Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea while you count to 100?

-

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

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. 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 3, 2006

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 Lbmixpro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) citing "Heavy potential for disruption" as the reason for their speedy deletion. Clearly, neither of these userboxes falls under WP:CSD/T1, as they are neither inflammatory nor devisive, and they should not have been deleted without first appealing to the community. The only reason I have seen for their "potential distuption" is that some interpert the term Sock puppet to imply the prohibited use of alternate accounts, while others such as myself interpert the term simply as an alternate account. Whether I'm wrong or not, I don't think it makes much of a difference--we all know what is meant. I used the template on my various test accounts' userpages with the intention of making it known to everyone that the accounts belonged to me, thus making it impossible for me to use the accounts for malignant causes--I do not believe that to be disruptive. There is of course the more officious Template:User Alternate Acc; however, I think it's understandable that the deleted templates were simply more lighthearted and humorous, and therefore more appealing to some. Please, undelete these userboxes as they have caused no harm to anyone. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. You've got to be joking, bonny lad. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Both templates were inflammatory. —David Levy 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as stated by User:AmiDaniel. Can you all not see the humor here? romarin[talk to her ] 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If placed by someone on his own puppets, as here, what's the problem? If placed inappropriately, these can be used for uncivil vandalism. Deleting these won't stop user page vandalism, however; the solution to that is to block the people who do it. Septentrionalis 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ah! Thanks to Septentrionalis, I now understand what was considered potentialy disruptive by this template--the concern was that someone may use this template to imply in bad faith that another user has violated WP:SOCK. However, wouldn't it be a much more effective form of userpage vandalism to tag the page with {{sockpuppeteer}}? I see that, as we're having this discussion, WP:SOCK is undergoing a massive rewrite where the terms are being redefined, yet I still stand by my original assertion that these templates are meant to be used by the "puppet master" as a humorous means by which to indicate that s/he mantains alternate accounts for perfectly legitimate purposes, and that declaring one's "puppets" even in a slightly more lighthearted fashion is neither prohibited nor discouraged (quite the opposite, using undeclared sock puppets is more likely to be considered illegal). AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  No, that isn't my concern. Any template can be misused, and anyone can lodge such accusations without the use of a template. My objection to these templates is that bragging about sock puppetry (which, regardless of its broader connotation, usually refers to an illicit act) is needlessly inflammatory. It's fine for users to openly list their accounts, but labeling oneself "a sock puppet master with multiple minions to do his/her bidding" is likely to incite conflict. —David Levy 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, I could see that point, and I could likely be swayed to support the deletion of the Puppet Master userbox if it is undeleted and subjected to the TfD process as neither of these falls under T1 and should not have been deleted without gaining consensus to do so. Nonetheless, I fail to see what conflict it could cause other than raising suspicions about the user if he/she fails to declare his/her puppets. Yet {{user sock puppet}} does not contain this "gloating" and is rather a more subtle notice that the account is a sock puppet. Again, with the redefining of WP:SOCK, this template will likely have to be reworded, yet I still see no reason for it to be deleted, and most definitely not speedily deleted. I don't understand why admins don't simply spare themselves the stress of dealing with undeletion debates by listing templates on TfD. Call me a process-obsessed nutcase, but I feel that if an item does not meet the T1 criteria, it should only be deleted by consensus. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  I've been accused of being process-obsessed, but I believe that these templates were divisive and inflammatory. —David Levy 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, we can agree that we're all process nuts, but whom did these templates offend and how are they devisive? These templates were accepted as the official method of tagging legitimate sockpuppets (first inroduced 23 March 2006, removed during [the recent rewrite) and I'd assume the templates are much older than that (could a sysop please peer into the vast recycle bin and tell me when they were created?). How can a template once cosidered policy for more than a week be speedily deleted as inflammatory and devisive?! I feel you've made very legitimate arguments on behalf of the templates' deletion, yet none of them stemmed from the T1 criterion. This was something that should have been addressed in a formal discussion, where I may have likely even voted to delete them when replaced by a new template. I strongly object to the deletion of these templates without any discussion, as I see no evidence to suggest their being inflammatory. "This user supports the extermination of (insert race here)" is an inflamatory, devisive statement--not, "this user is a legitimate sockpuppet." AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Why didn't anyone have this conversation before speedying. WP:BITE Septentrionalis 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - these aren't done right. I suppose it might be acceptable if they were worded neutrally, i.e., "This user has another account, its username is XXXXX." But with the whole sockpuppet and sockmaster stuff ... bleagh. We don't need to be encouraging this kind of activity. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As much as I'm against speedies, these qualify. Both userboxes overwhelm any attempt at humor and, instead, say, "Look at me, I'm here to disrupt what the rest of you are trying to do." Anything can go too far. RadioKirk talk to me 05:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Are they devisive and inflammatory? They do not say "I'm here to disrupt what the rest of you do," but rather "I am following Wikipedia'a policies; now please don't crucify me for having necessary alternate accounts that help me to build applications to aid what the rest of you (myself inclusive) do" in a jocular and less-wordy fashion. I certainly don't think it could be claimed that my accounts have been in anyway disruptive to anyone but the vandals, which is why I employed the userbox on my page to spearhead any accusation that I was violating WP:SOCK. If it had said, "This user seeks to bring down Wikipedia with his multiple sock puppets" I could understand your point, but it instead states just the opposite: "This user seeks to improve Wikipedia with his multiple sock puppet minions." AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  With every respect, as an impartial observer, "divisive and inflammatory" is exactly what they said to me. The precise wording and/or rewording hits me as an issue of semantics. If you'll read my position on similar speedies (and my user page, for that matter), you may find me something of a process wonk; these overwhelmed what you seemed to intend to say, and I can't support them. RadioKirk talk to me 05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, it's a joke, people. --Rory096 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, high potential for abuse, zero value. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I strongly don't but the claim that these are T1 given that they were even part of policy at one point. Furthermore, any abuse that can occur with them makes things easier for us to deal with it. Finally, there are legitimate uses of these templates. JoshuaZ 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But surely you can agree that at least the wording needs an improvement. Sockpuppets are a big issue for admins (looks like you're about to join us). They cause soooo much disruptiveness and wasted time. --Cyde Weys 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, wording is an issue, but not enough to make me want to get rid of potentially useful templates when we can always change the wording later. JoshuaZ 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting At best unfunny and useless, at worst hightly disruptive. --Doc ^ask? 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete harmless.  Grue  08:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What's the problem with them? They're funny and I even used one of them to tag User:Misza, which is a sock I have registered to avoid obvious impersonation. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The correct template for user names registered to prevent impersonation is {{Doppelganger}} - see WP:DOPP. Thryduulf 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Contrary to popular belief (apparently widespread among people I would expect to know better), there are legitimate uses for sockpuppets. T1 is controversial enough, let's make sure it stays useful by not devaluing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Jokes are supposed to be funny. Moreover, these could interfere with the templates I and other checkusers use to mark verified sockpuppets. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between socks identified by a CU and self-admitted ones. But since WP:SOCK is undergoing a major rewrite, this debate is pretty much pointless, as well as the deletion being ill-timed. (BTW, "multiple minions to do his/her bidding" does sound amusing to me, but perhaps it's just me.) Misza13 ^{T C} 11:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I've just dealt with too much sockpuppetry in the last few months. Mackensen (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So perhaps it's about time for a well deserved WikiBreak? ;-) Misza 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • And let the socks in? Never! Actually, I'm just off one, and in good shape. But thanks for the concern. :) Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Redundant per {{Sockpuppet}} and {{Sockpuppeteer}}, which can be placed on user pages by the user if they want to identify sockpuppetry on their own part. Sockpuppetry is not exactly helpfuol to the process of building an encyclopaedia anyway, is it? Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be. There are for example users who use multiple accounts only to to have Watchlists split by topic, i.e. "this one's for Wikipedia-related stuff and this one's for watching articles". Misza13 ^{T C} 11:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I use my sockpuppets for testing purposes, primarily for testing WP:VandalProof. It's absolutely essential to have separate accounts when you need to test routines that interact with users, such as posting vandalism warnings and other messages, as I don't think many editors would appreciate having thirty {{bv}} warnings and notices that blablabla has been tagged for deletion on their talk pages (nor would they be willing to let me autorevert all of their contributions to Wikipedia, which my puppets so willingly subject themselves to). Without my puppets I could have never written VandalProof, so I'd say that's one example where sockpuppetry has been helpful to building an encyclopedia, and I'm sure there are serveral others too. AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  And, I can't begin to tell you how wonderful I find VandalProof! For me, though, the point was, socks may sometimes be necessary; the userboxes are not. Plain text works. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Er, no, they're not redundant. These are like one-third the size of the vandal notices, Guy. They're clearly for different purposes (self-declared vs. abusive) and so aren't forks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I can't see how either of these helps contribute to writing an encyclopedia. -- Karada 11:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Having one's alternate accounts clearly tagged helps avoiding confusion later. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • as has been pointed out by others there are existing templates that do that job. Thryduulf 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Doc. I'd see nothing wrong with a friendly incarnation of this useful idea ("this user also contributes as SuperFunkyDude.") but this template certainly isn't it. Garrett^Talk 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So perhaps there is a need for their exact wording to be put up for discussion (on TfD perhaps). But is it a reason to speedy delete? Misza13 ^{T C} 12:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete wern't these userboxes created as part of the sockpuppet policy for legitimate sockpuppets? I thought I saw them on the page somewhere, like, your supposed to use them or something as an equivalent to let people know who your sockpuppets are so it doesn't look all suspicious and whatnot. Homestarmy 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, they were part of the official WP:SOCK policy since March 23, which tells me that they certainly were not candidates for speedy deletion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I cracked a small smile at the second one. I think they were definitely made for more a humorus purpose,a nd I really can't see them being inflammatory/divisive.--Toffile 12:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Sockpuppet notices should not be placed in userboxes; they belong in warning boxes at the top of the page. These templates are both redundant with, and less functional than, the official warning templates. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see them as redundant, since they're not warnings at all (in the sense of templates placed by CheckUsers). They are rather courteous notices to the community, put by the editors by themselves. Misza13 ^{T C} 13:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep deleted the first one, which is disengenuously official-sounding. Undelete the second, which is pretty obviously a joke. TheJabberwʘck 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - There's a reason why they're deleted. The WP:SOCK policy labels sockpuppets as alternate accounts which are being misused. (A sock puppet is an alternate account used in a disruptive manner or against Wikipedia policies.). I'm all for the alternate user userbox, just as much as I'm for alternate accounts within policy. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
  • {{sockpuppet}} already does that, and abusive sock users (the ones we're really wanting to track) don't usually identify themselves by choice. Garrett^Talk 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • {{sockpuppet}} is used to tag malicious accounts; it is not meant to be placed by the owner. My sockpuppets are not malicious, but I would like for others to know that they belong to me (so that I don't come under scrutiny for using undeclared sockpuppets). There is a very grave difference between {{sockpuppet}} and these userboxes. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the first one per abberwʘck. 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)
• 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)

  Change vote to overturn, speedy keep, and reword both to repair the userboxes to their original function. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not useful template IMHO. Lincher 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (possible explanation) I've been looking into WP:SOCK, and I think there's a complex situation of miscommunication going on here, starting with a "major rewrite" of the policy. Somehow the original usage of the userboxes was missing from the rewrite or dropped from the new policy, and the boxes were not reworded in accordance with the new definitions. This probably caused all this confusion and the thinking that these templates were some sort of joke, instead of actually having a use. The redefinition of "sock puppet" also would have caused the current userboxes in question to be reworded from "sock puppet" to "alternate account", probably getting rid of all these connotations that these boxes were jokes and so on. I mentioned the original context of the template at 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)

• Comment, please read this I'm the guy who produced the whole mess when I rewrote the WP:SOCK page. So let me put the record straight: this template is not inflamatory, it is not meant to be funny and it is not disruptive. This template is obsolete. 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)

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? Misza13 ^{T C} 13:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but then we would have to move that template. Mentioning "sock puppet" in the name of the template is just not acceptable.

• Keep deleted, although they were not speediable under the definitions of T1 (which I believe is interpreted way too widely in many cases), they would be deleted in any TfD. There is nothing funny about them and they are redundant to exsting templates {{sockpuppet}}, {{sockpuppeteer}}, {{sockpuppet-proven}}, {{doppelganger}} and others as mentioned above. Thryduulf 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

April 30, 2006

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)
• 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. --Doc ^ask? 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note, and note well, that the T1 criterion says that it must be "divisive and inflammatory" (formerly "polemic and inflammatory"), not just "divisive" (else Babelboxes themselves could be speedy-deleted just as easily for "dividing Wikipedians by language"). Furthermore, "divisive" is clearly being used of its primary meaning of "Creating dissension or discord"; distorting the meaning of the world to just mean "divide wikipedians by belief" (which has absolutely nothing to do with T1 and is a non-sequitur strawman; "belief" hasn't anything to do with it) is dishonest and misleading. Regardless of whether you think we should have a speedy-deletion criterion for anything that "divides wikipedians by belief", there isn't one currently, so one needs to be proposed and approved before we can act on it without causing more futile infighting and argument. I don't see the need for such a CSD, though, even if it did exist. Saying that something is policy does not make it so, and even if this template should have been nominated at TfD and deleted there, speedy-deleting it clearly isn't applicable, anymore than it would be acceptable to speedy-delete {{user atheist}} or {{user christian}} (both of which "divide wikipedians by belief"). -Silence 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Doc ^ask? 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep deleted - This was deleted as T1 and, lo and behold, it is T1. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete I am as uninfidel as you can get, and I am not offended at all by this. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think being "uninfidel" would make you less qualified to comment on this, not more. That's like a guy saying he's "as white as you can can get", and not offended at the N-word. --Cyde Weys 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You missed my point. Since I am religious, I don't find the fact that someone calling themselves an infidel offensive at all. Especially with a userbox. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  • Comment See my above rationale for why it is T1. JoshuaZ 16:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no rationale. I see opinion and proof by assertion. --William Allen Simpson 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • (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)
• 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)

• "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)

With appropriate respect, I disagree. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Speedy Restore --Jamie Battenbo 19:32, 30 April 2006 (BST)
• 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 {{d}}: Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deletion. --Misza13 ^{T C} 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

• • I did check the "What links here" before deleting. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Very funny! So, you're basically suggesting that this is just an ambient note? A space-filler? I thought it is the deleting administrator's duty to make sure that nothing (except some backlogs perhaps) links to the page before deleting it. Apparently, I was mistaken. If so, then I'll just go and remove the notice from all speedy deletion templates as it is unnecessary and confusing. Misza13 ^{T C} 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Removing the template from every page it was linked to would've just pissed off a lot more people, and, in the event this thing did survive the inevitable DRVU, it'd create a lot more work. What would you have done? --Cyde Weys 20:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • You know well what would I do. And if you were so lazy/concerned with people being pissed off, then why didn't you just go through a TfD with it? Misza13 ^{T C} 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Because TFD shouldn't be used when a speedy deletion criteria is applicable, just like you shouldn't bring an article whose entire text is "Joe Howitz is gay" to AFD. --Cyde Weys 22:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't understand, Misza13, he's like a horse. If you slap him, he'll run faster. Cyde deserves an apple. Someone has to push the envelope. We're feeling out where the line is between too divisive and ok. Keep voting on the template, not the deleter, and you're doing your job, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The way to feel out the envelope is to ask the community, on TfD. That's what it's for. Septentrionalis 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

      I think, if we want to know just where T1 applies, we need to try to apply T1, and see what happens. We can feel it out from the other side, too, noting in TFD what makes people say "should have been a T1 speedy," but this is a perfectly appropriate forum for direct discussion of speedy criteria applicability. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and TfD. I can see why people don't like it, but I can't say that I find it particularly divisive. There's nothing saying about what it's against. I find it hard to consider it divisive when there's no crowd that it divides.--Toffile 18:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Definitive T1. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The deletion of such widely used template is nothing short of vandalism.  Grue  19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Get a life. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  Off topic NPA discussion moved to talk page Ben Aveling 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. --pgk^(talk) 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Clear T1....it's a clearly divisive UB and it's deletion was well within policy. I especially don't appreciate people suggesting that other editors need to be slapped. Rx StrangeLove 23:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, then list at TfD Brian | (Talk) 23:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - not divisive by current standards, though more provocative than a mere statement of subscription to a recognised religion or philosophy (which being an "infidel" is not). We need a policy change for consistency and to keep template space from being used for frivolous purposes. Until we have it, I will not vote against templates that I consider a frivolous use of template space on the ground that they are "divisive". Metamagician3000 23:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, if it's true that the template has already been restored once then the community has already spoken on this. I see nothing so exceptional about this case as to warrant going through it again. Metamagician3000 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Undelete The definition by itself is not devisive - see silence. Besides, in terms of joke templates we keep the assume bad faith one which is far more insidious then this. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: JoshuaZ was finally more specific in his premises, demonstrating a logical error at premise 2. Moreover, he is contradicted by his own Internet Infidels reference. Therefore, neither premise 3, nor his conclusion are supported.

  --William Allen Simpson 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alert: Looking at the archive, Cyde was also the original nominator for Template:User queerrights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This pattern continues at the proposal for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Userboxbot. Please join the discussion there, too! --William Allen Simpson 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's this huge cabal conspiracy here to delete all userboxen and you're the first to realize it. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It doesn't even specify who the person is an infidel to, so it doesn't seem to be targeting a certain religion to mock them for labelling people with mean names for not being with them, and i've never heard of the word infidel being used in a violent, hate-filled, or otherwise bad self-label that would indicate somebody intends to label themself as an infidel simply to cause strife, I just don't see the case here to delete it :/. Yes yes, we all (hopefully) know not everyone agrees with people's POVs or religious (or in this case, irreligious) preference, but if people are angry at another's beliefs, (or once again, lack of belief) it just seems sort of silly to just delete everything because some people don't like another group of people. (Especially if it's a hasty generalization against a group) Homestarmy 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Practice moral relativism in policy debates. TheJabberwʘck 01:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Speedying userboxes is divisive and inflammatory. Septentrionalis 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Being obviously unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia, the standard for deletion is "could this possibly be harmful in any way to the mission of Wikipedia?" For this template the answer is yes. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc (and everyone else for that matter). Not only is this infobox confusing (is it talking about an infidel in Catholics' eyes, or Muslim eyes, or both?) but it is also inherently divisive. I also can't see any user using this for any purpose other than jest and/or to incite the religious groups they dislike. Do we really have to have five screens worth of debate for every single userbox's DRV?! Garrett^Talk 21:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete allowing people to identify themselves as infidels actually creates unity. It allows atheists and fundamentalists, Scientologists and Christian Scientists to come together in saying... "you, my friend, are an infidel." Seriously though, deleting userboxes that are anything short of profanity/vandalism should take place through TfD, not speedy, it causes more division than the boxen would on their own. <humor> Thats my 2 cents, and anyone who disagree's is an infidel. </humor> -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

<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)

• Keep deleted. Blatantly inappropriate, does not have any positive connotations unlike other potentially offensive/devisive userboxes (i.e. no one "likes" infidels). --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 23:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We're all infidels, since nobody can believe in both Islam and Christianity at the same time, and therefore everyone is either (1) not a Muslim, or (2) not a Christian. TheJabberwʘck 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a strawman, because infidel isn't a term employed by Christianity. It is a predominately Muslim concept, unless I'm very much mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Who says you can't believe in both at the same time? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I suppose you could, but then you'd probably be considered an infidel by both the Christians and the Muslims. TheJabberwʘck 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

"What's going on down there? We're 23 billion miles off course!" <bseg> RadioKirk talk to me 02:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Have hope! (Unless you're an infidel!) Perhaps we're soon wrap around and return on the right tracks. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete Leave userspace alone; boxes like these aren't hurting anybody. There are far more important things to do on Wikipedia than spending time finding userboxes you disagree with and trying to get them deleted. romarin[talk to her ] 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Overturn & TfD, this is stretching T1 a bit far, and definately not a speedy. --AySz88^-^ 04:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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). Garrett^Talk 07:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Garrett^Talk 09:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AGF and 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)

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)

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)

• Speedy restore -- T.o.n.y 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deliberately provocative - adds nothing. Ben Aveling 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore. Doesn't meet T1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Reason: joke/nondivisive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per all that Silence has said. It adds nothing, for sure (except a bit of humour), but then a lot of other userboxes don't add anything either. I don't see why it's more divisive than half a million other userboxes, which makes me think that a speedy all of a sudden is kind of random and unjustified. Speedy and debate afterwards? Nice policy, I'm sure Wikipedia will go far like that. Let me refer to a comment by Pat Payne :

"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 Christmas? Have it banned. Don't like the theory of Evolution? Get it bounced from the schools. Despise crucifixes, yarmulkes and Muslim head scarves? Forbid people to wear them. 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)

You're bringing up the War on Christmas strawman and you think it helps your argument?! --Cyde Weys 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

I think Mackensen is claiming that "infidel" means non-Muslim; but that just makes Ironchris's point. Septentrionalis 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - T1 at its best -- Tawker 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or userfy, as it clearly falls under T1. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; divisive, T1. -- Karada 11:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is not about censorship, you can write such paragraph on your user page. It's about having a global template for drop-in. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD. If a DRV is inevitable then it is not valid for speedy deletion. Only things that would be deletedunanimously or almost-unanimously by established users are eligable for speedy deletion. Everything else must be discussed. Thryduulf 15:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

April 25, 2006

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)

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)

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)

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)

What about 'undelete first, keep second deleted'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted or userfy if people insist in having them (I note Dmcdevit has already done that). Of course the existence of tribal bumper-stickers is divisive - at least keep them in user space. --Doc ^ask? 23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, for obvious reason. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Here we have two antithetical philosophical statements deleted together, and the proponent of undeletion asks us to consider that they are not divisive. It simply doesn't wash. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is the most obvious case of T1 possible. Flammable arguments have been deleted for lots less. --Cyde Weys 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clear cause for T1. --Gmaxwell 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. TheJabberwʘck 01:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Sorry, should have read more closely. Keep deleted Template:User anti-transhumanist for divisiveness. Neutral on Template:User transhumanist: can somebody post a copy of it or a quote of what it said? TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Thanks Piotrus. I change my vote to undelete for Template:User transhumanist - not divisive at all. TheJabberwʘck 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both userboxes with a strong undelete for the first one. Why are we going back to the userbox deletion wars at this late stage? In the ultimate I'd like to see a policy such as the one that was rejected a couple of months ago, but we have no such policy, and it's currently not doing any great harm to have userboxes like this. It'd be the same with Republican and Democrate userboxes or pro-life and pro-choice userboxes. Allow them all until such a time as a decent policy is developed with a proper set of rules for implementation. Metamagician3000 01:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  The more we delete, the closer a policy is to existing. Descriptive; not presecriptive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • We've recently undeleted a whole lot of religion-related userboxes. This latest action is going against the general trend and has the potential to re-ignite the userboxes wars of a few months ago. In my opinion it was a far more divisive action than declaring yourself to be a transhumanist, an atheist, a Republican, or whatever. I can't believe that the same old arguments are being used as for the original mass attack on userboxes. Those arguments failed in the religion boxes debates, etc. This latest action was extremely unwise, and I hope it is not the prequel to another round of userbox warring such as split the community in the early months of this year. Metamagician3000 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If we allow politics, or pro-life/choice, or religion ones, on what grounds can you justify deleting philosophical? I'd actually not oppose deletion of anti-one, since there is no article on anti-transhumanism. But I see nothing wrong with a userbox stating that ones likes that particular philosophy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for both. Divisive, T1, non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, free webhost, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both. I do not think this is divisive in the sense intended by T1. I have read dmcdevit's reasoning on this, and wonder whether a similar case couldn't be made ad absurdum against {{User red}} and {{User blue}}. —StrangerInParadise 05:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Certainly T1 material --pgk^(talk) 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not divisive, not inflammatory.  Grue  08:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- just another attempt on tribe-forming. Don't let Wikipedia become an MMORPG (even more) --Pjacobi 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. List at TfD if you think they're unacceptable for Wikipedia; speedy-deletion is inappropriate in marginal cases like this, as it attempts to circumvent consensus and the broader community's view (for one thing, many more users frequent TfD than the "Userbox DRV"). The userboxes themselves cannot conceivably be interpreted as "inflammatory" or "polemic", seeing that they are quite civil, calm and informative (and therefore useful for identifying significant POVs of individual users in order to avoid misunderstandings) in nature—they are not bumper stickers, but identifiers of bias (too many people seem incapable of seeing the difference between "This user is a transhumanist", which is a statement of fact, not a bumper sticker, and "Transhumanism is great!", which is a bumper sticker). It has previously been determined, by massive consensus majority, that deleting all userboxes which express POVs is not acceptable at this point in time; only clearly inflammatory ("Jimbo is an asshole!"), polemic ("Kofi Annan is an asshole!") and divisive ("Inclusionists are assholes!") ones are acceptable speedy-deletes at this point in time, under existing policy and established process. If not liking something was sufficient grounds to speedy-delete it, we wouldn't have VfD pages at all, just one giant DRV for reviewing already-deleted material. Since that is not the case, this is an abuse of speedy-deletion, and should be remedied immediately through undeletion. -Silence 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD. Speedy deletion was incorrect. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I am very happy with Dmcdevit for copying the code for me so that I can have the subst'ed box on my page. I do think, however, that this should go through TFD, because it's not divisive (unlike, say, my template:user not censored box, which I readily admit ticks off a lot of people) and potentially useful to NPOV review. --M@rēino 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silence. We should not start the time wasting userbox conflict again. Avalon 18:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Metamagician3000, Mareino and Silence. (I actually find it odd that template:user not censored would be more "divisive", since to me that box merely says "I've read and agree with official policy." But hey, I never said I understood human nature all that well.) Anville 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and TfD(where I may well vote to delete). Speedying is inflammatory and divisive. Septentrionalis 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I really can't see this as a T1. The POV expressed in both are minimal, and do nothing to insult the opposing side.--Toffile 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted pretty much any paired opposing POV templates. It is pretty much inescapable that this is divisive. Just zis Guy you know? 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry, why does this mean both should be deleted? The first is obviously not divisive, the second obviously is. They're only divisive if taken as a pair, but if the second is left deleted, it shouldn't be an issue. TheJabberwʘck 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes - show me a non-divisive template and I'll show you a divisive counterpart. By the same token, anything can be made divisive, not least usernames, signatures and anything found on userpages. We should have policies against creating divisive (anti-...) versions of anything, but the general anti-userbox crusade is silly (just consider how much time it has wasted so far).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted seems T1 to me. JoshuaZ 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see how the anti-transhumanist one could be thought of as falling under T1, as I could also see if someone created "User anti-feminist". But the transhumanist one is not attacking anybody. It is simply stating unaggressively that the user subscribes to a certain philosophical position. If this is considered divisive, then the same must apply, for example, to "User feminist", which has recently survived. Either we allow all userboxes that simply state a philosophical (or religious or whatever) position, considering them not to be in themselves divisive, or we change the policy so that T1 explicitly rules out all such userboxes from template space. I'd be happy with the latter approach if Jimbo or the other Higher Powers bit the bullet and made a clear announcement that this is now the policy, with a timeline for implementation. I'd even support such a move. But it has to be consistent. We currently have people deleting some userboxes like "User transhumanist", and not others, and their survival depends on random factors such as who votes. No one here has shown how "User transhumanist", considered in itself, is more divisive than many other userboxes that have been accepted. On current precedents it is not divisive. Let's just have some policy consistency. Metamagician3000 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This isn't myspace. These serve no purpose apart from to divide. --Improv 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please clarify why the first template alone is divisive, and thus why both templates need to be deleted. TheJabberwʘck 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, definite T1. James F. (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Alphax ^τεχ 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive, not helpful to encyclopedia - cohesion 17:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please clarify why the first template alone is divisive, and thus why both templates need to be deleted. TheJabberwʘck 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly, how is the first template distinguishable from "User feminist", for example? I feel that the rational argument for keeping at least the first template, based on precedent, is overwhelming and that none of the userbox's opponents are addressing it. With all respect, would someone who wants that box to stay deleted explain how this case is distinguishable from the "User feminist" case or the religion boxes case? Metamagician3000 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, and for that matter, why are the pair of above template at all more divisive than the "democrat" and "republican" templates? The mere use of the word "anti-" does not somehow magically change something from being non-inflammatory to being inflammatory. "Inflammatory" means "Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire."; somehow I find it more than a little dubious that utterly generic and cardboard statements like "This user is a transhumanist" and even "This user is against transhumanism" have much potential to arouse "passion", "strong emotion", "anger", etc. Let's be serious, here. This is not the kind of thing Jimbo had in mind when he approved T1; if it was, he'd have just had it say "templates that express any sort of point of view" and been done with it. -Silence 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both. I don't think college stickers on private automobiles are very elegant, either, but what business is it of ours to be banning them? Mattergy 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Imagine if the stickers were placed, not on private automobiles, but on taxpayer-funded buses. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And we are the taxpayers, aren't we? So we have the right to decide how our money/time/whatever is spent. If one does not like userboxes, then don't do them, don't use them, ignore them. But allow those who like them to play with them. They are good wikipedians too, and if they want to spent a little time on this, why do you deny them this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both. Leave the placement to the discretion of users. Nobody is forced to have these on their userpage.Balcer 13:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Molobo suggested to me that if we reword the template: 'this user is interested in transhumanisim' - it should unite both camps and thus stop being divisive. Any comments on that version? Would anybody find it offensive, divisive, T1 worthy, etc.?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  Stating an interest rather than taking a side? That sounds fine, encylcopedic even. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  No one could object to such a userbox, and I already have one on my userpage if someone wants to make it a template. But that's not my concern. I want consistency. If "User feminist" etc have been allowed to survive, "User transhumanist" should be treated in the same way. I believe that a standard has emerged as to the sort of thing that the community considers divisive, and it does not include the "User transhumanist" box. For a more leisurely (and polite) exchange of views between the person who deleted these boxes and myself, see here. Metamagician3000 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist on TfD (as separate entries). Misza13 ^{T C} 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not divisive, not inflammatory. --Dragon695 00:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Just list them both on TFD Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Practically the definition of divisive userboxes. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: the above is your second "delete" vote on this page. You already voted on 25 April. Feel free to remove or strike out both your second vote and this comment. Metamagician3000 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the anti-, undelete for the pro. One is divisive, the other isn't, and so T1 applies to one and not the other. -- SCZenz 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not divisive; if you don't like them, don't use them. romarin[talk to her ] 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not divisive, not inflammatory, and not T1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Weak" Keep Deleted. I have a hard time imagining anyone taking offense to either of these, though I do see how they are devisive and potentially inflammatory. Essentially, the real concern most pose is that they express a POV, which I don't feel is a reasonable ground for deletion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is not about censorship, you can write such paragraph on your user page. It's about having a global template for drop-in. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)