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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cyde (talk | contribs)
28,155 edits
Line 36: Line 36:
*'''Keep deleted''' More junk. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' More junk. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', though perhaps we could create a separate wiki for the kindergarten crowd. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', though perhaps we could create a separate wiki for the kindergarten crowd. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
**''LOL'' great suggestion. --[[User:Cyde|<font color="#0055aa"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''Cyde&nbsp;Weys'''</span></font>]] 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


===[[Template:User Objectivism]] / [[Template:User No Objectivism]]===
===[[Template:User Objectivism]] / [[Template:User No Objectivism]]===

Revision as of 22:24, 23 April 2006

Please take general discussion to the talk page.

April 16, 2006

Template:User vomit

File:Vomit.JPG This user just vomited all over their computer. Ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This userbox has been repeatedly deleted, and now has been protected from creation. Tony Sidaway says that this is T1. Below are my comments about this action, as posted on the talk page for this userbox:

This has got to be one of the more bizarre deletions I've ever had to witness. Why must this page be protected? This was an admin's reason for deleting this userbox.

  1. (Divisive and inflammatory to millions of starving kids worldwide who can't afford FOOD let alone COMPUTERS.)

I'm no admin, but I highly that truly is a serious reason to delete a userbox. And this being "T1" and divisive? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Here's the dictionary terms for "divisive" and "inflammatory."

  1. Divisive-"Creating disagreement or disunity."
  2. Inflammatory-"Rousing excitement, anger, etc; of or caused by inflammation."

If someone can tell me how a harmless userbox like this fits any of these categories, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism

rand This user strongly supports the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand.
rand This user strongly opposes all aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy.


  • Deleted by Dmcdevit for being "divisive", which is suspicious, given the myriad other such userboxes left untouched. -Objectivist-C 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested Objectivist-C take his dispute of my deletion here, rather than recreate the template (as he did the first time). I deleted both these templates together as a clearcut reading of the CSD. My reasoning was simple: these are divisive templates. As I explained when he asked me about it, there are plenty of templates that don't contribute to the encyclopedia that I'm fine with, but these ones were blatantly factionalizing, so I thought they were harmful. As for similar ones, that may be, but the existence of divisive templates doesn't justify the existence of divisive templates. And, for obvious reasons, I'm not about to go on a deletion spree in what is still a controversial arena. (Two is enough for this month for me.) I'm not sure what aspect of the deletion is in dispute. In any case, I recommend that we keep deleted. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll repeat my argument that anything in the Beliefs, Political Parties, Regional Politics, or Religion sections is going to be divisive to some extent. Why these two in particular? -Objectivist-C 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both deleted. Divisive templates, correct application of T1. We can't delete them all divisive userboxes at once, but that's no reason not to keep after them. These two have no more been singled out than the last two divisive templates deleted, nor the next two, nor the two after those, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Still failing to see how they're divisive, unless you expect Wikipedians to forms some sort of homogeneous blob. -Objectivist-C 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The best, most creative, and most individualistic userpages here use no userboxes. Wikipedians will not ever form a homogeneous blob, but we can establish a culture that this is a place where we set our ideological convictions aside and focus on writing an NPOV encyclopedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. These are just the type that Jimbo mentioned when talking about what it is to be a Wikipedian: "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." Fully justified T1 deletion. Rx StrangeLove 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the T1 policy set out? -Objectivist-C 06:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's basically felt out by community practice and some attempt to record that practice is made at WP:CSD. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for both templates. Again, why are we wasting our time on stuff like this? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, what does compel you to contribute? -Objectivist-C 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What compels you to contribute?! Your account is only two days old and in that time you've almost exclusively been involved in userboxes, to a degree much more than an actual new user would be. And you seem to know Kelly Martin's history well. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you seem to know Kelly Martin's history well.
Not really, have I unintentionally referenced something? -Objectivist-C 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I am beginning to suspect that these userbox deletions are being chosen at random, they seem to have so little with T1. No, this neither divisive nor inflammatory. Let me explain a little further: most people who put up either userbox would welcome seeing either userbox elsewhere just to see the spectrum of belief which is interesting. To assume that it is to gird oneself up for a harmful dispute is unreasonable- and more importantly unproven. More userboxes, not less! StrangerInParadise 09:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I am beginning to suspect that these userbox deletions are being chosen at random, they seem to have so little with T1." What's that, another assumption of bad faith? It think I showed clearly that this wasn't random, and the many agreements with my deletion demonstrate that, and if you weren't sure, you could have just asked. I'm a patient person with this sort of thing, but, since I'm acquainted with your history, I'm fairly certain casting aspersions was your intention. Please don't. Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You assume bad faith in error, and oblique references to my history are themselves quite uncivil. Although your listing did seem intentional (if ill-advised), my remark on randomness was on the last several userbox deletions including this one, almost all of which are without evidence of any actual divisiveness. It does appear (given the consistently poor relevance to T1) as if they are picked at random. The more likely cause, however, is the confusion of divisive politics in the outside world with actual divisiveness here on Wikipedia, which is a misapplication of T1. When you take that with how many of the keep deleted comments have nothing to do with T1 (e.g. unencyclopedic, useless), early discussion closures, etc, one cannot help but wonder whether this isn't just deletion of userboxes for its own sake. I keep hoping someone will actually consider policy, like whether deleting userboxes rather than listing them for TfD isn't a breach of process. StrangerInParadise 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can have your own opinions, that's fine, just don't cast aspersions on my good faith. Now calling me "quite uncivil" for saying so is downright silly. I mention your history for one simple reason: I personally wrote the remedy putting you on personal attack parole in your last arbitration case, and included language widening it to include assumptions of bad faith, for exactly this kind of incivility. After extensive discussions with myself on-wiki and on IRC, and with other arbitrators, and warnings from others before the arbitration, and now having been put on parole, damn right I'm irritated that you don't seem give a whit and continue the assumptions of bad faith. I never have and don't plan to take a part in userbox conflicts, and I didn't even engage you on your reasoning. Just stop assuming bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, there was no assumption by me of bad faith on your part, though it is clear you have assumed bad faith on my part. Also, I did not call you quite uncivil, I said your references to my history were quite uncivil, which you've just compounded severely by draging the ArbCom process into it (hint: you should have taken it to my talk page). And, yes, you did personally write the ArbCom remedy, and intentionally gave it the widest possible application, and supported it by mischaracterizing my actions, just as you have done here. You are an arbiter, I'm just an editor: if you intend to continue to pursue me like this, there is little I can do about it. BTW, you deleted two userboxes, I explained that this was out of policy: perhaps you should engage me on my reasoning, rather than complaining how you feel slighted that your motives appear to have been questioned. I didn't question your motives, I questioned your judgement: that is what this page is for. —StrangerInParadise 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh please. Now I'm "pursuing you" for responding to your comment disputing my own deletion? And accusing people of deleting templates randomly is not an assumption of bad faith? And now I "mischaracterized" your actions (but somehow 10 arbitrators unanimously agrred to the parole)? And reminding you of that in asking you to stop is uncivil? And I'm assuming bad faith? Your incivility is getting worse, not better. I gladly submit my deletion to community review and will undelete them if that is the consensus; but this page is for disputing deletions, nor deleters. I suggest you quit it (which was the point of my first comment, which you continue to disregard). Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I commented about the seeming randomness of deletions, you took it personally and went after me: it is you who have assumed bad faith and behaved uncivily. Has it occurred to you that you were wrong from the first? —StrangerInParadise 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That last bit is a glaring appeal to semantics. "Random deletions" occur because deleters delete randomly (and there's your assumption of bad faith). When I say comment on the deletion, I mean comment on the merit of it not the motive behind it. In any case, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer. My multiple warnings stand, and I'll enforce them myself if need be. Dmcdevit·t 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I say again, userboxes cannot create divisions. They can only reflect them. The only adults without an opinion on anything are stupid. We should not try to hide these but proclaim them, so that other editors may know our biases. POV must be kept out of the articles but should be revealed on the user page. Doing it with little coloured boxes is as good a way as any. I see no evidence that anybody sporting one of the boxes on their userpage would be unable to work with a person displaying the other. (Most of us) are not clue-less robots. It is harmful to the encyclopedia (because it's based on a lie) to pretend that editors are opinion-less automatons. Perhaps we should abolish userpages and all use a number instead of a user name? Avalon 09:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is the problem with divisiveness? If people will have opinions of their own and not violate the NPOV rule because of it (as they already do), then what's the problem? By the way, you were the one who mentioned the NPOV rule originally. -- LGagnon 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is not a free Web host, and is not a free speech zone. So the idea that we should announce ALL of our biases (or any of them) on the User page is foreign to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, frankly. Most of us don't walk around with our biases printed our our T-shirts, yet people seem to be able to discover our biases by our actions and interactions with others. The same is true with edits. They are self-evident and a discovery of motive is not necessary and seems a violation of the concept of Assuming Good Faith. Nhprman 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2006

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

temp This user bickers with their significant other or co-workers about the thermostat setting.

*keep deleted waste of time, not useful for writing an encyclopedia and not funny. JoshuaZ 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Undelete and list at TfD While it is stupid, not funny and not useful writing an encyclopedia, it doesn't meet T1. JoshuaZ 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete - I think that far too many userboxes have been left undeleted that should be, but this isn't one of them. If someone wants to goof off a bit, oh well. There's no plausible way this could be used for "vote" stacking, nor do I know of any acromonious divides this can enhance. Thus, I don't think it qualifies for T1, and shouldn't be deleted. Michael Ralston 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete This is getting old. This is neither divisive nor inflammatory. What it is, however, is silly and there's no rule whatsoever against silly userboxes. What we do need is more admins with a properly functioning sense of humour and who will follow policy. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete this is neither divisive nor imflamatory Where (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position, I support the undeletion of this userbox because Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that userboxes can only be undeleted if they meet CSD. I read through the CSD, and none of the criteria in it apply to this userbox. It is not patent nonsense; it is not divisive or inflamatory; it is not a "test" userbox; it is not vandalism; etc. Thus, this deletion goes against Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and is therefore illegal. We cannot tolerate policy violations like this, or they will only grow in severity. But I would support this userbox's deletion on a TFD. Where (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is claiming that it is a T1, it was deleted as 'not encyclopedic'. --Doc ask? 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy deleted. The only valid reasons for speedy deleting a userbox are (a)T1, or (b) if it would obviously fail a TfD. As I pointed out above, it is far from obvious that it would fail a TfD, so Kelly Martin must feei it's divisive and inflammatory. Lefty 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not encyclopedic" is not a WP:CSD. If no CSD is advanced as a justification, then absent an application of WP:SNOW, this template must be subject to typical consensus-building deliberation. As I find the template funny, and I believe humor aids the Wikipedia community, I cannot apply WP:SNOW in good-faith. Hence, my choice. Xoloz 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions

See /Archive

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archived&oldid=49820284"