Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Blu Aardvark (talk | contribs)
2,008 edits
→‎[[Template:User review]]: Speedy undeleted, do not relist. Oh, and I resent the implication that I am either a Nazi or a troll, as I am neither.
Blu Aardvark (talk | contribs)
2,008 edits
Line 62: Line 62:
****Yes, he is ''now''–after blocking people who outed him. Note where I said founded. Semantics appear a lost cause here. Moreover, you seem to be aware of his existence, so what's up with pooh-poohing the accusation further up the thread? A little ''Verwirrungspolitik'', or just simple inconsistency? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
****Yes, he is ''now''–after blocking people who outed him. Note where I said founded. Semantics appear a lost cause here. Moreover, you seem to be aware of his existence, so what's up with pooh-poohing the accusation further up the thread? A little ''Verwirrungspolitik'', or just simple inconsistency? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
****There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Wikipedia Review who ''aren't'' banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
****There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Wikipedia Review who ''aren't'' banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
*****CDRome may be an anti-semite, but that is unconfirmed. Igor may also be, and the evidence for that is even stronger than that of CDRome, but again, it's unconfirmed. There are no anti-semites who at present are active on Wikipedia Review, unless you are implicating that I am one, which I resent strongly. As for Alex Linder, he has never posted to Wikipedia Review... Igor Alexander and Alex Linder are two different people. Igor Alexander and [[User:Amalekite]] are likely the same person, however. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Blu Aardvark|(talk)]] | [[special:contributions/Blu Aardvark|(contribs)]]</sup> 20:24, 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">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</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">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
**It was not me who deleted this template without prior discussion. I'm just enforcing Wikipedia policy. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
**It was not me who deleted this template without prior discussion. I'm just enforcing Wikipedia policy. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:24, 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 [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

{{user review}} is here! Reverts, blocks, RfCs and RfArbs imminent!

"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)[reply]

"I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Discussions (5 January 2006):
Userboxes concerning personal beliefs of users were kept by overwhelming consensus

Keep 185, Delete 28

See Archive: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

Current discussions

Template:User review

This user has a Wikipedia 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)[reply]

  • I resent the implication that I am either a neo-Nazi or a troll, particularly as I am neither.
  • Keep deleted. Has no conceivable purpose toward our goal of writing an encyclopedia, advertises a forum filled with trolls and dedicated to attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Inherently divisive. Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring "I am a troll". There is no reason whatsoever why Wikipedia needs this template. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ask? 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]
  • Undelete. Poor Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Wikipedia Review is inflammatory not because of its criticism of Wikipedia, but because the community behind Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Um, no one's talking about MSK. Wikipedia Review was founded by Alex Lindt, noted Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier, who not incidentally was banned from Wikipedia. Also, please don't blank an on-going discussion. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alex Linder is banned from Wikipedia 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)[reply]
        • Yes, he is now–after blocking people who outed him. Note where I said founded. Semantics appear a lost cause here. Moreover, you seem to be aware of his existence, so what's up with pooh-poohing the accusation further up the thread? A little Verwirrungspolitik, or just simple inconsistency? Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Wikipedia Review who aren't banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CDRome may be an anti-semite, but that is unconfirmed. Igor may also be, and the evidence for that is even stronger than that of CDRome, but again, it's unconfirmed. There are no anti-semites who at present are active on Wikipedia Review, unless you are implicating that I am one, which I resent strongly. As for Alex Linder, he has never posted to Wikipedia Review... Igor Alexander and Alex Linder are two different people. Igor Alexander and User:Amalekite are likely the same person, however. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It was not me who deleted this template without prior discussion. I'm just enforcing Wikipedia policy.  Grue  17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia also has a speedy deletion policy that includes patent nonsense pages and divisive templates like these. --Cyde Weys 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy deletion cannot override consensus to keep. "This user has an account on Wikipedia Review" If this is offensive for you, I don't think you can handle such stuff like autofellatio. You know, Wikipedia is a dangerous place. Don't click that "Random article" link, who knows where you might land...  Grue  17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a consenus to keep delete developing here, and your 'speedy undelete' has just overriden that consensus. That looks like an abuse of admin powers to me, and your blankng of this debate looks like contempt for the community and for consensus. --Doc ask? 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously self-blowjobs and neo-Nazism are on the same plane. Excuse me while I set your strawman on fire. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just where does it talk about neo-nazism? You are the one violating Godwin's law here. Consequently, you lose.  Grue  17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The box doesn't talk about neo-nazism, no, but the fact that the forum in question was founded by a neo-nazi is well-known, and a major reason why a number of us are rather irate about this. One cannot Godwin if there are actual neo-Nazis involved, and I'm surprised that you're trying to pull that one (especially after the auto-fellatio moral panic gambit; that seems to be favored around here). Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never having expressed an opinion on userboxes before, my first thought is none of them make the encyclopedia better. Most are neutral in that respect and some are potentially divisive. Mostly it seems like an excercise in user vanity. But that's a discussion for another place, I suppose. Regarding this particular debate my opinion is Undelete. First because the deletion short-circuited 2 debates that resulted in undeletion and keep, and I find the argument that speedy deletion is always "in process" to be peculiar to say the least. Second, undelete because the userbox is not divisive or inflammatory as I interpret the phrase. It is sufficiently far away from racial and ethnic slurs, for example, to not meet those more obvious criteria. If there were no userboxes and instead some users put on their user pages some plain text announcing that they had disagreements with wikipedia and there was a discussion at a linked forum, would we go around censoring their user pages? If some people on the forum have views that do not in any way comport with civilized society do we condemn all the users through guilt be association? The case for and against "Review" is more complex and as it has already passed TfD it does not seem like a speedy candidate. Thatcher131 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think we would censor this statement if it was on people's userpages, but you don't seem to understand that what is up for deletion here is a template, not something on someone's userpage, and is inappropriate alongside the rest of the encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you just forgot that it's not for deletion here, but for undeletion. Misza13 T C 18:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless I am much mistaken about userboxes in general, a userbox template is just a tool to make it convenient for multiple users to add the same bit of information to their user page. How exactly is it bad to have a template that says "I participate in an anti-wikipedia forum" but acceptable to state it manually? Thatcher131 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Userbox templates" are not a separate thing; they are still in the template namespace, you realize. So they have to adhere to the same rules of being encyclopedic like all of the other templates. Being on a userpage is entirely different than being in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • So basically this is about a technicality. Users can link to web sites critical of wikipedia but not by using a template because of where the wikimedia software requires templates to reside. That's a bit like a dictatorship saying we allow our citizens complete freedom of speech on the internet, but private ownership of computers is illegal. Is this debate really about the use of the template namespace? And can it be that if someone posted a bit of html code on their user page to allow other users to create a userbox without a template that no one would object? Thatcher131 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist on TfD if you wish. Misza13 T C 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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 (smoddy) 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Where. Some things are just in "Don't go there" territory. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was rather like "This user opposes copyright Nazis" or something. Basically a stronger version of {{User copyright}}, IIRC. Misza13 T C 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This user hates Copyright Nazis" to be exact.Geni 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 (T • C • W) 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.


— natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objections over that. Where (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm almost 100% certain that it would apply to userspace too. Basically, you can only freely use images that are public domain or GDFL, except to illustrate an article that bears directly on the image. Too bad but there it is. Herostratus 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible use = joke. Shared humor promotes good-faith, love, and fellowship. Xoloz 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This template is strictly for userpages.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions

See /Archive

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archived&oldid=46362425"