Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived

-

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 10, 2006

Template:User Darwinist

• Deleted by User:Doc glasgow, citing "CSD T1."

File:Darwinist-symbol.png

This user is a Darwinist.

the citation of CSD T1 appears specious and not very logical. How is a userbox that allows a user to identify with the scientific theories of Charles Darwin considered inflammatory? Netscott 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete for lack of qualification under the inflammatory reasoning. Netscott 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - And who refers to themselves as a "Darwinist" anyway? The only time I've heard someone using that word is when creationists are being incredibly ignorant and railing against the perceived Darwinist conspiracy. If you want to proclaim that you understand science, you don't need to use a silly userbox to do it. Just do what I do. Here's a direct quote from my userpage: "I'm mostly interested in anything having to do with science, including but not limited to, evolution, encryption, astronomy, science fiction, SETI, and computer programming. I'm also interested in politics, mostly because of the negative influence on science it's been having lately. I am an unabashed naturalist." --Cyde Weys 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep deleted Evolution and Creationism is a very inflammatory issue (if you don't believe that, look on the talk pages of related articles and some of the comments from people on both sides). That's clearly what this template is about not about happening to agree with some general scientific theory. And I'll try to refrain from making puns off the word "specious" JoshuaZ 16:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Specious? LOL! Nice comment! Netscott 16:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - As a reminder to everyone, we're not saying you can't say that you support Charles Darwin, evolution, creationism, Karl Marx, or whatever. We are just saying that it's inappropriate to use template space to do so. --Cyde Weys 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JoshuaZ and Cyde. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Following this logic, I suppose the Template:User creationist userbox should be deleted as well. --Netscott 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, in fact someone who has more time on their hands (I need to do real work right now) should go throuhg and substitute and delete it. JoshuaZ 16:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take lots of time, it just takes a bot. Unfortunately, my Userboxbot proposal was shot down, so I can't substitute it before deleting it (which I have done). --Cyde Weys 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you can, just do it by hand. Kotepho 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it. There is only ~90 instances. Kotepho 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You have more patience than I do, that's for sure. --Cyde Weys 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm never doing that by hand again. {{user progressive creationism}} {{user theistic evolution}} {{user theistic evolution2}} {{user evolution2}} and {{user evol-0}} through {{user evol-4}} and {{user evol-N}} if someone fancies deleting more. Kotepho 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I don't blame you! See, by bot would be much better. I'm taking care of these others too. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• kd and isn't the fish supposed to be facing the other way and with two feet instead of... i'm not sure what those things on the bottom are, tentacles? Kotepho 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Gasp! That's not a Darwin fish! That's Cthulhu! Ok, joking aside, if this userbox does get kept soemone should find a better picture for the Darwin fish. JoshuaZ 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Seriously, I think that actually might be the Cthuhlufish (rather than the Darwinfish). --Cyde Weys 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the Cthulhu fish has more prominent tentacles both above and below the mouth. You need to brush up on taxonomy of bumpersticker fish. JoshuaZ 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid it is you who needs to brush up on developmental biology of bumpersticker fish. That image is clearly of an infant Cthulhufish. --Cyde Weys 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting all bumperstickers - and we should take out the creationist ones at the same time. --Doc ^ask? 17:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per JoshuaZ's and Cyde's reasoning, above. It's clearly an inflammatory issue. And keep deleting opposing views, as Doc suggests. Nhprman 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Darwinism is a proven scientific theory. There is nothing divisive about science. This template is perfectly NPOV.  Grue  17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Waaait a minute, if "science" isn't divisive, what's all this Creation-evolution controversy stuff about? Homestarmy 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, Grue, Darwinism actually has some pretty significant flaws in it, particularly seeing as how it was proposed before the physical mechanism of inheritance (DNA) was even discovered. Darwinism does not refer to the current modern synthesis of evolution. Also, scientific theories are never proven, only disproven. --Cyde Weys 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Wish the great compromise had gone through to move all of this to user space then maybe this issue could go to bed once and for all. --StuffOfInterest 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, keep chipping away at the great T1 mass of bumpersticker boxes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Yes, all this stuff should go. Creationist, darwinian, intelligent design. If you're into this stuff write about it on your userpage, but you don't get to use template space and the transclusion mechanism to say it. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Another valid T1 deletion. Rx StrangeLove 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

May 9, 2006

Template:User Communist

Last deleted version (?):

This user is a Communist.

Version as of last TfD:

This user is a Communist.

• Deleted by User:Tony Sidaway, citing "CSD T1." Had already been restored twice, by User:Evilphoenix and User:Mike Rosoft. At time of deletion, contained a link to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism, which is obviously inappropriate. I'm asking for the template to be restored without the link. TheJabberwʘck 21:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and bring to TfD - does not meet T1. TheJabberwʘck 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Just as T1 as its opposite. JoshuaZ 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Notice where the word "communist" links to? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment That's why I asked for it to be restored without the link. TheJabberwʘck 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted certainly T1 and especially given the link to a vandal. To undelete without the link would seem unneccessary as we already have {{user Socialist}} {{user Socialist2}} User:Bill Du/Socialist3 User:Bill Du/Socialist4 {{user Democratic Socialist}} {{user libertarian socialist}} {{user libertarian socialist2}} {{user Christian communist}} {{user marxist}} {{user Trot}}. Further I'd like to ask the jabberwock, given your userboxes declare "This user stands at economic right 0.50", do you really wish to use this box on your userpage - or is this some abstract WP:POINT you are making?? (Even, if you do want to use it - you can copy the code from above).--Doc ^ask? 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment No, I certainly don't want it on my userpage, but I don't see how that's a criticism of my actions. Shouldn't policy actions be viewpoint-independent? I think this should be undeleted because I support others' agreement with this viewpoint, not because I agree with it myself. TheJabberwʘck 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  In response to your point about it being unnecessary, not all socialists are Communists, and not all Communists are Marxists, Trotskyites, or any of the other alignments (Democratic, libertarian, or Christian). TheJabberwʘck 21:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  So this is entirely hypothetical. You are standing up for, and forcing us to have a debate for, a hypothetical user who might hypothetically want to use this, and might hypothetically not consider himself a Marxist, Socialist, Christian etc, and might not (hypothetically) be imaginative enough to creat his own bumpersticker or copy the code from someone else? Don't you think that's a little bit of a waste of our time, given that we're here to write an encyclopedia? --Doc ^ask? 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  This "hypothetical" person created the template, and more hypothetical people might want to use it. TheJabberwʘck 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Too bad for those hypothetical people then. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You aren't allowed to just do whatever you want to do. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  And if those hypothetical people really care about their userboxes? And if they're upset enough about the lack of process in the speedy deletions to leave? Is it still "too bad" for them? TheJabberwʘck 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, too bad. Contrary to your belief, Wikipedia isn't about "process" and whatever other rot these people might want, it's about writing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL anyone? To rephrase the above message, "How about a nice cup of tea?" AmiDaniel (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that some of these people care about the encyclopedia as well, and that if you're interested in writing an encyclopedia, you should consider whether the loss of their contributions is worth it. For example, Tony, specifically related to you is User:Crotalus horridus. Was whatever policy victory you achieved worth his departure? I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't, I'm asking you to think about it. TheJabberwʘck 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - T1, like the other political/ideological userboxes. WP:ENC, y'know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is a classic T1.
  • A statement of personal belief can be made on one's userpage.
  • Using Wikipedia infrastructure elements such as public transclusion, templates and whatlinkshere turns that statement into something else--a way of promoting divisiveness on Wikipedia--and also mobilizes Wikipedia in a manner that is clearly inflammatory.
  • That is to say, people seeing Wikipedia public resources used in this manner tend to assume that Wikipedia is promoting such divisiveness, when the reverse is true, with the result that ever more divisive statements are created using the same resources.
  • This has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, except insofar as it empowers those who must not in any circumstances be given access to Wikipedia at all: those who use it to promote a political point of view. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. WP:ENC Misza13 ^{T C} 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and keep just like all of the other political userboxes. MiraLuka 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1. And the statement "keep like all of the other political userboxes" makes no sense, since a bunch of those other political userboxes are also T1, and will be deleted in time. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it's not trying to be negative I think :/. Homestarmy 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Being "negative" has nothing to do with it. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well the way I see it, in order for something to be divisive or inflammatory, it'd have to be pretty negative, either in tone (I.E. opposed to Marxism) or ideology (Nazism). Sure, Communism is really negative, but not all communism has to be your typical Stalinism type thing :/. Homestarmy 00:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Whether it's Communism or some other -ism is irrelevent. Announcing our political viewpoints and getting to know other people who share those views are not the purposes of Wikipedia, and politics has no place here. Nhprman 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted OK, that's just stupid. Dont feed vandals. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Okay in userspace if it actually linked to Communism, not okay in templatespace. RadioKirk talk to me 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony. And delete all political Userbox templates. They do not help write an encyclopedia. Nhprman 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and bring back to TfD. Per this ALREADY passing a tfd: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 4 with a overwhelming result of Keep. The link on this was not pointing to the vandalism page as of the TfD, but was instead added by Cyde 1 I've posted the version that surived TFD above. There has got to be a better use of our time then continuously deleting and resotring these templates. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL! That's a great one! I don't even remember doing it. Good old April Fools, too bad it only comes 'round but once a year. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Could this entire debate be the end result of a 4/1 joke gone horribly wrong? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Even with this revelation I don't think most people here are going to change their minds. Although it is kind of funny that April Fools strikes over a month after the actual day. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, as will all such political opinion userboxes. --Constantine Evans 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, Why are we wasting our time with these? It's common sense, supported by T1.. Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Gmaxwell 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Clearly falls under CSD#T1. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete., I'm renting Good Night and Good Luck, and savoring the many ironies, for example: it's OK to be a communist on Wikipedia, so long as you are not a card-carrying communist. —StrangerInParadise 05:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - per T1 -- Tawker 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as much as I hate communists, I don't see why this userbox is either divisive or inflammatory. I urge those who provided no reasoning other than T1 to expand and explain it, otherwise their "votes" shouldn't be counted by a closing administrator.  Grue  06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is no better than its opposite. Wikipedia is not a pulpit for one to declare Communist membership cards or anything else, for that matter. Is Iamthejabberwock taking the piss out of Tony here, or does he sincerely believe there's sufficient difference? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, I would rather that both this template and its counterpart be kept, but I think it's reasonable to interpret T1 as prohibiting attack or anti-boxes, and allowing support boxes, so that's how I'm voting. TheJabberwʘck 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted the concept of userboxes is apparently divisive and inflamatory, ergo all userboxes qualify for T1 even if it is about bunnies or kittens. Kotepho 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete unless all other political userboxes go as well, particularly since {{user marxist}} and {{user Trot}} have already been deleted. It is simply stupid to delete the communist userbox but leave (for example) {{user Anarchist}}, {{user Christian democrat}}, {{User progressive}}, {{user Christian communist}}, etc. Of course the first version should be deleted, but once the link is corrected there's no more reason to delete this one more than any other political userbox. Why not list all the political userboxes up here at once, instead of doing them one by one? IronChris | (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Deleting all political boxes at once is a good suggestion. But I suspect that won't happen, because the idea of generating consensus through these discussions will create precedent for, and give momentum to, the deletion of future boxes when they are deleted. I'm being assured that this process is ramping up and the pace of deletions is quickening. Nhprman 17:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 18:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2

• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• 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)