep seeing you doing stuff with them. Did I misinterpret what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, basically. I was running under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that the Userbox Policy Poll was going to succeed and all of these userboxes were going to move out of Template: space, and thus I wouldn't care about them one whit. That didn't end up happening though. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted template namespace is not for making jokes Wikipedia is not A kindergarden playground. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted or userfy Not at all appropriate for templatespace, nonetheless not a speedy deletion candidate. Is the TfD proccess so scary? By the way, the debate was closed after 30 minutes citing WP:SNOW. I think it's way too early to conclude that (we have tons of nonsensical "humor" userboxes; there may be many who adamently defend this one), so I'm restoring it, hopefully not to be removed again for at least a day. I fail to see what harm it could do to just leave this open for a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying "userfy" is meaningless as it has been substituted onto every userpage that was using it. We can just get rid of this thing now. There's no reason it needs to be a template. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, then no need to userfy (I only meant to imply that such things are appropriate in userspace, just not templatespace). I endorse the deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the purposes of this page is to determine the limits of T1; I think that we should not waste admin powers on harmless jokes. Furthermore, it took a comsiderable time for the hapless newbie to get Cyde to be so gracious. See User talk:Cyde#templates. Septentrionalis 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was not deleted as T1, and nobody ever claimed it was. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random "harmless jokes". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seem to be forgetting that. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But if it was not deleted as T1, then what grounds were there for speedy deletion? As far as I'm aware there is no T2 "patent nonsense" criterion, and as the userbox was clearly created in good faith it would likely have been better (IMHO) to TfD rather than speedy. I'm not saying I disagree that the template should be deleted, just saying there's nothing inherently wrong in listing such userboxes on TfD, gaining consensus to support its deletion, and then deleting--that's how you get rid of the nightmare of DRVU, and it would make life so much less stressful for both you and the poor newb whose new userbox goes inexplicably missing. It seems that when any uncertainty arises we should default to follow the process, as that makes everything so much easier and more peaceful for everyone. Just my thoughts. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Admins have always been able to speedy delete nonsense in any namespace without needing a specific speedy deletion reason. CSD A1 is for articles and is the only one that is specifically listed as a reason. Would you really argue that that means that admins can't speedy delete nonsense in other namespaces, like Wikipedia:, Portal:, Image:, Category:, Help:, etc.? No, of course not. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • What authority does Cyde claim for this statement? "Patent nonsense" (citerion G1) is defined in WP:PN; this userbox is silly, arguably a hoax, but both of those are excluded - precisely to keep admins from deleting whatever they don't like. Septentrionalis 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • (sticks foot in mouth) Okay, per WP:CSD#G1, admins can delete patent nonsense, and as such a "T2" is obviously necessary, though it would seem again that "nonsense" is a highly subjective, and arguably derogative, term that seems to apply differently to userboxes. For instance, {{User 1337-5}}, {{User sdrawkcab}}, {{User alien}} all look like patent nonsense to me, but they would not be deleted under G1 as they are userboxes, for which G1 must be interpreted differently. As Pmanderson stated, they are "hoaxes," which don't fall under G1; the exception is in place as hoaxes are acceptable in some facets of Wikipedia, just not in the article namespace. Nonetheless, even with policy on your side, it just seems easier to bring these things to TfD where you can quickly find out if the community is beind your decision or not and thereby save yourself and others a lot of stress. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Take your foot out, Ami, you were right the first time. (I was unclear.) WP:PN says that "patent nonsense" means unsalvagable gibberish; which this isn't. Hoaxes are removable everywhere; they are speediable nowhere - because there may be an argument for what appears to be a hoax (it's a joke, it's a fiction, it's a famous hoax...) Septentrionalis 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep deleted, totally pointless. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an appropriate use of project templatespace. If users want to decorate their user pages with stuff like this, let them, we do allow sillyness. Userify but keep the template itself deleted. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I already said, this already has been "userfied". Check the what links here .. the only page linking to it is DRVU page. --Cyde Weys 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no need to check, I take your word for it. So... excellent news, but I was talking about the state it should end up in, not the state it's in now. And as I already asked, why are you involved in this at all, Cyde? Am I misremembering what you said during your RfA? And do you think all DRVU's are pointless, or just this one? I think if the result here is keep deleted, that will make it less contentious in future to speedy (as recreate of deleted content) this template should it appear again, so I am not sure it's pointless to go through the DRVU. But of course I'm a process wonk... and a bit troubled by the lack of information about this supposed userbox moratorium I just heard about. Where all was that announced? ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy compleatly harmless, yet at the same time, it does seem a bit....irrelevant to be a template. Homestarmy 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and send to TfD, where it will die a quick death - much quicker than this whole process. TheJabberwʘck 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand that reasoning, because DRv is neither equivalent nor preferred to TfD but uses as much time and creates more hostility. --AySz88^-^ 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would've had a much quicker deletion if nobody had even brought this nonsense to DRVU, a much quicker death than having to go through TfD. --Cyde Weys 04:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at ALL comfortable with that line of reasoning, or that tone, or that approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted have it userfied if it means that much to you. Otherwise it is just nonsense. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What means a great deal to me is acting upon the the recognition that "Process is more Important for admin actions, as one can sow the seeds of malfeasance and distrust much farther with admin actions." from Cyde's RfA. Septentrionalis 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • T1 is process. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And by your own statement[1], this isn't T1. What process do you claim it to be? Septentrionalis 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh yes, you're right, this isn't T1, I was confusing it with something else. The process here is "nonsense content may be deleted on sight without having to waste everyone's time", or in other words, "common sense", or, more formally, WP:IAR. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Citing WP:IAR is a sign (to me anyway) that you're conceding that you know what you did wasn't quite on the up and up and you shouldn't have done it, and you're looking for cover. I can't speak for anyone else but whenever I see IAR, alarm bells go off. I fail to see why process could not be followed. What's the rush? The box would go away anyway but there would be a lot less uproar. IMNO at any rate. Cyde, I think you really need to disassociate yourself from these crusades. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fascinating. Then although WP:IAR is more important for normal actions (same sentence of RfA), destroying this piece of moderately attractive silliness (and biting its creator) was important enough to spend hours of your time doing, redoing, justifying to the newbie, substing, and arguing against it here. Nominating for TfD would have taken two minutes. Please explain; how does all this build an encyclopedia? Septentrionalis 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we're done here. There's no point in arguing over the deletion of this nonsense. Next think I know there's going to be a huge uproar over me blocking a vandal ... oh wait, that already happened. If you guys wanted your objections to be heard, you had to be reasonable. The past few DRVUs on this page show quite clearly that the pro-userbox crowd is absolutely unreasonable and unwilling to make any compromises. So there's no point in even paying attention anymore. Us admins will just continue doing what is good for Wikipedia and you can shout at windmills all you want. --Cyde Weys 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Us admins? While of course most admins are doing what they belive is best for wikipedia exactly what that is differs from admin to admin. Do not presume to speak for all of us.Geni 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We admins who cherish grammar, meanwhile, will also keep up the good fight... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, I'm not sure if it's fair to cast in that light all individuals who would claim to be of the "pro-userbox crowd". Rexmorgan 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, dude... you're painting with way too broad of a brush. It is not correct that everyone who thinks you are acting rashly and in a way that may ultimately be harmful to the encyclopedia is "pro userbox". Please review my "nonvote" in this... it's "keep deleted"... does that in and of itself make me pro-userbox? No. My stance here is "pro process". The encyclopedia would have been better served if you had just nomed this for TfD instead of acting out of process. Further, I still think you were wrong to get involved in userboxes again, and especially, wrong to start taking this so personally that you are starting to verge on incivility to others. How much more time are you going to waste on this crusade?? You accuse others of tilting at windmills, but I'm starting to think you're the one tilting here, and I'm truly afraid that you're going to burn yourself out and we are going to lose a good and valuable contributor. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not a T1, but I can't force myself to support digging anything up just so we can rebury it. That seems so wonky to me. On the other hand, speedying something not within the criteria and hoping to be saved by WP:SNOW is a bad habit to get into. Cyde, why don't you stick to obvious T1s? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, crap.--Sean Black (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete (it is not a T1), userfy (people should be allowed to make harmless jokes in their own userspace), and delete the redirect (because the template is pointless and another TFD will just be more bureaucracy). Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with GTBacchus. This userbox should not have been speedied (that is to say, in this world, where the speedying of some userboxen is not encouraged, this would fit into the category of "userboxen you don't speedy for some reason"). That said, it shouldn't exist either. Resurrecting an idiotic abuse of template space solely so that it can be killed according to process is process wonkism, and that ideology has no good reason to live. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and keep deleted. It made me laugh, but that's not enough to warrant a place in the Template: namespace. Misza13 T C 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per GTBacchus and take the next such crappy userbox to TfD rather than relying on WP:SNOW. It's not much more trouble to follow the proper process, and it keeps people's confidence in the system. Metamagician3000 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Whoever could use it?? --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 16:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted --pgk(talk) 18:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Cyde. Templates should really only be created as a means to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia; if you like having bizarre things on your user page, then userfy it rather than filling the template space with inappropriate content like this. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - and make all such Userbox templates into fossils (and don't dig them up again.) Nhprman 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archived&oldid=52761762"