Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived

File:Coffee cup.png

This page is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments here. How about a nice cup of tea?

-

Userboxes are sometimes deleted by administrators if there are thought to be valid reasons for their removal from Wikipedia. However, some userboxes may be inappropriately deleted. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates considers appeals to restore userboxes that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Before using the Review, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.

Category:User undeletion lists a number of administrators who are prepared to honour good faith requests for the restoration of deleted content to your user space, for example if you want to work up a more encyclopaedic article. This does not require deletion review, you can ask one of them directly (or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard).

Purpose

Userbox debates Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless: They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question (this should be attempted first - courteously invite the deleting admin to take a second look); In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be. An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

This process is about userboxes, not about people. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting userboxes prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators.

If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier:

{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~

Similarly, if you are a administrator and a page you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Please take general discussion to the talk page.

May 3, 2006

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Template:User Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is Un-American.

Template:User Against Americanisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Not Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A good old fashioned 'Speedied during debate at TfD' by Doc Glasgow.[1] I would like to see this restored and relisted at TfD so that consensus can run its course. This paternalist approach is condescending to say the least and shows a compleate lack of confidence in the wikipedia community by admins. In short, deletions like this make consensus on wikipedia a joke. Mike McGregor (Can) 10:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• undelete and relist at TfD per nom Mike McGregor (Can) 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all deleted - they don't help the Project. But undelete first for a period long enough for Cyde to run his Userboxbot. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have lots of confidence in the Wikipedia community. Just not much in the Myspace community. Keep all deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm sorry that you think this makes consensus look like a "joke," but for us old timers these templates make the encyclopedia look like a joke. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• exactaly how long does someone have to be present on Wikipedia before people like you take them seriously? A year? 2 years? since January 2001? This is exactaly the paternalistic BS I'm talking about. you guys keep treating the "Wikepedia community" like it's an old boys club or a fraternal orginiztion or a closed circle that was established long ago, and treating newcomers and dissenters, who maybe don't follow the status quo as a threat. Just because some of us don' t post to the wiki email lists, IRCs or what ever, or run for adminship dosent make us idiots... maybe someone should write a WP:NOTCABAL (or WP:CABALYES as the case may be.)Mike McGregor (Can) 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I'm trying to tell you how us paternalistic cabalist bastards see the situation. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, no obvious encyclopaedic value. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; divisive and, as stated above, no encyclopedic value. -- Karada 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted consensus and precedent clearly indicate that we speedy delete 'anti' userboxes under t1. Can we please stop having a review over all of these useless things? We seem to have some users with a mentality that says every userbox deletion must be reviewed - we don't even do that for articles. Nominations like this are becoming disruptive. --Doc ^ask? 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

please cite this consensus and link to the discussions Mike McGregor (Can) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• WP:CSD is right here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. We're here to build an encyclopedia, folks. Garrett^Talk 12:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• kd first two are obvious T1 and the last one is quite useless.  Grue  12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. More or less says "This user hates America" which seems to fall well within T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Let's save TfD for issues which actually require discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• and who decides whats worthy of discussion? Mike McGregor (Can) 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Look up. Look down. Not this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Another classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I find my country often reprehensible these days, but that doesn't make these things any less divisive and inflammatory. They're meant to get a reaction out of viewers. Xoloz 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly unacceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Unfortunately they fall under T1. TheJabberwʘck 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and feed Mike McGregor penguins for bringing this here. --Cyde Weys 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: So what did these say, anyway? Septentrionalis 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the nom has a substituted version of one of them on his userpage, their text is fairly straightforward. Homestarmy 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

here's the one: moved to top - TheJabberwʘck 01:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Mike McGregor (Can) 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete and relist on TFD These kinds of speedy deletions are deliberatiely provocative, and fall under CSD T1. They do nothing to help the encyclopedia. PLEASE DON'T DELETE TEMPLATES WHILE THEY ARE BEING TFD'd!!! --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oy! Keep deleted.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - You don't get much more T1 than that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master

This user is a sock puppet of SOCKPUPPETEER.

This user is a sock puppet master with multiple minions to do his/her bidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 30, 2006

Template:User infidel

inf	This user is an infidel.

Cyde (talk · contribs) speedy deleted citing T1 on 2006-04-30. This template was previously restored on 2006-03-10. It is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion and is currently used by approximately 78 users.

• Speedy Restore --William Allen Simpson 14:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Does it divide wikipedians by belief? Yes. It is thus divisive, and t1 is valid. The fact a lot of people are acting in a manner that is officially discouraged is irrelevant. People may not like t1, but it is policy, and to restore this would be a travesty of policy. --Doc ^ask? 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

We clearly interprete things differently. Fine that's why we debate here. But please do not call my views 'dishounst'. 'Infidel' is not even a neutral discription of belief - it is clearly pejorative. --Doc ^ask? 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment offended you; I meant that it was misleading and inaccurate to say that a statement like "if it divides Wikipedians by belief, it may be speedy-deleted" is listed anywhere on the WP:CSD policy page (and it is indeed misleading), not that you were deliberately deceiving people. Clearly we do disagree on interpretation of this policy; I've explained why I interpret the policy as I do, so could you explain how you have interpreted "divisive and inflammatory" to mean "anything that divides Wikipedians by belief", which is pretty clearly not the criterion's intent? Also, note that pejorative self-identification is, with few exceptions, completely acceptable; pejorative identification of others is what's completely unacceptable. The difference is obvious; self-identifying as "queer" or "gay" is 100% acceptable, despite the fact that those words can be (and have been in the past) quite pejorative. Likewise, "atheist" has extremely negative connotations for a large number of people in the world, just as much as "infidel" does, yet people who don't believe in God choose to use it as a self-identifier anyway. If it's what makes them happy (and clearly, since 78 people use this template, it does), let them define themselves and their beliefs as they wish. But above all, let's not institute religious morality into Wikipedia's policies by saying that it's inflammatory to not follow a religion. That's just asking for trouble. :/ -Silence 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think I deleted this because I think it's inflammatory to not follow a religion, you clearly don't know me. You might want to take a refresher course on me at my user page. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, where did we even mention your reasoning for deleting it? I fail to see how your userpage has any relevance here; this is a review of a user-template and the relevant process and policies that apply to it, not of the ideology or biases of the deleter. -Silence 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This was deleted as T1 and, lo and behold, it is T1. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete I am as uninfidel as you can get, and I am not offended at all by this. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think being "uninfidel" would make you less qualified to comment on this, not more. That's like a guy saying he's "as white as you can can get", and not offended at the N-word. --Cyde Weys 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You missed my point. Since I am religious, I don't find the fact that someone calling themselves an infidel offensive at all. Especially with a userbox. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• OK, if that's how you see it, Cyde, I'm about as "infidel" as you can get (though I've never used, and never plan to use, this template, because I don't especially care whether I violate any religious codes and don't define myself in that way), and see it as an acceptable way for people to self-identify if they choose to do so. Let's not moralize as to what pejorative self-descriptions people are permitted to use; "atheist" is considered just as pejorative as "infidel" by many parts of the world, yet if people choose to describe themselves as "atheist" (or "queer", or what-have-you), there's no real harm in doing so. Pending valid justification for speedying this, undelete and list as TfD. -Silence 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted on the proviso that User:Cyde restore it within the user space of each person previously using the template. This was not "divisive" as the word should be defined for T1. RadioKirk talk to me 16:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1, the term is used deliberately as an in-your-face sort of approach to people who are religious. JoshuaZ 16:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on several previous arguments:
  1. Since these are self-identified, the template cannot be said to be "pejorative", as the most that can be said would be "self-deprecating".
  2. "Behold, it is T1" is proof by assertion. Under that standard, every User box that has ever been debated would be considered divisive, as every debate is evidence of division!
  3. This T1 deletion after previous restoration is wheel warring.
  4. So far, there has been no justification given for speedying this.

  William Allen Simpson 16:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment See my above rationale for why it is T1. JoshuaZ 16:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no rationale. I see opinion and proof by assertion. --William Allen Simpson 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • When you have to resort to attempting to dismiss something using specious reasons, you're basically admitting that you can't dismiss it using rational ones. --Cyde Weys 18:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict with Cyde) Ok, making this slightly more explicit: Premise 1) The term "infidel" started out as a term used by certain religious groups to label with strong negative connotations those of other religious backgrounds. Premise 2) Since then, the term has been adapted by certain groups as a deliberate use of a negative term, similar to the use of "queer," but with a deliberately anti-religious connotation (for evidence see Internet Infidels). Premise 3) Terms with deliberate negative connotation and/or used deliberately in the context of a belief system one disagrees with are divisive (see precedent for User box of Fascist). Conclusion: This box is divisive and hence T1. JoshuaZ 18:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in users' spaces. Not T1-worthy, but not without understandable controversy (absent further clarification from an individual user, "infidel" can mean anything from violent anti-Christian to rebellious teenager). RadioKirk talk to me 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Infidel", on its own, cannot mean "violent anti-Christian" or "rebellious teenager". Please read dictionary.com's definition of "infidel". If anything, "atheist" is more divisive and inflammatory than "infidel", because the word atheism has the secondary meaning "Godlessness; immorality."; "infidel" doesn't even have that. -Silence 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Your link doesn't support your interpretation any more than mine does, actually. Where does it say "violent anti-Christian" or "rebellious teenager"? Also, everyone knows the American Heritage Dictionary is the only true dictionary. >;D -Silence 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Anyway, it may not be explicit, but the wide range of potential meanings can be extracted therefrom. Those against the U. S. occupation of Iraq, for example, often use "infidel" to mean "violent anti-Muslim"; the M-W definition "a disbeliever in something specified or understood" could include rebellious teenagers. RadioKirk talk to me 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when did atheist mean immoral? Last time I looked statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes per capita than theists. If anything it's the theists who are immoral. --Cyde Weys 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

... Are you joking? You can't tell the difference between the sentence "the word atheism has the secondary meaning 'Godlessness; immorality.'" and the sentence "atheists are immoral"? That's just deliberately missing the point. Please review the dictionary.com entry on "atheism", and if you want to digress into a debate on the ethics of theistic viewpoints, feel free to do so on my talk page, where it's more relevant. -Silence 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not joking, I was disagreeing with the secondary meaning, which seems to be nothing more than theist propaganda. By the way, one of my other comments is still missing from this page .. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a dictionary definition does not make it any less of a definition; dictionaries record common usage, not "what words should mean", which would be absurd. Arguing against a definition in a dictionary is like arguing against a fact in an atlas: really silly. And surely you realize that hundreds of words in the English language mean what they mean because of "theist propaganda", or to be more accurate, the near-omni-religious culture we live in. "Holiday" isn't necessarily religious in modern usage, but the language is nonetheless biased, as we're forced to use a word derived from "Holyday" to refer even to secular days. Fighting against a language is fruitless. Instead, fight against the fact, which was never in dispute or in any way related to the discussion here: obviously atheists aren't immoral, and I'd even agree with you that atheism is, at least in some ways, more ethical than theism.

And, I didn't readd your comment because I assumed, since you noticed it, you'd re-add it as soon as you wanted wherever you wanted. I chalked down the delay to you perhaps rewriting part of it, since I changed my comment in the time before the posting (since I agree with you that "This user is a nigger" would be much less acceptable, but disagree with you on the analogy: "user=n" would be more comparable to "this user is a faggot" than "this user is an infidel", and I'd assert that "this user is an infidel" is instead comparable to "this user is queer", whereas "this user is an atheist" is comparable to "this user is gay". So, do you want me to re-add the comment, or do you want to do it yourself? You weren't at all clear in your post to my Talk page. -Silence 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Previous Templated boxes in which the user self references him/herself as a "Fascist" were deemed divisive and inflammatory. If that precedent holds, then "infidel" - which is a well-known term within the context of religion, especially radical Islam - is definitely of the same vein, and should be deleted, even if the term is self-applied by the user. Nhprman 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/list at TfD This is intended as a "self-descriptor" -- a user applies the term infidel to himself or herself. Given the above arguments over semantics, it is clear that the term has a range of meanings: it is unclear whether any (or all) of them are inflammatory. While I don't think the T1 was a great overstep or anything, it is clear that there is a debate on the merits necessary to distinguish (or fail to distinguish) this userbox from "This user is a 'Religion X'" subtype, generally allowable. Xoloz 18:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Restore --Jamie Battenbo 19:32, 30 April 2006 (BST)
• Undelete and list at TfD. It is as much divisive as the language Babel boxes. If inflammatory, then only towards it's bearers. And you can ask Cyde for his opinion about cursing/flaming on oneself. Finally, Cyde deserves a slap (not necessarily with a large trout) for not ahrering to speedy deletion rules. Let's cite the first template around. From {{d}}: Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deletion. --Misza13 ^{T C} 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you a member of Community Justice? Can you tell me how that squares with suggesting someone needs to be slapped? I think you need to cool it. Rx StrangeLove 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<smart-arse comment>"Disagrees" is neither possessive nor a contraction, you infidel!!!</smart-arse comment> ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

While obviously you can belive they both exists their teching have some fairly fundimenatal contradictions over issues such as the divinity of Jesus. Of course Gandi claimed to be both but I don't think he could really be described as a solid follower of either.Geni 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Point one: these boxes are NOT in Userspace - they're in TEMPLATE SPACE. Point two: Templates like this one challenge other users to create even more offensive ones. That's not why we are here on Wikipedia. Please read the official policies on WP:NOT regarding why we are here. Point three: Spending your time defending worthless userboxes is not a good use of your time, either. Please stop trying to keep them cluttering up Wikipedia. Please educate yourself on the issues before wading in. Nhprman 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to know wikipedia policies very well, but have you ever heard about WP:NPA? It's very interesting, you'll see. You who are talking about "offensive" userboxes, maybe you should use a less offensive tone when addressing other users. IronChris | (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone obviously can't tell the difference between Template space and User space, pointing that out and suggesting that they get better acquainted with the project is a not a personal attack. If I was the closing admin I'd discount that vote on the grounds that the editor didn't know what (s)he was discussing. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn & TfD, this is stretching T1 a bit far, and definately not a speedy. --AySz88^-^ 04:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - Every userbox speedily deleted is brought to DRV. The only reason that admins prefer DRV over TFD is that DRV requires a 50% to delete a userbox while TFD requires a majority, say 2/3 to delete. Also by speedily deleting userboxes, they simply dissapear and are listed as protected versus the global notification to all users of a userbox in TFD procedure. Let's review.

TFD

1. 66% majority to delete.
2. Global notification to every user of a certain box.

DRV

1. 50% majority to delete.
2. No notification to users of a box.
3. Deletion discussion is in an obsucure corner of wikipedia.

T1's only purpose is to rig the voting in the favor of the userbox deletionist. It's time to bring the userbox debates back to TFD--God Ω War 05:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Um... please read WP:FAITH. I can't believe sysops (in general, naturally) are maliciously deleting templates knowing their actions will be given the stamp of approval by DRV regulars and thus be over and done with quicker. If you are concerned about the mismatch of voting percentages please bring it up on the appropriate talk pages and something can be done about it. Although, arguably, I'd say the reason for this smaller percentage is that DRV has a different audience, of whom more are likely acquainted with policy thus making it easier to reach a satisfactory decision (read: one that doesn't defy policy, which I've seen at the end of countless Afds). Garrett^Talk 07:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No the reason for the different percentages dates back to the deletion wars when the deletionists were concerned that Votes for undeletion would become in effect a second VFD. Orginaly Votes for undeletion was controled by policy wonk deletionsists who only cared if there deletion was within policy. Unfortunely this broke down for a number of reasons.Geni 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I've been quite out of the loop deletion policy-wise so I guess I've missed these things... but then again it's because of crap like that that I took a break from it all in the first place. Sigh. Garrett^Talk 09:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AGF and WP:IAR suggest that those admins who feel that userboxes are bad for Wikipedia would take whatever actions to get rid of them with as little dispute as possible. Hence, speedying if at all plausible under T1 (which this isn't), and waiting for the DRV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

However if the admins who want to keep them took the same atitude the wheel wars would get anoying.Geni 22:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely why I believe WP:JIMBO should impose a moritorium on the creation and deletion (you can't have one and not the other) of userboxes until a policy is finalized. RadioKirk talk to me 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

"Aw, for the love 'a... I for one am getting a little tired of people these days recoursing to the bonfire to expunge anything they don't like or find offensive. Don't like Christmas? Have it banned. Don't like the theory of Evolution? Get it bounced from the schools. Despise crucifixes, yarmulkes and Muslim head scarves? Forbid people to wear them. Don't like editorial cartoons? Just riot and threaten death upon the publishers until they stop printing them. Go through the local library and destroy any book you personally disagree with. Don;t dare ignore or gasp engage with a viewpoint you disagree with, because you'll end up contaminated. If we hold to that asinine standard, there is going to be nothing left, and we'll be left sitting upon the ashes of another Library of Alexandria, because I gaurantee you there is something that offends everybody. I will die before I let that happen."

Free speech and humour aren't a bad thing, especially in an encyclopedia. Unless it insults someone or a category of people, which this userbox doesn't. IronChris | (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

NOTE: This comment was originally by Pat Payne, as I said. I don't even know what the war on Christmas thing is. And it was hardly the central argument, nor is it the purpose of this debate, so why leave a comment on it at all? This discussion is already long enough. IronChris | (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who chose to repost it though, thus you take some responsibility for the veracity of its statements. If you don't really stand by what the quote says you shouldn't be posting it, or you should at least be examining it in a critical light. By posting it in the way you did implies that you agree with it, and I have every right to disagree with it in turn, and you can't just turn around and say, "Oh, well I take no responsibility for it, someone else said it." --Cyde Weys 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are most absolutely right. But let me point out that it was just one small example among others. So why are we discussing this? It's not what the debate's about. May I remind you that we are talking about the infidel userbox. Regards, IronChris | (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Many people here seem to find this box funny, and suggest undeleting on those grounds. I'm appalled at the notion. Muslims take very seriously the difference between themselves and those who are not a member of their faith. This isn't true for all Muslims, of course, but it's true for many of them. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and we welcome contributors from every possible ethnic, cultural, and national background. This template is a juvenile slap in the face. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Infidel" doesn't specifically mean muslim, or any other social or religious category for that matter. It is a very general term meaning someone who doubts or rejects a religion, see the infidel article. If it just meant muslim, then I would totally agree with you, but I had never interpreted it that way before. IronChris | (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• Keep deleted - T1 at its best -- Tawker 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or userfy, as it clearly falls under T1. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; divisive, T1. -- Karada 11:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

April 25, 2006

Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist

This user is a transhumanist.

File:Antitranshuman.jpg

This user is against transhumanism.

Deleted by Dmcdevit for being divisive - see his reasoning at User_talk:Mareino#Transhumanism. I don't agree with this reasoning, and I believe that they should be recreated. This is a simple philosophical statement, and is not supporting or opposing any group of people by a philosophical, impresonal notion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But one box is opposing one group of people, I don't understand how "anti-transhumanist" isn't opposing transhumanists? Homestarmy 01:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a rule forbidding the creation of divisive userboxes - one with word against or anti, unless there are applicable notable terms. But I don't see how the template user transhumanist is divisive, and you can make any template divisive by creating an anti-version, can you?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why im not sure if I want to even vote on this, one seems divise but the other doesn't to me :/. Homestarmy 12:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts

	Userbox deletion news	talk edit

---

Notices

• The ParserFunctions extension, which is intended to replace the functionality of if templates, has been enabled (on a trial basis) on all Wikimedia wikis.
• A final decision has been reached in the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. RfAr. MarkSweep has been banned from editing and taking any administrative action with regard to userboxes.
• An incident report has been filed regarding the deletion of {{User review}}, citing consensus established in the previous deletion review and TfD discussions.

---

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates

( Global notice · Archives · Box histories )

• User admins ignoring policy, again!
• User vomit
• User Objectivism and User No Objectivism

---

TfD discussions

• User Thermostat Bicker - Relisted per DRV.
• User United Kingdom resident - Clone/fork of User United Kingdom.
• User SaintCliff
• User supports UN - Apparent clone/fork of User UN.

---

Insert {{WP:UB/A}} to add this box.

---

Logs · Proposed policy · Userfying userboxes

Speedied and protected by Doc glasgow. This came DESPITE the fact it was Mfd'd and kept.[2] and was kept after MarkSweep had speedied it.[3] All I have to say this is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

• Keep deleted. And the vitriol in this nomination is disturbing. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per previous DRV. —Andux^␅ 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a valid reason. You know how pissed I would be if the outcome in 2004 was "Speedy re-elect per 2000 election"?  :-O Cyde Weys 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The arguments presented in the old DRV are just as valid now as they were then. —Andux^␅ 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And since they were invalid then, they're invalid now. Brilliant. --Cyde Weys 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If they were invalid, then why was the template kept? Are you suggesting an improper closure of the previous debate? Misza13 ^{T C} 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted well, let the 'disgusting' admin explain himself. I deleted this template under t1 - as divisive. It has only one purpose, to act as a 'vote-stacking mechanism'. It is designed to allow a clique of like-minded people can be alerted to userbox debates. Within minutes of Misza13 bringing the template below to DRV, he listed it on this page to mobalise members of 'project userboxes'. The effect of this template is (ironically) to allow a cabal to abuse process, and game the system. It is clearly inflammatory and divisive that this able to happen. --Doc ^ask? 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  If you read the comments in the listed Tfd and DRV, you'll find that anti-userbox users used that page to keep track of the debates. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  OK, I've just researched this. In addition to being used on several pages concerning 'project userboxes', there are about 20 users including this in their userspace. All of them, yes, all of them, use/support political, polemical ect userboxes. So the idea that this is a neutral template of use to all irrespective of their views, is simply bullshit. Schoolswatch was being used by all sides, this isn't. It is a vote stacking mechanism.--Doc ^ask? 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  So? Is translusion on one's user page the only way to keep track of changes? I'm sure you have heard of Special:Watchlist. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted(see below 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)) - Vote stacking template. No, you may not build system-gaming machines out of Wikipedia templates. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps but after Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch failed to die the general idea appears to be tollerated.Geni 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Is there a picture of this userbox somewhere, is it like advertising the latest TfD requests or something? Homestarmy 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Important difference, Geni - Schoolwatch is at least about writing an encyclopedia. I also don't see that they have an alert template to "rally the troops" to deletion discussions, though maybe it's just not mentioned somewhere obvious. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  no it is about filling wikipedia with schoolcruft.Geni 01:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  +1, Funny --Cyde Weys 01:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  The inclusionists may have won that round but I'll be back the evil deletionist turns his cloak swirling dramaticaly and stalks out pauseing only to kick a passing puppy.12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted if it didn't come off with such a POV attitude about things like Marksweep and the "again" comment, i'd say this template might be nice. But come on, it's pretty biased looking :/. Homestarmy 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Why don't you help make this template NPOV then, instead of voting to delete it? TheJabberwʘck 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It's just a tool for votestacking. One replication is synced on toolserver, I can produce reports to prove that. --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template's only purpose is to electioneer for votes to manipulate consensus, and as such has no legitimate purpose. Burn it with fire. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Except it is not a template, thus not fails under T1. Wow, all your argument falls apart.  Grue  06:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would argue that, despite not being in the Template: namespace, it is being used exactly as a template would be (that is to say, being transcluded onto many other pages). If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... --Cyde Weys 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted obvious vote rigging ploy. --InShaneee 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and burn with fire per Kelly Martin. Ral315 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. This vote rigging, troop rallying nonsense has to end. Nhprman 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Only useful for skewing consensus, and therefore of no use whatsoever.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It's all been said in earlier KD votes. Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Have any of you actually read the contents of the box? We have made every effort to keep this box as a neutral report of userbox activity. All POV has been removed. If a factual listing of every userbox related debate is divisive then I guess the centralized discussion box is divisive too. How very absurd.--God Ω War 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per God of War. Avalon 06:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ridiculous out-of-process deletion.  Grue  06:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted ridiculous in process deletion. --pgk^(talk) 07:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Subst Undelete and add to the top of this page. I don't see the point of a template for something like this, but the box itself actually seems to be pretty valuable; I wasn't aware of a lot of the above developments at the top of the page, and in fact, when I first came to this section, I mistakenly thought (in part because the TOC is absent right now) that this was a cool new feature being added to the top of the "Deletion review" page, much like that old banner that was displayed here to let people vote on the proposed userbox policy. Keeping track of current events for something like this, considering that the policy state of userboxes is in such flux and disagreement, seems pretty beneficial. -Silence 08:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Its because of this kind of thing that this page (and others) is such a sh*tstorm. :P Votestacking device. -- Banez 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't mind it for the news. If it was reworded so that others wouldn't take offense, I suppose it would be better. But everyone will take offense at something, where do you draw the line? (Read: I understand others' reasons for its removal - than it can be read as divisive, etc). — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Not created in good faith. --Pjacobi 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive, factionalist, etc. Say what you like, but this was obviously created as a stimulus to encourage "keep" "votes" in userbox-related discussions. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD, because "vote stacking mechanism" is not a CSD. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  That may be. Thanks for agreeing that it's a vote-stacking mechanism. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't say it's a vote-stacking mechanism. I only invalidated KD votes based on this argument, regardless whether it's true. Thanks for agreeing that it may not be a CSD. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Never claimed it was a speedy on those grounds. It's certainly divisive. Vote-stacking tools are usually grounds for blocking. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Divisive? No. Informative? Yes. To quote Wikipedia:Vote Stacking (not a policy, but who cares?):

  Notification of individuals about an ongoing survey should be as neutral as possible.

  By all means you're welcome to edit the template to make it as neutral as possible.

  Notification of individuals about an ongoing survey should be as transparent as possible. Surveys must be listed in the most appropriate places to list surveys, and not listed in inappropriate places.

  Was Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts an inappropriate place? Go ahead and propose a better one. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. We've been through this before. It's not T1, i.e., not divisive. It is a tool. Vote stacking, if it exists, goes both ways. And I see no particular POV pushed here. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It has some useful links => it is useful => keep.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Fang Ali. TheJabberwʘck 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per preceding commentators. --Shawn 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per preceding commentators. —StrangerInParadise 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no valid reason whatsoever to speedy this. I express disapproval at fello administrators unilaterally deleting pages they don't like, especially when previously kept by consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Equivalent to a portal task list.--M@rēino 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's a fairly neutral (certainly not a divisive and inflammatory) template describing the goings on in the userbox part of Wikipedia, and is as justified as for example Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board having a list of relevant topics listed for deletion. It doesn't say "Come and vote keep on these debates!", it says "Here are deletion debates relevant to this project." Many of the people who use the links may indeed vote to delete in most of the listed discussions. With a clear MFD in favor of keeping it, this one should be undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - this provides useful information and says nothing divisive. Metamagician3000 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I really don't think it's divisive. Certainly not inflammatory.--Toffile 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Some have compared this box to the situation with Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I've noticed that, at least with the latter project, when they add a deletion discussion to their list, they post a note indicating so in the discussion. There's a webcomics project that does the same thing. If this template is kept in some form, then I would suggest a similar practice be adopted, for the sake of transparency. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the notes are a WikiProject Deletion Sorting thing; the AWNB just uses their list. —Andux^␅ 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Mailer Diablo 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete By listing active discussions on this subject, it serves the same purpose as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. The correct response to concerns it may be used for vote-stacking is to watch it, or include it yourself, and reply when it changes. Septentrionalis 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Per Sean Black. AnnH ♫ 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak undelete but reluctantly. This is very arguably T1-speediable, but was decided to be not in the previous discussion, and no new information has been brought up, so I'm inclined to apply stare decisis. The template itself seems neutral in wording, and is reporting information of interest to many users, even if it is currently in use mainly by pro-userbox users. Furthermore, since a large fraction of userbox related deletions come either here or at TfD, and a large fraction of TfDs are userboxes, they could simply put these two pages on their watchlists if they really wanted to. That said, GTBacchus is absolutely right that some form of notification would be good. I'm concerned about Sean Black's point, but it isn't obviously egregious at this point enough to empirically support it . JoshuaZ 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find the rather unanimous pattern of 'voting' in the last 24 hours rather peculiar and I wonder if someone can shed light on whether the "word has gone out" about this deletion review. It would be ironic if that was the case, given the comments made earlier about vote stacking and this template. Nhprman 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  You may notice that within 12 hours after nomination the pattern of voting was also rather... one-sided. So, what's your point again? And it's typical for a deletion discussion to go that way: at first people vote kd, and then someone presents a compelling argument to undelete and everyone votes undelete.  Grue  14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  And what was that compelling argument again? That aside, I'll give reasonable doubt to this issue, given your comments and those below, that there truly was a re-think by some posters. Thanks. Nhprman 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Even without regard to the presentation of new arguments, assuming a very naive model of 50% either way, the level of fluctuation here seems well within reasonably expected values. JoshuaZ 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think Grue's right. In fact, I'm changing my vote to undelete and list at TfD. I don't think it's encyclopedic at all, but it should at least have its day on TfD, because it is presented as neutrally as any similar box used by any project (except for some minor editorializing, which should be removed). I'll vote delete when it gets there, but I'm not so bold as to predict snow in April. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And as one of the late voters: there's another reason vote order is non-random. For my part, I looked at this earlier, decided that there was no point in opposing a then unanimous vote; and came back and voted when others had voted to undelete, and my opinion seemed likely to make a difference. Septentrionalis 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• This template exists only to enable vote-stacking by people who'd much rather abuse their userspace privileges than work on furthering the encyclopaedia. I don't see a compelling reason not to keep it deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with a stick. The only purpose of this template is to vote-stack and create apparent consensus where there is none. As such, it should be killed even if this very debate gets vote-stacked to create an illusion of consensus - David Gerard 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: it's a dynamic list of active votes, what else could it be interpreted as other than a call to arms? —Phil | Talk 14:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What a hilarious argument. Do you want to delete these ones as well? I also want to remind "vote-stacking" people that we're not voting here. There is no such thing as "vote-stacking" on Wikipedia.  Grue  17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • All right, call it a 'discussion loading' device if you like. This is a template designed to be put on the pages of userbox supporters to alert them to discussions in order to influence the outcome (can you deny that?), and it also lists RfCs and RfArs on admins they view as hostile. If you look at the wording of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. case, you will note how it only refers to the sanctions against 'anti-userbox admin' MarkSweep, and fails to mention that Guanaco was desysopped and Stranger in Paradise put on probation. This is about as 'loaded' as you can get. --Doc ^ask? 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then it should be changed to be devoid of POV. Isn't it obvious that this template could serve a good purpose? And thus, isn't the right solution to make the necessary changes rather than deleting it? TheJabberwʘck 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • How? No. And again no. --Doc ^ask? 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
          • As a helper for people such as you and myself, who are following the userbox debates. It saves time to have a centralized noticeboard related to these debates. TheJabberwʘck 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted.--Commander Keane 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - blatant vote-stacking mechanism, no contribution to the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, vote-stacking attempt. James F. (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this and any other vote-stacking devices. Alphax ^τεχ 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per previous MfD, per pervious comments. I fail to see how an anti-userbox voter could fail to find this template as useful as a pro-userbox voter (no mater how the template is worded) so I'd consider the vote-staking argument moot, since anyone could use this for notification. I have a feeling that if this passes it will open the floodgates on antother userbox kull, but this time more people will simply be kept out of the loop. oh well, when have openness and tranparency ever been an issue on Wikipedia?... Mike McGregor (Can) 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, why Speedy? why not TfD? is it because speedy gets rid of the notification before the (inevitialbe) vote? Mike McGregor (Can) 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Fang Ali. --Dragon695 00:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know why I didn't discuss more deeply on the content before, but the cute little comments after the entries in this template: ("Again!" and "Apparent clone/fork of User UN.") are POV commentaries and these kinds of notations should be deleted if for some reason this template is kept. Also, who is deciding WHICH Tfd's to place here, and which items to highlight? This seems very subjective, and tends to lead me to see this more as an anti-deletionist newspaper of sorts. Nhprman 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is vote-stacking. David | Talk 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't get myself to pick a side on this one. Anyone who's read my Wikibio knows how I feel about the speedy speedies by a handful of admins who seemed to be champing at the bit therefor; however, my first impression of this box was that it unnecessarily promotes an "us against them" mentality, and that impression remains. It should also be noted that when all non-Babel boxen go to userspace—and, they will, when the specifics are worked out—this box becomes moot. Call me neutral. RadioKirk talk to me 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak undelete Whats really wrong with it? Brian | (Talk) 23:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Encourages group action with goals totally tangential to what we do here. -- SCZenz 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and MfD, if it was kept before on MfD, I don't know how it could possibly be a speedy. --AySz88^-^ 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Its purpose is clearly to encourage ballot stuffing. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete if we're to keep any sense of fairness about XfD. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

This user is annoyed by admins ignoring the process.

• 2006-04-25 00:09:10 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy" (bloody obvious t1)

• Here we go again... No further comments. --Misza13 ^{T C} 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, again! --Misza13 ^{T C} 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Of course it's divisive. It explicity suggests division and divergence. Moreover, it's divisive within itself, as it claims (by its name) to be about policy but cites process in the text. That it also represents the worst sort of passive aggressive martyrdom is almost beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Claiming that one of the reasons something is "divisive" is because it's "divisive within itself", i.e., isn't consistent in what view it is expressing, is rather hilarious pseudologic. Although your first line of argument, "It explicity [sic] suggests division and divergence", is relatively valid (though "explicitly suggests" is almost an oxymoron, and "suggesting division and divergence" is a rather ridiculously over-general interpretation of "divisive"; by that logic, Babelboxes can be T1 speedied because they "suggest divergence" between different languages—and, using your word games, mathematical userboxes aren't acceptable because they "suggest division" :)), "inconsistency" is not a T1 criterion, and mutilating the word "divisive" to try to give it that implication is rather silly indeed. Moreover, it's unnecessary; surely there are much better arguments than both of the above for deleting a template like this! (Though even if there are, its controversial nature and long history suggests that a TfD is preferable here, not a crude speedy, unless this is recreation of deleted content.) -Silence 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Permanent Undelete We've been over this before. Rather than taking offense to this userbox, perhaps the admin could contact a user with this userbox and find out why that user is upset with an admin(s), and try to correct this problem. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Alternatively, the user in question could do that, as there as 800 admins, any one of whom the user could be angry with. Such a course of action would accomplish something. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Such a course of action won't accomplish anything and I know that from autopsy. It usually ends up with the user in question being, at best, plainly ignored, if not called a troll. Misza13 ^{T C} 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  I trust you aren't accusing anyone here of acting in that fashion. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Without digging into the lengthy talk page historys (dating february), I can point you to Doc's comment below, where he basically called all bearers of the template (myself included) "trolls". Tell me, how can I assume good faith after that and attempt further direct dispute resolution with him? Misza13 ^{T C} 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Judging from the comments you left on Doc's talk page, you weren't planning on it before you came here anyway. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's only 'again' because you brought it here. Useless trolling userbox, which does not belong in our template space. Of course it's 'bloody obviously' 'inflammatory and divisive' that's its very purpose. I've already offered that if anyone can't live without this, I will personally post the code to their userpage on request. But this does not, not, not, NOT, belong in the template space of an encyclopedia. Ridiculous. Oh keep deleting. --Doc ^ask? 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• The irony is hilarious. User:Kotepho/User admins ignoring process if you want it. Kotepho 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I can't see how making an attack on the wikipedia community wouldn't be considered 'divisive'. --InShaneee 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Can you point out which part of the community is attacked by the template? Misza13 ^{T C} 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Every admin who does something the user in question doesn't like? Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Not exactly. And your comment affirms me that people keep misunderstanding the meaning of the userbox. It rather strictly condemns admins that behave in an inappropriate way. Is there something wrong with that? Misza13 ^{T C} 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  The userbox is making a vauge attack on the admin community as a whole. If you've got a problem with an individual admin's behavior, a userbox is not the way to solve it. --InShaneee 23:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  First, I don't see how it attacks all admins, second (about contacting admins) refer to the "thread" above. Misza13 ^{T C} 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am....undecided. Upon examining the old TfD debate for this, I found one interesting bit of observation by one User:Blu something or another, he made a point that it is only divisive and inflammatory to the admins it applies to. Am I missing something here? Homestarmy 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ignoring process is absolutely not the same as ignoring policy - in fact, the two are often diametrically opposed. This is therefore simply tendentious. Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - attack template. What's more, admins ignoring process get a lot of good work done around here. Sometimes it bugs me, too, but I'd rather write an encyclopedia than Wikilawyer or complain about how, despite all the wikilawyering noise being made, there are still admins who hold common sense above red tape. Cheers to Kelly Martin for taking one for the team on New Year's by ignoring process and pointing out to everyone just how badly out-of-hand the userboxes had become. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Let me point out to all fellow Userbox Supporters that this Userbox does not help our cause. By creating bullcrap userboes just to attack, it only makes people more apathetic and sends the entire situation down the slippery slope. I say delete because this was obviously made for a certain attack purpose. Otherwise, I support all other userboxes as of right now. Shawn 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, simple T1. If you didn't see this one coming your third eye must be blind :-P Cyde Weys 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Another classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive/inflammatory. Probably also WP:POINT which is not a speedy criterion, but WP:SNOW and all... (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As tony said, classic T1. We'd be ignoring policy to undeleted it, and no one wants that! --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL, Catch-22. Perfect. --Cyde Weys 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nah it's pretty tivial to undelete it within policy (IAR). Doing it within process would be harder. The simplest way would be to list it on TFD and then undelete it if it doesn't get consensus for deletion. Other ways to delete it within process inculde going through a full formal policy debate to kill T1 or if the foundation insists on keeping it voteing for different candidates at the next board election.Geni 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per all the sane people above. Also encourages editors to be disrespectful of administrators, and decreases civility across the project. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Tu quoque. Calling people insane is not civil. Kotepho 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and put a concrete grave on top so it won't resurrect again. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per logic and sanity.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Incivil. If a process didn't go your way there's dispute resolution methods that you can use. But this just takes an aimless shot at a large group of editors...as pointless as it is meanspirited. Rx StrangeLove 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I do get annoyed at admin ignoring process sometimes; but, honestly, this template is divisive -- it is meant to be a salvo in the userbox conflict, for heavens' sake. A fair reading of T1 does support speedying this. Xoloz 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and this is after voting to undelete it the last two times. I tried making this template less anger-inciting by making it indicate the type of admins people liked rather than disliked, but I was reverted. It indicates that people want to use this template as a way of expressing anger more than anything else, and want to use it as an inflammatory rather than positive userbox. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it only divides reasonable users and admins who are detrimental to the project. Do you think "This user is annoyed by vandals" is a divisive userbox? This one falls in the same league.  Grue  06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  So admins are vandals, then? I want to see a list of admins who are described by this box. I want someone to come right out and say who this box describes, and why. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  There is no such list. But the deal is simple anyway. If you ignore the process, then I find you annoying. Is that complicated? I don't think so. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  I ask the question again. Who do you find annoying? Because the minute you take that template and replace "admins" with someone's name, it becomes a personal attack. The fact that you hide behind the phrase is insulting. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Admins who ignore policy are worse than vandals. Unlike vandals they actually have tools to harm Wikipedia. If you want examples, see WP:RFDA for list of former admins who were desysopped by ArbCom for ignoring policy.  Grue  17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, I'm aware of the page. I believe the most recent desysoping was Guanaco...for restoring userboxes. Did you have someone else in mind? Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Guanaco wasn't desysopped for restoring userboxes. He also isn't the most recent admin desysopped. And I didn't have anyone specific in mind.  Grue  19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sure he was. He was also desysopped for revert-warring over userboxes. But let's move on, because you still aren't making any sense. We know what it takes to get desysopped. Obviously these in-process speedies aren't it, else I, Doc glasgow, Mark Sweep, and Kelly Martin would have been hung from a lamp post ages ago. I put the question to you again. Who does this template refer to? Who can it refer to without being a personal attack? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well Mark Sweep was a bit battered by his latest arbcom case and KM had problems with the whole clerk thing. Personaly I don't view people being anoyed at my actions as a personal attack (indeed in many cases I would be suprised if they took any other position. Being blocked is anoying).Geni 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  "We got away with it, so it must be okay"? That's pretty weak line of reasoning. And of course, as Geni pointed out, MarkSweep was punished by ArbCom for deleting userboxes.  Grue  08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  What about the admin who's posting articles deleted by WP:OFFICE over at wikitruth? I was about to get all annoyed about that, before I realized that administrator=annoying is by definition an oxymoron, a literal impossibility. Besides, we already have a userbox that says anything a good Wikipedian would need to say about administrators. In fact, I was going to suggest that this userbox be not only allowed but required: Herostratus 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This user believes that Wikipedia administrators are incapable of error when speaking ex cathedra.

• Keep deleted clearly a T1 --pgk^(talk) 07:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It was voted on a month ago and kept. Now it's been T1ed. Exactly why the box is needed. Crumbsucker 07:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Another classic T1. -- Banez 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• (Changed my vote) and change text to "This user is annoyed by admins who ignore process." (there's a difference in the text, it offends anyone it applies to. If it doesn't apply to you, you needn't be offended). — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  The catch here is that those to whom this template applies are wrongdoers anyway. From the comments above I regretfully admit that people still don't get it and get inflamed when they shouldn't be. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  "Wrongdoers"? Please assume good faith, Misza13. A lot of good gets done by cutting Gordian Knots, and Wikipedia quite intentionally embraces the possibility of bypassing process when common sense dicates. (See Pillar 5.) The point is to write an encyclopedia, not to set up strict rules and follow them. If you think that Wikipedia should be a rule-bound exercise in due process, then make that argument, but don't attack (whether personally or not) those who, in good faith, disagree with you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Poor Wikipedia must be full of Gordian Knots then, if WP:IAR (which is not a policy, btw), the corollary to the fifth pillar, must be invoked so often. And with all due respect, if we don't set up a firm set of rules and follow them, then this project could soon turn into a complete anarchy. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  If we are full of Gordian knots, it is because process-adicts keep tying us up in them. Well, I'll go for Alexander's solution every time. --Doc ^ask? 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Misza13, of course there are Gordian knots everywhere, that's inevitable if you set up a large organization or if you try to write an encyclopedia. We've gone and done both. Wikipedia exists in a state of dynamic tension between WP:PI and WP:IAR (neither of which is policy - your pointing that out above indicates that you're still thinking legalistically). That dynamic tension is the point of having rules of thumb that contradict each other (like "haste makes waste"; but "he who hesitates is lost"). It works. Things get done. If we went all the way to either side, Wikipedia would die, of chaos in one direction, or of paralysis in the other. Our job is to grow gardens of red tape, and then prune the heck out of them by slicing the Gordian knots that inevitably arise. It's actually quite a remarkable and beautiful process. Some people fail to understand this, and want to be comforted by the security of a firm set of rules and guaranteed procedures. I guess we aren't doing a good enough job of communicating how Wikipedia is supposed to work, especially based on comments like CharonX's below, in which that user seems genuinely upset that we're subverting "due process" - which has never been guaranteed on Wikipedia, and would be a terrible idea that would destroy the project. Misza13, you say, "if we don't set up a firm set of rules and follow them, then this project could soon turn into a complete anarchy." First of all - we set up lots of rules, and we follow them in many, many cases. I follow process dozens of times for every one time I bypass it. Secondly, bypassing process when appropriate does not lead the project to "complete anarchy"; in fact, it's necessary to keep the project moving. Admins are allowed, even expected, to exercise their judgement regarding when to bypass process; the habits that emerge in this way eventually get codified as process. Again, it's remarkable, beautiful, organic, and much more functional than a rule-bound bureaucracy.

  Please at least consider that Wikipedia might really be as I've described it here, and that maybe it's ok - even good - for it to be that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  +1 Insightful. Thank you for this essay. I'll keep that in mind. Still, I must also state that I agree with CharonX, meaning that my general impression from this debate is that many previous supporters have grown weary of this war and have withdrawn for the sake of their mental health. I have also, out of frustration, substed all of my boxes. However, I have a brand new idea in my mind. In the following days, I'll try to create and propose a new policy on userboxes which (hopefully!) will gather more support than the previous ones and satisfy all sides. Wish me luck (or don't, whatever)! Misza13 ^{T C} 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, please! --Pjacobi 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1 is not up for debate. If you're actually interested in promoting the following of process, use {{User process}}, which makes exactly the same point without making weaselly attacks on people to whom you deny the right to defend themselves by not saying who they are. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Frank Maguire(abstain in person).Geni 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I would hope that this would inspire sadness, shame or a desire to do better in an admin who reads it, not anger or annoyance. TheJabberwʘck 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  As an admin, I consider myself to be doing a good job when I can discern when I should follow process, and when I should bypass it. This userbox makes me kind of sad that so many people don't understand that Wikipedia works that way, and think that we need to be rule-bound in order to be functional. Kind of like trying to surf while keeping one hand on the beach. An admin would be pretty silly to feel "shame" about bypassing process when appropriate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  All right, I'll accept that. Still, don't you agree that it would be better to ask people who use that userbox why they use it, and to listen to their responses and possibly work towards positive changes, than to delete the userbox and frustrate the ability of these editors to express their feelings? TheJabberwʘck 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe. Maybe that's why I'm expending so much verbiage right now. Still, we're phasing these opinionated userboxes out, and this is one centralized place where this conversation can happen. I don't really buy that anyone's ability to express their feelings is taken away, when they can just subst the darn code onto their page and express the same feeling. The best solution - a long term one - is to more effectively communicate our philosophy to newcomers and prevent anyone getting the impression (a) that opinionated bumper-stickering is somehow part of what goes on here and (b) that Wikipedia makes or should make any attempt to guarantee "due process" or to be entirely rule-driven. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  I guess I don't see the harm of this userbox as a userbox. If it can be subst:ed, why should it matter if it's a template? I do see (minor) harm in the form of annoyance (ugly and hard to modify code) and wasted time (doing the subst:, the lack of centralized updates) in subst:ing.

  I have to disagree with both (a) and (b). The people are what make this place fun for me, and the "bumper-stickering" is a big part of how I learn about other editors. And due process, though of course not legally required, has worked for America and I think will/would work for Wikipedia. I just wrote a lot about that at User talk:Gmaxwell.

  Anyway, regardless, I still vote undelete because TFD seems a much more civil way to go about things. Some templates are obvious CSD candidates, but this one is obviously not. It's got a history and a lot of support. And the TFD process is just better overall. Instead of finding your userpage changed without your knowledge, you see a little link within one of your userboxes and are able to go vote on the use of the template. Also, the template is still extant during voting for usage checks and/or modifications. And the TFD process is in an "innocent until proven guilty" form, whereas this is kind of like the Star Chamber. TheJabberwʘck 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. The "Policy? Due Process? I have power and I use it." attitude of some admins makes me sad. "So what if a Template survived a TfD and was restored by a Deletion Review... We'll just keep on deleting it till the supporters give up. For we have the POWER." I understand that they only do what they think is right. But what use is policy when even those that are supposed to enforce it, ignore it. So... goodbye all. CharonX 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as a userbox expressedly against admin corruption is the most democratic thing i've seen in a while and can only be a good thing. --Shawn 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This could only be seen as divisive if there were a significant party in favor of admins ignoring process, is there? —StrangerInParadise 05:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep deleted - T1 has its use, admins put up with enough crap at times, we don't need an attack userbox -- Tawker 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it's a thinly disguised personal attack. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and change to admins WHO ignore the process. With that change, it would no longer be divisive, because it would imply that it is against the norm for admins to ignore process (which I happen to believe is true -- most admins follow the rules very closely).--M@rēino 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is clearly divisive and unhelpful. It is not like a mere statement of an editor's philosophical beliefs (say) but is a standing contribution to the wars that go on around here. Metamagician3000 14:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  As I said above, you can take it divisively, or not. Certainly some use the template as an attack. But for others it's a way to try and make a positive change. TheJabberwʘck 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm actually tempted to change my vote to undelete on the basis that the community has (some of you seem to be saying) already spoken on this template. Once a decision is made it should be honoured. However, I see this template as exceptional. It is part of the problem we have with the unnecessary wars here. I think this particular template has to go, but I also think that people should generally stop redeleting userboxes that have already been the subject of a vote. Metamagician3000 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not quite an attack, but certainly unhelpful and unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, absolutely definitely divisive. James F. (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  How is it divisive? Clue me in, I don't get it. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, doublespeak. Alphax ^τεχ 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Permanent Undelete. Like Ronald Regan said, "There you go again." Doc you need to find something better to do. --Dragon695 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is amusing. Three TFDs; this is its third DRV. Man, this is a debate that just won't die, will it? Undelete per the consensus of the five previous dicussions. Hbdragon88 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is a case of a few people bringing it up again and again and again until they get the outcome they want. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Definitely divisive - it attacks a section of the Wikipedia community. David | Talk 09:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, those poor oppressed people who don't want to hold themselves to the standards they are supposed to encourage and if necessary enforce. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reword to the more specific "those admins who ignore the process" and recreate in users' spaces. RadioKirk talk to me 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and repeat after me: process is not an end in itself. Now go back to writing an encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 08:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  No, it is a means to an end; but if everyone ignored process we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete If there are admins who abuse their position (which there undoubtedly are), what's so wrong with acknowledging this? It is not an attack, but a statement that not everything here is as wonderful as it could be. romarin[talk to her ] 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and revert wording, because I think the wording was tamer before IIRC. I'd agree the new wording is pretty inflammatory right now towards those who've been accused (who haven't necessarily been proven). --AySz88^-^ 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete' and Enforce the ruling of DRV.--God Ω War 05:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this userbox is not an "attack userbox"; as says nathanrdotcom, if it doesn't concern you, you needn't be offended! Even if I was an admin, I would be annoyed by other admins who ignore process. I also support rewording it to "This user is annoyed by admins who ignore process", maybe fewer admins will feel concerned. IronChris | (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definite permanent Delete This is ridiculous. It is an absolute joke that we're even discussing this. Admins should be shown a certain level of respect. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  Even those who ignore process, i.e., those who violate the very rules and practices they are supposed to encourage? --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete (edit conflict) How can a userbox that encourages following process be a bad thing? I might suggest replacing admins with users though; however, I will agree that admins should be observed more critically than other users as they have quite a bit more power than others, and when they ignore policy, it's quite a bit harder to revert their changes. This would only be an attack, IMO, if it named specific admins or situations. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 09:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  You say you voted for the "Ex cathedra" one. I'd like to inform you that it's not being voted here, as it is not a template. It only flushed to the left because of a bad formatting, which I've fixed. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted; attack userbox -- Karada 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Permanent undelete. While I appreciate admins feeling besieged and am not a big fan of userboxes, I'd like to point out that a) this matter has been voted on at least three times before, all with the same outcome; and b) there is nothing obviously divisive about it at all. Doc Glasgow's unilateral act in fact illustrates the point rather well. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - wait, wait, wait. Could it be this is all a result of ambiguous wording? Just to be clear, my view is that the userbox only applies to the (hopefully small) minority of admins that apply different (and more lenient) standards to their own conduct than to others'. Just to be perfectly clear, it is not - at least in my mind - targeted at the admin community as a whole. It rather makes the opposite point, at least implicitly - that the community as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for the bad behavior of a few. I'm opening to rewording it to make this completely clear, of course. --Leifern 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted No-one likes it when admins ignore process, so the userbox adds no value. If you want to say that a specific admin is ignoring process, there are proper channels for that. And if you believe that large numbers of admins ignore process, then you don't understand process, and you probably don't want to go broadcasting the fact. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Wiki censorship at it's very worst.--TheMadTim 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive

• 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)