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.

Speedy deletions of templates can be done by administrators under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion if the template falls into this category (often referred to as T1): Templates that are divisive and inflammatory. The following is a proposed T2, but has not become stable: Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. (as of 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

May 15, 2006

Template:User Church of Christ

Tony Sidaway deleted this page. Undelete! Mr Bisciut 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• 19:40, 12 May 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Church of Christ" (WP:CSD#Templates)

• Undelete just like all of the others. Until a community consensus is reached and the policy changed, it is not up to administrators to enforce a non-existent policy. BigDT 22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• My vote: undelete this along with the two listed on this page ({{user christian}} and {{user atheist}}) and the other religion templates recently deleted ({{user sikh}}, {{user Zoroastrian}} and {{user scientology}}), before we get (falsely) accused of bigotry: there's no need to stir up ill-will by deleting arbitrary specific religions' userboxes. It should either be all or nothing, regardless of the solution. It seems to me that the ideal way to implement T2 (assuming it's accepted policy) while wasting as little time and effort as possible and causing as few wars and conflicts over it as possible, is to simply move most belief-based templates to interest-based ones. In other words, if T2 is established policy (obviously T1 doesn't apply here), rather than stirring up trouble with mass-deletions (Improv's strategy from a while back, which failed) or random deletions (the current strategy, which is also failing), change the text to express an interest, involvement or specialty in the topic the userbox deals with. For example, change {{user muslim}} ("This user is a Muslim") to {{user islam}} ("This user is interested in Islam"), as what articles you're willing or able to edit is much more relevant to Wikipedia than what religion you follow; there's no need to subdivide Muslim editors of Islam-related articles from non-Muslim editors of Islam-related articles. Likewise, undelete this so it can be changed to an interest-based one that doesn't exclude people who don't belong to that specific Church but are knowledgeable or otherwise involved in the topic, and undelete and move {{user sikh}} to {{user sikhism}}, {{user Zoroastrian}} to {{user zoroastrianism}}, and simply change the text in {{user scientology}} to "This user is interested in Scientology." (Surely someone Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology would appreciate!) A simple move is much faster than having to create brand-new templates, and preserves many templates' edit histories, talk pages, and layouts efficiently. And, most appealingly, it's a quick and easy solution that will resolve people's worries about POV-expressing templates without generating undue hostility or censorship-paranoia. -Silence 22:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1&T2. And it is going to be all or nothing, just give us a little more time. It would be all or nothing a lot sooner if every little thing wasn't being brought to DRVU, actually. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe if the discussion on the CSD talk page was completed with reasonable arguments that separate vote-stacking and userboxes for instance this may be easier. Perhaps putting more work into WP:MACK would be a solution. Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do whatever happens to {{User christian}} and {{User atheist}} and would it kill anyone to table/put a moriatorium on new T2 deletions until the first one is off DRVU? Kotepho 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Admins seem to be more afraid of being told not to wheel war than being bold in reacting to this controversy. Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and Userfy - along with ALL other Religion templates, so they can be used on User pages, just not stored in Template space. Nhprman 23:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why is Template space so special that it can't be used for Religion templates? Are they really harming Wikipedia? Or are they just annoying admins? Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted This can be hardcoded if anyone needs it --Doc ^ask? 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  You mean someone needs to have HTML knowledge to make it up. And how is it suddenly going to be reasonable to have this statement on their page just because the mechanism of putting it there changes? Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per BigDT. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2, see the Scientology userbox discussion for my concerns about Silence's idea. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2 and the above Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive.--MONGO 02:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  What about inflammatory? Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete T2 is pretty new, come on now. Besides, this time it's not even about a religion, but merely a denomination. Homestarmy 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and write something on your userpage describing your interest in this topic instead of arguing here about it. Rx StrangeLove 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - T1/2. Metamagician3000 07:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  T2 is still proposed criteria that is basically being held on the page while a consensus is created. T1 defines that it must be divisive and inflammatory, how is it both? Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion but I disagree. T2 is good policy because it gives effect to an existing practice for which there was a need. The practice was previously given a basis in policy by a contrived reading of T1. The reason that a few of us pushed for the new T2 was to put the practice on a proper basis - have somewhere in the policies where it could find a proper home for all to see. But please understand that Wikipedia policies are not law. The various policies and so on give practical guidance, but they don't enshrine rights. If a practice goes beyond the written policy for justifiable reasons, that causes some discomfort and inconsistency, but they may best be addressed on some occasions by modifying the wording of the policy to reflect the practice. I've come to the view that this has been one such occasion. After all these months, it was time to make some concerted effort to get controversial userboxes out of template space. That need justifies the practice, and that justifies formalising it as T2, or an addition to T1, or whatever. I'm not the only one who will enforce T2 even while having been uncomfortable in the past about stretching the words of T1. Metamagician3000 09:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per T2. Can always be restored when a better policy is implemented. TheJabberwʘck 18:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  T2 is not policy just because it is on the CSD page. It has been rushed into use by a few admins, and its constant referencing here wont help in settling the difficulties with it. Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted divisive. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  What about inflammatory, where is the statement in it intended to inflame anything? Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Classic T1. (would probably be called a T2 now) --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How is a statement of belief divisive and inflammatory. Seems like people think that T1 only needs one criteria, in which case any categorisation comes under divisive and hence all templates based on categories can be chosen. I am not trying to set up a straw man, I am just stating that to be fair, having a bunch of admins going gun-ho to delete using a newly created criteria before it settles down will not help at all. The worst that could happen is that wikipedia gets a permanent name as being controlled by rogue admins, and the overall quality of the encyclopedia will decrease. Ansell Review my progress! 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, meets WP:UBX, Wikipedia:Userbox policy and T1. T2 is not valid at this time.JohnnyBGood t c 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userbox policy is a misnomer - it isn't policy - and has no hope of ever being so. WP:CSD however is policy. --Doc ^ask? 15:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Hezzy 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. All or nothing policy is needed or this one by one battle will go on forever. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid application of T2. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete There obviously is no consensus here...just a group of people trying to push their views on what is and is not appropriate, and a fine example of "making a point" at the expense of the Wikipedia community. Consider: What's more divisive, the userboxes or the war over them? CelestialRender 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  The userboxes - and until you understand why we're saying that, I guess you'll find this movement to delete them inexplicable. Please assume good faith, and consider that we might have a point that you haven't seen yet. If I weren't convinced that Wikipedia's future is at stake here, I would not bother messing around with it, I assure you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment It's not just the war that I disagree with, but the way it's being fought. For instance, a couple of days ago when a template won its TfD and was still subst and deleted...I think that the opposition to userboxes is just getting overzealous in its pursuit of what I have yet to see as any sort of real threat. If you have some great example that shows the point against them, I'd love a link, but so far all I've seen is claims that they're unnecessary and unencyclopedic..which is true of lots of things on the Wikipedia. Just because we're writing an encyclopedia doesn't mean we can't have personalities too. CelestialRender 15:29, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, as far as how various admins choose to act based on their opposition to userboxes is a separate question from whether the boxen themselves are any good. If you want to talk about that, we should do it somewhere else, like maybe at the talk page of any particular admin who's bugging you. Communication is the best cure for that problem.

  Regarding your last point, you're setting up a rather facile straw man argument by saying "...doesn't mean we can't have personalities too." Have a look at User:Geogre's page (no boxen), and maybe User:Katefan0's (1 userbox, not ideological), maybe User:SlimVirgin's (3 boxen, not ideological), User:Linuxbeak's (only Babel boxes)... Are these people lacking in personality? I think each of those pages drips with creativity and individualism, and each makes it clear that its author is here to write an encyclopedia, and damn proud of that fact. These pages are much more interesting, and tell me more about the author, than a page covered with boxes. Boxen are more or less homogenous little colored rectangles. What's creative about that? To summarize this point - you don't need userboxes to show that you have a personality, nobody's against you having a personality, and most userboxes aren't very personal.

  Finally, you ask if I can show you that userboxes really are a threat. That's a little bit tricky, because they don't do clear and catastropic damage that you can easily point at, but they damage Wikipedia very much nevertheless. I think I put it pretty well below in the Atheist box discussion; here's the diff. I also very much like what Geogre said on his talk page to me just yesterday. I hope that helps, and I repeat my request that you try to see this issue from the good faith perspective of those of us who oppose userboxes, not because we're meanies, but because we really believe that Wikipedia is hurt by them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

File:CohoSalmon.jpeg

This user is a fish, or at least thinks so.

This user is a lemming, or at least thinks so.

File:British Royal Family.jpg

This user is a monarch, or a megalomaniac.

File:FA-22 Raptor.jpg

This user is an aeroplane, and can be annoying. No offence to pilots.

All were deleted just 2 days and 4 hours after the nom by the nominator. I suggest relisting. --Rory096 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Utter crap - keep deleting - and if anyone really want the code we can put it on their page. --Doc ^ask? 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if it should be deleted, we should be going through process to do it (and it probably would have been deleted if it had). --Rory096 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Take some time to read WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Along the same lines, it would be good to read Process is important and Reduce confusion by following policy, as they share some wisdom on the value of policy & process, especially in areas of controversy.--Ssbohio 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per compromise above. Let me remind everyone that the templates themselves were only deleted after they were substituted onto all userpages that had included them. These templates are now a non-issue, as even if they are undeleted, they will just simply be orphaned unencyclopedic templates. --Cyde Weys 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So if templates are substed before being deleted out of process it's fine? That seems silly to me. --Rory096 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I suggested, take some time to read WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:POINT? Like TfDing dozens of userboxen with the same nom and then closing the debates yourself? --Rory096 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please read WP:POINT again. What you are describing is NOT WP:POINT. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, then I'm not sure what he's referring to. --Rory096 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Subst and delete worked well for MarkSweep. Kotepho 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted and Subst'd so users can continue to use them in User space. Nhprman 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- can we see what the templates being discused are? --T-rex 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I thought a policy had been put in place to prevent new user templates from being created (in which case keep deleted), if however I am mistaken and that is not policy then undelete and relist --T-rex 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- utterly stupid, but not meriting a speedy. And certainly NOT meriting a deletion by the nominator--absolutely unacceptable. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD Do not merit criteria for speedy deletion. JoshuaZ 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, return to TFD - they are stupid, but stupid isn't a speedyable offense. BigDT 03:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly patent nonsense and meaningless. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Userbox policy. D. G. 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The userbox policy is only proposed, and isn't a CSD either. --Rory096 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Patent nonsense is a general site-wide Wikipedia deletion policy. --Cyde↔Weys 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Patent nonsense refers to jibbererish like "489hhfb8+jc8.9ejr$1" or "Ikki-ikki-ikki PaTanG!", not<s\> or 'confused content' that 'can't be made sense of' I.e. "2+2=11". Not so much things that may or may not be funny Mike McGregor (Can) 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete improper deletion. these never met T1 or the T2 under discussion. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Matt. TheJabberwʘck 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Seems that they don't meet speedy criteria :/. Homestarmy 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have replaced this discussion per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, which clearly says "A page listed for undeletion should remain on DRV for at least five days." As this was listed on the 15th, and today is the 18th, that period has not yet expired. --Rory096 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and let the TFD run its course. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the others - deletion by nominator is not appropriate IMHO, although the nominator seems to think everyone does it. Which, as of late might have some truth to it... *sigh* Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete тəzєті 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• No harm either way - userboxen seem a little pointless but not an insult or an attack on anything -- Tawker 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Cyde not to have a cookie tonight.. The Land 13:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted How can a person become an inanimate thing? :) Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Total nonsense. WarpstarRider 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. All or nothing policy is needed or this one by one battle will go on forever. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as unencyclopedic foolishness, with no prejudice against users putting the code on their pages, if they're so inclined, since it's neither divisive nor inflammatory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There was no consensus to delete these. Lemmings and fish must not have been as scary to Cyde as pirates and ninjas, but that doesn't mean they should have been deleted. -MrFizyx 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Newsflash: we're here to write an encyclopedia. Garrett^Talk 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash: so are people who disagree with you. -MrFizyx 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Once again, it's personal space and there's nothing wrong with a bit of unoffensive Monty Python style humour. Are we going to start having daily votes to delete templates just because a certain individual doesn't find them funny?--Folksong 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. Let's not try to apply policy you think should be there but have been unable to pass. Obviously neither of these can fit either T1 or T2, unencyclopedic is not a valid speedy criteria for templates. Speedy undelete is necessary, put it through TfD if you want and try to get a real consensus instead of underhanded back-stabbing. Someone needs to do something about the admins who are harming the project by using their privilages to carry out personal crusades. Loom91 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete same as Loom91. It seems a ton of admins have no respect for process from what little I've seen around here. CelestialRender 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Process is important and reduce confusion by following policy. Respect the process by letting it run its course, and respect that consensus on userboxes has not emerged.--Ssbohio 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User sumofpi and Template:User Sumofpi2

I apologize if I did not do this correctly - this is my first time raising a deletion review.

I refer to Wp:tfd#Template:User_sumofpi and [[1]].

For reference, here is the closing administrator's summary:

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD.

In the case of the former, there were 24 keep votes and a whopping FOUR delete votes. Most people who expressed any other meaningful sentiments at all clearly understood that they were voting to keep the template itself, not just the content. In the case of the latter, 21 people voted to keep it. Six voted to userfy or delete it. Again, those who expressed an opinion from which an understanding can be derived seemed to understand that they were voting to keep the template itself, not just the content.

I would ask that the anti-Userbox administrators respect the TFD process and delete or keep according to consensus, not according to their personal views on userboxes BigDT 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• And the template is being kept on the user's pages where they wanted it. No content is being deleted. I observed the avalanche of keeps and acted appropriately. Process has been followed throughout. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In point of fact, the template is being deleted, with only the code being kept, copied however many times to users' pages. The nom was in templates for deletion, and the consensus was to keep. Bare logic would dictate that consensus was to keep the template.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, are we just totally ignoring votes now? It's getting harder and harder to assume good faith the more I read this page. CelestialRender 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This isn't a vote. If those 24 people saying keep didn't address any actual issues of why this needs to remain a userbox, and they didn't, then the template is substituted and deleted. --Cyde Weys 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent job. endorse close. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• People get to keep their decorations - but we get them out of the template space - excellent compromise endorse --Doc ^ask? 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you guys consider that to be a "compromise", why are we wasting our time on TFD discussing them? Whether the consensus is delete or keep, you will do the same thing. BigDT 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  It's hardly a waste. We went to TfD to see what people wanted. It's clear they want these boxes on their pages. So they have boxes on their pages, and we've followed process to the letter. No more quiet deletions. No more boxes strangled in the dark. Now everyone's userpages can look just as they did before, with no objection from any administrator because the boxes are no longer in the template namespace. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • From the TfD debate & the summary posted here, the clear consensus, to the point of supermajority, was to keep the template. The template was deleted. Arguing that the code was kept, so the deletion of the template was ok, is arguing a side issue. The template itself garnered a sizable majority to keep.
• Undelete I have to say that since the decision was to keep the template, it should have been kept. If people wanted it to be subst'ed and deleted, they would have voted that way. —MiraLuka 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Isn't the net result the same? Mackensen (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  No, it is not the same. In one scenario, the one chosen by the people at TfD, the template stays. What actually happened was that the template was deleted. —MiraLuka 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please step outside this narrowness for a second. The template is on people's pages. It has stayed there. The instance in the Template space is gone. What's wrong with this outcome? Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the outcome is that it doesn't respect the consensus developed in TfD. Having a userbox template & having raw code on each user's page may make no difference to you, but, to quote Wordsworth, "but oh, the difference to me." If the consensus was to subst & delete, then subst & delete would have been the right thing to do. That wasn't the consensus, and deletion wasn't the right thing to do, on that basis.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I offer as evidence of the actual consensus, the vote counts themselves:
  • • Subst and Delete (2) - Doc, Nhprman
    • Delete (3) - Steinbach, ShiningEyes, Cyde (inferred as nominator)
    • Keep, unambiguously meaning keep the template itself (12) - BigDT, Kris18, Wandering Star, Anonymous_Anonymous, Oni Ookami Alfador, Harvestdancer, Grafikim, Hezzy, NetStormer, Ibaranoff24, The Giant Puffin
    • Keep, not spelling out what they mean (11) - Homestarmy, Thistheman, Paragon12321, getcrunkjuice, Korean alpha for knowledge, Friendly Neighbor, ILovePlankton, T-rex, Edgi, Will, MrFizyx
    • Keep, unambiguously meaning keep the content, but NOT the template (1) - Septentrionalis

  Adding up those who clearly wanted to wipe out the template, that's 6. 12 people unambiguously wanted to keep the template itself. That's 12-6 in favor of keeping the template. Even if you assume that every single one of the people who didn't explicitly state what they meant by keep really meant delete (which would be a horrible assumption to make, but I mention it only for completeness), that's 12-17, which falls short of a 60% consensus. In short, I can see no justification whatsoever based on that TFD for substituting and deleting the template. BigDT 20:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  And my voice is miscounted here; see below. Septentrionalis 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• TFD is not a Vote. Now, stop counting and think a second at the current situation. Everyone has their box. No one's expression has been hindered. The box is not in template space anymore, which means I and all the other evil sysops no longer care whatsoever about it, and will fight to the death to keep that code on that user's page. We've got user pages too, after all. This is a clearly a good result. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Good result or not, this is not the result chosen at TfD. —MiraLuka 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  If a good result occurs then we should keep it. I interpreted the TfD this way. Now, stepping outside process-boundness for a moment, is this in any way a bad result? Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I subst'ed my userboxes a long time ago. So, no, in my personal opinion, this is not a bad result. However, and I don't know how many ways I can say this, this is not the result chosen at TfD, and the opinions expressed there are the ones that matter in this instance. What's the point of putting template up at TfD if the decisions made there are going to be ignored anyway? —MiraLuka 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I could ask why bother bringing it to TfD when the users ignore the voting criteria and policy, but that would be impolite. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Mackensen, there is one big difference once all userboxes are substed - they are no longer on the list of userboxes for those of us who enjoy having userboxes on our pages to look through. There are possible compromises. For example, I have taken all of the non-controversial religion userboxes and placed them along with their {{userbox}} code on a subpage in my userspace - User:BigDT/Religious_User_Boxes. I would have no problem whatsoever with doing this with every single userbox (not on my own userpage, obviously, but the current userbox menu at wp:userboxes could be changed). We could completely do away with individual userbox templates and instead of offering templates like {{user methodist}}, we'd offer a big userbox codeblock that you could copy and paste on your page. I don't have a real problem with that at all. I also wouldn't have a problem with making substing mandatory. Just like some of the user warning templates include a message forcing you to subst them, that could be done with userboxes. There are only two concerns I have: (1) that a global menu of userboxes continue to be available somewhere and (2) that administrators enforce, not impose policy - if the consensus is against your personal views, push for the policy to be changed, but don't ignore the consensus. BigDT 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My view on the matter is that it needs to be settled in a way that both "factions" can accept. My own personal views don't enter into this. I believe the code was subst'd into the lists as well; if it wasn't, please show me where and I'll address that. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor and scroll down to the "Mathematics and Science" area. The sums of pi boxes were the fourth and fifth in that section. The code section could have something like I have in User:BigDT/Religious_User_Boxes. This would probably be a compromise that everyone could live with. The code is still there for anyone who wants it and there are no templates, except for the generic userbox template itself. BigDT 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Mackensen, I have added the code for those userboxes to the page in code boxes. It doesn't look spectacular, but something for users to easily copy/paste needs to be there, otherwise, they would have to edit the page and sort through table code to figure out what exactly they need to copy/paste. If there are other ways to do it (like a textarea or something), I'm open to that - I'm simply doing this as a suggested method ... there just needs to be some equivalent of the old template code there. BigDT 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Slap Mackensen with a trout, regarding my undelete vote, whoever closed those was obviously ignoring both the Majority (correction Supermajority) vote, and the consensus of the community, sometimes its OK to ignore one or thye other, but never both. As for slapping Mackensen with a trout well, I just think he needs to be slapped with a trout. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. These were not "votes". Wikipedia is not a Democracy, nor an experiment in anarchy. The comments for these discussions went about like this (actual comments): "Strong Keep per above "keep" votes. Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Keep since it's an absolutely neutral userbox. Strong Keep and change to Pi to being equal to exactlly 3. Keep. Stop deleting userboxes." Sorry, but these comments did not address deletion criteria. Mackensen is right about the discretion of admins. Deleting these out of Template space and Subst'ing them does NOT destroy them or eliminate them from User pages where they are currently. I don't see a problem with what was done. Deleting these from Template space and preserving them in User space means they will never be up for deletion again. It's too bad people don't realize the positives here. I see no reason why a list of Subst'd Userboxes can't be listed somewhere. But it should not be used as a back door to social networking.- Nhprman 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I listed 12 votes above that were unambiguously some form of "don't delete the template itself". Picking out a few silly ones doesn't invalidate the serious ones. The "compromise" (above) may wind up being a reasonable one, but that's beside the point. Pages/templates/whatever should not be deleted when they are not somewhere in the CSD and their deletion goes against a clear consensus on *fd. For this "compromise" to be implemented, there should be a consensus. It is not up to a small group of administrators to enforce their views against established policy and the consensus. BigDT 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete because the consensus was obviously keep the template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If people want the templates substed and deleted, they can say that, but there seems to be a consensus to keep here. Should not have been deleted, definitely should not have been speedy deleted. Clarinetplayer 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen's point about the general thrust of the keep side's comments (being towards keeping the content, but not apparently caring about whether it remains in the Template: namespace) is a good one, and borne out by my own reading of the TfD. Remember, people, TfD is not a vote. A whole bunch of people showed up and decided they didn't need to provide any sort of reasoning for their "votes", because all they need to do is cast a ballot, right? Mackensen, if anything, showed excellent judgment in deciding to go with a compromise that he thought would satisfy all participants, rather than the other alternative open to him — which was discounting the views of everyone who showed up only to say "you can't tell us what to do, Cyde, you dick!". Everyone complaining about the tally needs to learn what the *fD pages are for. And then to go away, and not approach those pages again until they can prove they've been subject to several intensive sessions with a cluebat. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: My voice on this was not to "keep the content and delete the template"; if I had meant that, I would have said subst as I did elsewhere. There is an unusually strong case to keep the template; and I voted accordingly. The argument that this could be used for socialization is unusually weak (the history of Pi and Talk:Pi should provide the same social group); the argument that it adds no value to the encyclopedia is false. Septentrionalis 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. This is what I'm talking about: if you believe Mackensen misread the TfD discussion, that's one thing, and completely separate to how many "votes" were cast (as a frequent xfD closer, I make a point of never knowing how the tally stacks up). I'm a bit confused about this bit, though: you think this template adds value to the encyclopaedia? Do you mind elaborating, at all? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not much value; but one of the purposes of userpages is to hold odd facts, like multiple digits of pi. Septentrionalis 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed? I suspect we can delete at least a couple of paragraphs from Pi then. I can see it now ... Main article: {{User Pi}}. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • No, at most half a line, and I do not propose that :-> Septentrionalis 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete A supermajority vote to keep and it STILL gets deleted. Is that what Wikipedia is really about. A few people get there way and those who wanted to keep the template have there voices ingored. Sorry but I feel that is just wrong Aeon 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • TfD is not a vote. If you think a "supermajority" matters a damn on xfD, you are not qualified to express an opinion on DRV. You can "feel" whatever you like on this issue, but your recommendations are ill-informed at best. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you contend that there was a consensus to delete, then? Septentrionalis 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Go read what I wrote. You probably won't have to scroll very far, it's only a few lines up; I read your view before commenting, after all. It begins "Mackensen's point about the general thrust ...", and continues on for a short but rather wordy paragraph. You're free to draw your own conclusions from reading the discussion (evidently, you already have), but the raw tally is irrelevant. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I won't join in criticizing your prose style; but I did read your comment, and none of those words answer "Was there a consensus to delete?" The raw tally should be adjusted in various ways (and more such adjustment is probably the real solution to votestacking); but the job of the closer is to justify such adjustments. Septentrionalis 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok explain then why there was a vote in the first place? Why then have a Vote for Deletion if it is not a vote? Aeon 06:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Uhh, we don't. There was no vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • fuddlemark's comment above about some editors being "not qualified to express an opinion" strikes me as the problem in an nutshell. SOme people here have the view that the TfD debate creates the consensus for what to do with a nominated template & the admins carry that consensus out, while the other group sees the TfD process as calling for deletion unless there's a good reason not to. In a larger sense, we have to decide which of these views is the intended purpose of TfD. I favor the first view, but the second view has merit as well.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it is a pity. Based off of some of the admin explanations above I was expecting a really sharp admin descision based upon some flaky votes where people wanted to keep the content instead of the template itself. Sadly, this is not the case and nearly everyone in the debate expressed a strong desire to keep the content in the template namespace and it winds up appearing to be wikipedia politics. sigh. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While it is true that TfD is not a vote, there is no reason to discount opinions because "comments...addressed the content...rather the (Template namespace) status which it occupies", especially since such comments seem to imply that those people do not distinguish between Template-space text meant for userspace and text on userspace itself. In other words, such opinons don't agree with with the sentiment that similar userboxes don't belong in Template space, as they obviously don't make the distinction. --AySz88^-^ 04:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I had hoped that I had found consensus. It seems not. No reason for others to suffer from my judgement on this one. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a useful and interesting idea; but it is a policy suggestion, or a contribution to the TfD discussion, not a closure. Septentrionalis 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Sorry, Mackensen, I have to disagree...you did the right thing the first time around. :) --InkSplotch^(talk) 12:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the templates were fine the first time :/. Homestarmy 12:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- to support the TFD decision --T-rex 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Closure made perfect sense given that we had two groups talking past each other and this was a reasonable way of making both groups happy. Please remember that TfD, AfD, etc. are not votes. JoshuaZ 00:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, TfD is about consensus. Since the nomination was to delete a template & the consensus was to keep that template, then the consensus to keep the template should have been respected. Process is important. --Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - Deletion review discussions are supposed to focus on whether the action taken was consistent with deletion policy. Deleting a template following a supermajority consensus to keep is obviously not consistent with deletion policy. When someone nominates 'Infobox platypuses' for deletion and there is a clear consensus to keep we don't subst all uses of the template and then delete it anyway. To do so here is improper. Further, we haven't instituted a policy of restoring complicated wiki-markup to all pages... because that would be ugly and confusing - yet here it is suggested that 'ugly and confusing' is 'good'. Why? Because it annoys and confuses people? Obviously that'd be a bad reason. Because it 'removes the content from Template space'? An equally bad reason... the content belongs in Template space. Relocating complicated markup off the page was the primary reason the Template: namespace was created. If you wish to redefine the template namespace such that it is meant for 'material to be displayed on multiple pages except in the User: namespace' then I'd suggest working on such a proposal. However, that is currently not the case and making copies of the wiki-markup on each page by substitution is not the same as keeping the template. TFD discussions have always been held over whether to keep the templates. Not the contents of the templates. Try applying this 'Delete the template as a foregone conclusion but maybe subst the content' principle to other templates which achieve a 'keep' consensus to see just how utterly unjustified it is. --CBDunkerson 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep<s\> err... Undelete: Consensus was to keep the template, (as the keep consensus came at "templates for deletion")Mike McGregor (Can) 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per process and consensus. TheJabberwʘck 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete There is NO valid reason to ignore consensus in this one. If anything, this userbox is educational. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. PerD-dayHezzy 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. All or nothing policy is needed or this one by one battle will go on forever. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear! The disagreement over the future of userboxes looks set to become a war of attrition over in TfD The same general set of opinions on each side are marshalling up for each TfD nom. Why do hundreds of times what we should do once?--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete. I really don't like the fact that a handful or users have decided that my keep vote was made in ignorance. Nor do I like the apparent assumption that I don't understand the real issues. Building consensus must be done by showing respect for and being willing to learn from and educate those with opposing views. It is not done by throwing away the results when you disagree with the outcome. -MrFizyx 23:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. An administrator is a janitor whose sole purpose is to see that the community's will get carried out, not replace consensus with his personal views. Loom91 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per consensus reached in TfD. Further, the mass nomination of userboxes in TfD seems to me to be worse for the project than their continued existence. Last night, I edited articles, for the first time in a few days. It felt good to do something positive rather than trying to stop or reverse deletion/destruction elsewhere in the project. These interminable debates over individual userboxes sap energy from what we're here for. THat, I think, all sides can agree on. I wish I could just go down tools on the userbox TfD's, but I feel compelled to stand up for process as long as there is deletionist sentiment to continue bringing userboxes to TfD that otherwise meet policy. I can understand T1 noms, possibly even T2 (though it's hardly settled policy according to WP:CSD), but we've got userboxes (which only ever are seen in user space) being nominated because they aren't encyclopedic, for example. Excepting deletions that are clearly within policy, like copyvio's and T1's, my strong suspicion is that until userbox policy achieves consensus, "userboxes should neither be created nor destroyed." I call this the Law of Conservation of Boxes.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete When people say KEEP they don't mean DELETE. Yes, that is what happened. They were deleted. Look Mr Adams, I killed your daughter, but I made a clone of her without legs so it's all well and good! Jesus --mboverload@ 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May 12, 2006

Template:User atheist

AtheistThis user is an Atheist.

Mackensen deleted this page. And while I have read Jimbo's statements on the userbox situation, I feel not only is he wrong, but deleting the template is harming Wikipedia. In the words of Grue: "... banning expressing people's opinions would actively harm building a neutral and objective encyclopedia."

Here's my personal reasoning: pages under the Wikipedia namespace (such as Wikipedia:Deletion_review, etc.) don't need to be NPOV, according to what I've read around the site. Why, then, do pages within the User namespace need to be NPOV? Deleting userboxes on the sole reasoning of political correctness harms the individuality of Wikipedians. Therefore I believe it should be undeleted. ^The True _Sora 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• User namespaces don't need to be NPOV. The template is in the Template namespace. The two are not the same. And while Grue may be right, getting this stuff out the template namespace is in no way "banning...opinions". Keep deleted, of course. I can make the code available if someone wants to subst the raw code onto their page. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That userboxes exist in Template namespace is a matter of system architecture. This userbox should never be seen outside of user namespace, so the relevence of where the userbox code is stored would seem to be deprecated. NPOV is about the encyclopedia we produce.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion per CSD:T1. Keep Deleted. For the record I have had this one subst'd on my page for some time. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Everyking 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why? Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. T1. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Is it suddenly not polite to be able to state your religious beliefs. Is the template that infuriating to you that you think it is divisive and inflammatory? It seems to me that this template is a simple statement of ones belief without any statement which would agravate any situation, unless you come to the wiki with a sense that neutral means leaving your whole life experience behind. The text is even NPOV in the way it states its point. Ansell Review my progress! 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — It would be very helpful and diminish conflict, if this template remains deleted, if someone would use a bot or whatever to subst' it onto the user pages in which it was previously transcluded. That way users who haven't been following the userbox debates as closely as the people on this page won't feel that the template removal is an attack on their beliefs (or lack thereof). In fact, I strongly feel that this should be standard operating procedure for deleted userboxes. (I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to make a bot or whatever you'd use for a repetitive task like this.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, I believe Cyde had proposed doing this last week, but the idea was rejected. I think it's a lovely idea myself. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'll do it if the template is kept deleted or if I get around to it before then. Kotepho 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. We should not continue going down the road which leads towards censorship of userspace. Friendly Neighbour 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Absolutely right. How is Template:User atheist in the user space? Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Most of the debate is now about the userspace. Therefore, I expect a Step Two: forbidding "POV" in userespace. And that would be plain political censorship to me. Friendly Neighbour 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  This template is only being transcluded into userspace; other transclusions (except perhaps a Wikispace list) would be improper. In that sense, it is only in user space. (I do not make this argument, I explain it; but I wish both sides in this would try to recognize that the other has legitimate concerns.) Septentrionalis 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I don't think the userbox is particularly devisive or contravertisal. The wording is fine, "X is an Atheist" is neutral enough phrasing, even for article space. However, this may be moot, as you may or may not be aware, someone just nominataed *all* the religious templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 12#Userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. Regards, MartinRe 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please note that T1 was recently revised. Although I had no input in this revision, I support it. The revised wording is this: "User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory." -- Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I am aware of T1's revision, which is why I said I though the template wasn't particularly devisive or controversial, and hence does not fall under the T1, even revised. I think you're intrepreting T1 far too broadly, with a broad intrepretion you could equally justify delete the babel boxes, as they "divide" users into speaker and non speakers of a language, and so are devisive (as well as language being a controversial topic to some). I think the speedy deletion of neutrally worded boxes such as this, to be more devisive than the original template ever could be. Regards, MartinRe 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.  Grue  19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Obviously. --MediaMangler 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What's obvious about undeleting it? Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete naturally. Larix 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, inappropriate speedy, meets no portion of criterion T1. Angr (t • c) 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, it does. Please read the speedy criteria. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm guessing Angr is giving a good-faith interpretation of the prohibitions in T1. I think the best presumption to go with is that Angr read T1 & made a judgment rather than judged in ignorance of T1.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -lethe ^{talk +} 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete until Template:User Buddhist, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Jewish, and every other religion-based user template is deleted. Let's be consistent in our crusading at the very least. — BrianSmithson 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to speedy them all. Do you actually have an opinion on this one? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  My opinion is that all or none of the religion-based templates should be deleted. I'm pretty anti-userbox, though I have a couple of Babel ones on my userpage, but it's highly annoying to selectively enforce a new "policy". — BrianSmithson 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Rather than speedying them all, why not create a class action TfD? Be better than having 20 different deletion reviews, right? -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, no more reason for speedying this template than for approximately 2538 others (give or take 1000). Deleting all of them is one thing, going at it one by one is arbitrary, not to say POV. IronChris | (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to speedy them all. Do you actually have an opinion on this one? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There appear to be many people voting here who want all the religious boxes deleted. Such a course would be inline with T1, with Jimbo's utterings on the matter, and would be fair to boot. Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't fair includerespecting the perspective of those who want to keep userboxes showing their personal beliefs? I hope we can work out a compromise on userboxes that's respectful of the deeply-held convictions of all sides.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, nothing decisive or controversial about this. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The conversation on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion makes me feel that T1 lacks consensus and should not even be a criteria for deletion, much less for speedy deletion. This particular user box is not divisive or inflamatory. GRBerry 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and keep Deleted - look Jimbo discourages the use of such things - having in the template space does the opposite. If folk feel they must have this on their pages, they can copy the code from another. Otherwise, they can just type 'I am an atheist'. Actually, whilst humbly declaring your POV, so others can point out if your bias slips into you editing, may be a helpful thing - proudly sporting uniform bumperstickers is not. --Doc ^ask? 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, even though T1 is applicable here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues. Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions. This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking. If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so. --Cyde Weys 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm this close to writing an automated KD voting program. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete What is the problem with users stating their opinions on the matter of belief? In years to come, academics analysing WP will want to know about the make-up of the beliefs of the contributors. Knowing the numbers of people who were athiest, agnostic, Christian, Islamic, etc will be vital, to allow academics to analyse how beliefs impacted on editing. As an academic I have to say removing templates like this is the equivalent of destroying an archive. It is crazy, ill thought-out and misses the bigger picture. The issue is not the beliefs of users but their ability to be NPOV. Some of the best NPOVcontributors on religious papers happen to hold clear personal definitions on religious matters. Why shouldn't that be openly stated? Do we want people to hide their views but still be influenced by them anyway? Surely being open about beliefs would be more healthy. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Stressing beliefs and opinions of users undermines the ability to be NPOV, and distracts many users into thinking this site is primarily for social networking. Recent history has shown that introducing strongly-held beliefs into WP (especially in the form of templated Userboxes) has not been healthy at all. Nhprman 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Everybody's edits are impacted upon by their beliefs. You can go into denial and pretend that doesn't happen or you can be honest and let people admit what their beliefs are. The most dangerous POV-warriors are those in denial about their viewpoints. Those who can categorise and define their beliefs, as psychiatrists repeat over and over again, are more likely to be able to be neutral because, having had to define their beliefs they are the ones most likely to think, in this case for example, "I am an athiest. Is that colouring my editing of Mother Teresa of Calcutta?" The main POV warriors are those who delude themselves into thinking they are neutral and end up blinded to their own beliefs and the impact they have on their editing. Your comments above show the problem that causes. You hold a view. You belief it is NPOV. But your edits suggest a distinct POV, one that repeats your view as a mantra you believe is neutral but on the evidence of your comments isn't. Psychiatrists and psychologists stress the fact that the best way to achieve neutrality is to analyse and define your views and then compensate for the bias you realise you have. Userboxes achieve that. Pretending you don't have a view, which is what the policy of deleting templates is all about, produces self-dillusion, not neutrality or objectivity. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 00:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  Let's keep the self-analysis of people's biases in editors' own heads. We don't need to be starting fights here that have existed outside of Wikipedia. No one should care about whether an editor is Catholic or Protestant or athiest or Buddhist here. An editor's edits should be enough to know whether they are biased, and each edit should speak for itself, without the announced bias sowing suspicion in other's heads. The "expose your biases" argument is a recipe for conflict, as we've seen already on WP. - Nhprman 03:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  Nhprman, I agree, and I'd add that the more users are encouraged to engage Wikipedia at the level of their political and religious beliefs, the further we move from the ideal of what it is to write an encyclopedia - a neutral, authoritative resource that is utterly above partisanship. If we're not above politics, we're crap, and we suck like the rest of the internet. Since Wikipedia wants to be an authoritative source of information, every special interest group would kill to control what we say. The job of an encyclopedist is to defend against those forces, not represent for them. I'm proud to check my personal beliefs at the door here, and if we aren't teaching new users that ideal, then we need to figure out how to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well said. Nhprman 03:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  How does pretending we have no outside opinions or views provide for a better product? I have biases. I want my fellow editors to know not only that I have a position on an issue, but, as a corollary, that I have spent time & effort coming to that view & therefore have valuable insight to offer on the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssbohio (talk • contribs) 03:35, May 24, 2006 (UTC).

  Pretending not to have bias is not what's being suggested. I don't pretend to not have beliefs and opinions, I just don't consider advertising them on my personal space to be part of my role as a Wikipedian, any more than announcing my political beliefs is part of my job. If you ask me what I think about this or that, I'll tell you, but that's not what I'm here for, and applying bumperstickers gives the impression that I'm editing Wikipedia as a Bigendian. Like Jimbo said: "They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." The problem is not having bias, nor admitting that you have bias - the problem is waving colorful flags around and giving the impression that Wikipedia is somehow about flag-waving. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete along with all other religion-related Userboxes. Divisive, inflammatory and has nothing whatsoever to do with editing a NPOV encyclopedia. Nhprman 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted due to reasoning not being based on any grounds for overturning deletion. "While I have read Jimbo's statements on the userbox situation, I feel not only is he wrong" - sorry, Jimbo happens to own this site. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not in point of fact however, absent pronounced policy from the Foundation board or their representatives. Jimbo has phrased this not as policy, but as an opinion. I value his opinion. Look at the great thing that he created & that we all contribute to. I'd love it if we picked up his advice to change the culture one user at a time & ran with it, rather than trying to force the issue.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1, unencyclopedic, not what public transclusion is here for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What exactly is the policy on public transclusion? Not just your POV. Ansell Review my progress! 08:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not aware there is one. Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits and Wikipedia:Template substitution are both good reads, but neither "lays down the law". I guess that means the policy is... what we decide it ought to be right now. I suggest we decide that public transclusion is not for advertisements of personal belief (or lack thereof). -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Why was T1 revised to kill off all religious or whatever userboxes? Homestarmy 00:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, under CSD T1. These sort of userboxes do not belong in the Template namespace. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment T1 has now been divided: T1 is the old T1, T2 is the expanded version. Let's keep it that way.Septentrionalis 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD. Uning the new distinction, this is not (the old) T1. T2 is not supported by consensus (or by Jimbo) and should not be used until it is. Septentrionalis 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  The first is debatable; the second assertion surprises me. Go back and read what Jimbo has said on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  The first is debateable, and I agree that this is a close call; but that's why we're debating this. What Jimbo has said is at WP:JOU. I see no evidence that Jimbo cares what mechanism we use. Septentrionalis 13:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Unencyclopedic. --Tbeatty 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per new TX. Metamagician3000 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, meets the speedy deletion criterion for templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Full and frank disclosure is a key element to help work toward balance in editing articles. Repressing acknowledgement of POVs is systematic bias. Rfrisbie^talk 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Then, if "Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." becomes policy, move this template to {{user atheism}} (the template currently there is an obscure and poorly-designed one that we don't need and can be moved to atheism2 or similar if necessary) and change the contents to "This user is interested in atheism.", since atheism is a valid philosophical position and cultural movement and a major subject of religious and theological study, and thus a valid interest-expressing userbox (and significant interests are clearly highly relevant to Wikipedia even if beliefs aren't) just as much as "This user is interested in theism." (or simply "This user is interested in God.") would be. And there's no need to scrap perfectly good edit histories and userbox layouts (thus wasting everyone's time even more on this crap, which is surely something noone wants) for such a move, so deletion is clearly unnecessary even if the new T1 designation becomes accepted. If the new T1 designation isn't accepted, then undelete and, if someone thinks this userbox is unacceptable, nominate it at TfD for discussing deletion, because it clearly isn't "inflammatory", which is a requirement for current T1 speedy-deletion. -Silence 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do with this one whatever is done with Template:User Christian - If you vote for or against one, you ought to have the same position on the other, as well as on one administrator's war against religious userboxes BigDT 17:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If the boss says so, do it. I'm afraid this is too controversial. subst. --Pilot|guy 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone explain to me how calling yourself an atheist, Christian, or a member of any other religious persuasion falls into the category of "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory"? This deletion, and that of the Christian userbox below, are both being defended as in line with CSD:T1. A userbox that says, "this user isn't going to hell, like the rest of you pathetic heathen are" is inflammatory. A userbox that says, "this user is a [insert denomination here]" is not. If these two userboxes were not "divisive and inflammatory", they should not have been speedied and thus, anyone who is unbiased would have to agree that they should be restored and given their day on TfD. BigDT 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted As Alan Partridge once said...."Classic T1" In any case, they do us no good and can be harmful. As said above, we're supposed to be a neutral, authoritative resource for people to use. Our customers are people who are not involved in policy debates and have no backround on issues ongoing between editors. Folks reading an article about Christians or religion or whatever are 2 clicks away from some editor with a silly "I am a atheist" bumpersticker on their userpage. What are they going to think? How many of them are going to wonder exactly how neutral and authoritative we are when they see editors proclaiming a POV loudly and proudly on their userpage? Userboxes do nothing to help us build Wikipedia and they can be harmful. They aren't going to spend time reading these debates reading that somehow displaying a POV somehow guards against writing a POV...they'd think that's crazy and they'd be right. Rx StrangeLove 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have queried the developers, and there is no such thing as userspace categories or userspace templates. All categories and templates are "omni-space", they are used in all namespaces defined in a *pedia. Please do not confuse syntax (Category followed by colon and Template followed by colon) with policy. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well put. If it's not seen in the article space, it is not required to meet the same standards as an article.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- experts in religious beliefs and ethnicities help build the *pedia. --William Allen Simpson 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete What reason do we have to censor people based on their religious beliefs. Using CSD T1 as a reason is not the best option as it is currently being discussed on the CSD talk page. Also, the article namespace IMO is the only space which requires NPOV. Templates, although used in the article space, are in no way restricted to it. Ansell 06:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete You all seem to be complete hypocrits. We can have user wiccan and user satanist and we can't have user atheist? We can have user Catholic and not atheist? What the fuck is going on here? --mboverload@ 08:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  All those others need to be removed as well - removed from template space only. You'll still be able to use them in userspace. Metamagician3000 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  Templates are part of "omni-space". Templates are merely transclusions. If there are objections to substance contained in templates, then the same substance should be removed from User:space. If there is no objection to substance, then there is no reason to remove the transclusion of that substance. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 15:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  Missing the point. The discussion is over where the Userboxes are housed on the server. Frankly, the issue of their substance is an important one, but secondary to their past misuse as Templates - an issue which can't be ignored or covered up. Nhprman 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe I don't understand, but being so picky about Template space seems unreasonable to me; it's not like Template space is meant for public viewing. --AySz88^-^ 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  You're right, it's not meant for public viewing, and that's the point. It's meant for tools that are used within articles. This and other boxes don't fit that criteria, and can be (and has been) misused by a few users. This Deletion from template space simply changes where these things are housed. Nhprman 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- this template is only used in user space --T-rex 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:CSD and current practice. Nandesuka 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Userboxes detailing biases can only benefit Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 20:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn to TfD, definately not T1. --AySz88^-^ 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per Mailer Diablo. Bastique▼^parlervoir 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. I can't see how this is any more divisive or controversial than a userbox stating, for instance, that the user can speak Spanish at an advanced level. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Methinks you live in a parallel universe where John Lennon sang a song called The Way It Is. --Cyde Weys 03:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too (John Lennon, Imagine) I thought this appropriate, given Cyde's allusion to the song & our discussion of religion in userboxes.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What is so completely illogical about keeping userboxes? User pages are not part of the encyclopedia, they're personal expression. By this logic user pages should be barred from having any offensive text too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darobsta (talk • contribs)
• Strong undelete what's wrong with expressing this particular opinion? Atheist template is no more divisive than User:Male, no more inflammatory than User:Muslim. --Constanz - Talk 11:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  What's wrong with expressing an opinion with EXACTLY the same box with EXACTLY the same wording, only NOT as a Templated Userbox, but as a Userfied/Subst'd box in User space? Deleting the template means that subjective opinions about the divisiveness of a box DISAPPEAR, and if they are Substituted, they remain on the User pages they are currently on, and can be put on new users' pages at their discretion, with NO threat of deletion ever again. What is wrong with THAT? - Nhprman 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Attempted T1 scope creep. Hasn't this happened on this template before? How many times do we have to repeat the same process? --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Wait for the TfD discussion on religion userboxes to end Will (^E_@) T 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Per all above. Ian13/talk 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive--MONGO 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the above. Gyre 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete this debate is far more "divisive" than the atheist userbox! frymaster 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• An ubvious undelete - there is over 40 different userboxes for Christianity alone, a single one for atheism is not much to ask for (altough with {{user atheism}} it makes two). It's also hard to say it's "inflamatory" since there are userboxes like "This user believes in God." (two of them actually, three if you count {{user theist2}}) // Liftarn 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2. Can always be restored when a better policy is implemented. TheJabberwʘck 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, meets Wikipedia:Userbox policy and doesn't meet T1. T2 is not valid at this time. JohnnyBGood t c 18:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Regarding Grue's words: "... banning expressing people's opinions would actively harm building a neutral and objective encyclopedia." that could be fulfilled by the user writing "I'm an atheist" on his/her page. What's on discussion this is the existence of a template. -- Drini 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

comment Then none of the templates would serve any purpose whatsoever. mirageinred 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not offensive. I dislike atheists, but this is in no way a T1. The Gerg 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  Nobody said it was offensive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete. Userpages do not need an NPOV.Hezzy 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete not offensive at all, and I don't see why this was deleted in the first place. It's for self-expression anyway. Why do people want this to be deleted? It's not like people don't use this template. mirageinred 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure nobody has claimed that it's offensive. We want it deleted because it's an improper use of Template space giving a false impression that it's appropriate to edit Wikipedia as a representative of this or that special interest group. As Jimbo said, "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete As Voltaire once stated: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As a Christian Wikipedian, I see nothing offensive about the template, and I am afraid that if this template is deleted, then others containing anything remotely religious will be deleted until the rueful day comes when we have to make our userpages and then the Wikipedia politically correct lest they "remotely offend anybody."--Folksong 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  This argument would make any sense at all if someone were trying to keep people from declaring that they're atheists. Since that's not happening, ummm.... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete. Not in any way divisive, inflammatory or remotely harmful to the Wikipedia project. Deleting userboxes is causing incomparably more harm than the perceived evils of keeping them. Loom91 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. If the "This user is a Christian" box gets to stay, then so should this. Just because a userbox does not align with someone's point of view doesn't mean it deserves to get deleted. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not in article space, not violative of T1, and not likely to cause the imminent death of the Wikipedia.--Ssbohio 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's a declaration of oppinion. If this was deleted so would all religous user boxes. Kyle sb 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2, /Archive 3

• Template:User liberal (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW, massive endorsement)
• Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User liberty (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User chav & Template:User notchav (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User Christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User hate (result kept deleted. WP:SNOW. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
• Template:User Wikicheese-ologist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User ProIsrael: (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User varied sex: (result kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• Template:User Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template 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)