Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 11

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

Inappropriate Application of T1. Cyde claims that this is "divisive" which is just a thinly veiled excuse to force another userbox to User space. The template and the essay that it refer to are intended to help editors think about the userbox discussions in an informative, albeit somewhat humorous, fashion. This template and its inclusion on user pages is not divisive, but conciliatory. It has done a great deal of good in bringing people to see each other's points of view on this Wiki issue more openly. Forcing this particular template to user space will lessen the effectiveness of the discussion because several of those involved in the discussion believe that this is exactly the sort of template that should be allowed to remain in Template. Forcing them all to User is inflammatory in and of itself. In any case, a speedy delete per T1 was rushed and probably inappropriate. NThurston 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• What was the text? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has read the essay on userbox personalities and might be a Centrist.

Users can put whatever categorization they prefer in place of "Centrist." --NThurston 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Do not endorse deletion, but see no major issue with it being in userspace as it is now. Certainly wasn't a T1, in any regard, but it continues to exist, so there doesn't appear to be a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Remember this is about process, not necessarily outcomes. The question is whether Cyde should have used Speedy Delete (T1). In my opinion, T1 was mis-applied. At a minimum, this should have gone to MfD, where a discussion about Template vs. User could have taken place. As is, Cyde is imposing a userfication that may or may not be justified, and this case in particular shows why that imposition is not appropriate while the discussion on userboxes continues. --NThurston 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, DRV is necessarily about outcomes. When an incorrect process gives a possibly-incorrect result, DRV is empowered to correct it. If an incorrect process produces the right result, then we have nothing to do - correcting the process is beyond the scope of DRV. Chris cheese whine 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion while I'm here. This didn't belong in Template space -- any reference to the userbox war in template space is an automatic T1. Properly userfied, where it belongs. Xoloz 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz, that was exactly what I was thinking when I got rid of it. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse userfication. Boarderline T1, but nothing is gained by undeleting since clearly should be in User rather than Template space. Eluchil404 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse userfication and deletion If it was properly userfied I have no issues with the deletion. CharonX/talk 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And theoretically, even if it wasn't properly userfied, then userfying it should be the outcome of a debate like this, not restoring it as a template. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course. If it had not been userfied before deletion my "issue" would have been that it had not been userfied before deletion. Okay, now that sounded weird. CharonX/talk 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• FYI, the box already exists at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay. Userfied (and ironic, concidering it's about a userbox personality essay). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be out of Template: and into userspace, which is precisely what happened. Precisely how it happened is none of our concern. Chris cheese whine 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse userfication, since little is gained by having two copies of the same userbox. However, I state for the record that T1 shouldn't have been used as the criterion for deletion (it was not, as far as I know, actually causing any divisions or controversy amongst the community); it would have been easy enough just to use its redundancy as the reason for deletion. CameoAppearance ^orate 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete It's the right thing to do. Some of the other comments here can be less harsh in tone, though. Xiner 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - it's not an appropriate use of template space to promote userspace content. By the way, the image of the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is obviously mistagged (I will correct it) and is a non-free image. It should not be used in userspace. BigDT 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't care if it is in template namespace or userspace. Note: this template is an exact copy from the one in userspace, originally by the same editor. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. It's already been userfied, so I've no problem with kicking it out of templatespace. jgp ^T_C 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Request to Close Since it is apparent that a consensus is emerging, I see no point in furthering this discussion. However, I would like to note that there is some feeling that Cyde did mis-apply T1 in this case. I presume he used T1 because there was no other criterion to justify Speedy Delete. So, the bottom line is - yeah, maybe it shouldn't have been a Speedy Delete, but "oh well" the outcome is not that bad, so what the hay. While there is something fundamental about this approach to editing that bothers me, I accept that this is the consensus. --NThurston 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to NThurston - What an incredibly arrogant and bad faith assertion you make above. Simply because you don't like the rules doesn't mean Cyde is abusing them. It's divisive because it invokes that pile of crap people call the userbox war. It was in template space. Kindly explain to me using logic and not "Gee I'm going to make a wild accusation of Cyde making up a reason to delete my thingie". --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Elaragirl - I have responded on your talk page. To the rest - I think you should know that Royalguard has done more to calm the userbox war than the rest of us put together. The personality essay has helped to bring people together, not drive us apart. He deserves some credit and/or recognition for being willing to talk about what makes us different. Understanding is the key to progress. --NThurston 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/userfy - no reason for this to be in existence as a template. Moreschi 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The template, like the page it directs you to, is divisive and polemic crap. Valid T1. Proto::► 11:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that way to me; all it does is sort the existing attitudes towards userboxes into categories. How did you draw that conclusion? CameoAppearance ^orate 09:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

I'm shocked that the page was deemed inflammatory, when I didn't disparage anyone but am just stating what many pro-choice people believe, that we're pro-life, too. If the page is T1 then so is every pro-life page that is against choice, b/c they're saying we're against life. I'd also have liked a notice on my talk page about the deletion and about my "inflammatory" behavior, because if I'm guilty of such behavior, I should be warned against it. Xiner 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I just realized how difficult it is for anyone to form an opinion about this case if they don't know the original text. It was, as I recall, a userbox saying "Abortion|This user is pro-life and pro-choice". I wrote it with WP:GUS in mind. I hope no one got defensive about my mentioning the violence against abortion clinics? Xiner 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I have not seen a cogent argument for speedily deleting my page. I thus feel Dmcdevit abused his admin privileges in this case and has filed a grievance at the appropriate page. Xiner 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "I'm just stating what I believe" doesn't keep something from being inflammatory. Please direct me to these other pages you're complaining about so I can nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pro-Life_Wikipedians is a prominent example of what I'm talking about, and openly too while my page sat in my user space. I am also complaining about the speedy deletion that took place. While you promised to nominate the pro-lifer pages for deletion, my page was deleted without a whimper. Xiner 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  WP:INN is a good essay to read in this case. This is a wiki, and deletion is necessarily inconsistent, if only because rightfully deleting one thing does not obligate someone to undertake rightfully deleting everything of the same type. If you actually want that page deleted, that's another thing, but its existence offers no argument for keeping your page. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  When I found the pro-lifer category, I wanted to nominate it for deletion, but decided to present a balancing view instead, which is now removed from Wikipedia. I'm waiting for Amarkov to do something about that page now. Xiner 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  I assumed they were like yours. They are just like the standard pro-choice userbox, which wasn't deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  I knew it. The only differences between mine and theirs is that theirs is in Template and Category while mine is in my userspace, and theirs implies I'm against life while mine just says everyone is pro-life. Can I say Biased Admin? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Since you won't do it, I've listed the related categories for renaming. Xiner 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia aims for neutrality, and templates used for transcluding POV advocacy and organizing Wikipedians by POV serve no productive purpose. That is why this userbox was deleted as divisive. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, my page says an abortion supporter also supports life, while the pro-lifers' page implies I'm against life. Which is divisive? I'd also argue that deleting my page removes an inclusive point of view and is thus a divisive act itself. Xiner 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what your POV advocacy was, just that it was. Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Funny the only thing you've said is that my page violates something. How about a substantive debate? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, provided that the content was something along the lines of "This user is pro-choice" and not "This user supports the slaughter of unborn babies". It was in userspace, and WP:GUS was applied for userboxes of a political or religious nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Exactly. My page falls under GUS while their pages fall under Template namespace rules. Apparently some admins find "This user is pro-life and pro-choice" inflammatory. Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, list at TfD. Speedy may have been proper, but it seems controversial enough where a better hearing should probably happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for admitting at least that much. May I ask why I can't say I support life? Xiner 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't really care what you state, honestly. But if it's obviously this controversial, you should be able to make your case in the proper forum. I don't know how it was worded at the time of deletion, so I don't want to make any real judgement calls. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It makes me wonder what made this userbox so obnoxious and vile that it required speedy deletion. If Dmcdevit feels this box should be gone he should take it to MfD rather than going straight for the delete button. CharonX/talk 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So that people know what is at issue, here is the most recent version of this deleted usebox:

- TexasAndroid 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete not so inflamatory as to be a speedy candidate in userspace. Should be deleted through MfD instead. Eluchil404 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to MfD, that userbox isn't inflammatory enough to warrant a T1 deletion. Better to send it to a deletion debate rather than delete it outright, because this would definitely be a controversial issue. --Coredesat 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Jimbo: "The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that." (from WP:JOU) -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per GTBacchus. T1 should not be applied to userfied userboxes. --NThurston 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as I did. I've been off-wiki for a while, so I had no clue this was already here when I restored it as a simple mistake. Seeing now that it is, I must support undeletion. The box is userfied. T1 deletions of userfied content are very bad, as they threat to reignite the Userbox Wars. If a userfied box is egregiously bad, it will violate G10, and may be speedied. This box doesn't so violate, and deserves a hearing at MfD. Xoloz 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Having now seen the deleted userbox, this does not merit a T1 deletion, especially in userspace. MfD is optional in my mind, so I really don't care whether it receives an MfD nomination. GRBerry 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn & Undelete as a WP:GUSed userbox. Honestly, this was suppose to solve all of this, not just delay inevitable deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Send to MfD. I think the correct result originally happened (POV advocacy is bad regardless of which side is doing it), but I think enough people object that a debate is warranted. Chris cheese whine 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  But it's ok to say you "will not stand for American 'English' (common grammatical and spelling errors mistaken for dialect)"? Xiner 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Damn straight. You did read the big bright bold messages at the top of my userpage, right? Chris cheese whine 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  But mine, well, that's another story. Xiner 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  My non-template patently-humorous box can stay while your template-in-userspace deadly-serious POV box might have to go, that's so obviously discrimination. Here, have a cookie. Chris cheese whine 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  What to someone is "patently-humorous" may not be to someone else. If you think my userbox is deadly serious, you're sadly mistaken. Xiner 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete; T1 is not a valid criterion for the speedy deletion of userfied userboxes. Perhaps put it on MfD instead, since its content seems at least somewhat objectionable, but T1 does not apply. CameoAppearance ^orate 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory about this box. It shows someone can be pro-abortion and pro-life at the same time. It actually tries to stop those inflammatory situations that arise from who think they're mutually exclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. If it's in userspace, it shouldn't be deleted. jgp ^T_C 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hm: This was undeleted quite a while ago, with no objection from me. Please spend your time doing something more useful before looking at this. :-) Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to close per Dmcdevit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only reason you've stopped objecting to the undeletion is the overwhelming consensus of your peers. I still think it's an abuse of adminship, but regardless, this case itself is due for an end. Xiner 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete, MfD please if you want to. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn & Undelete There is no way that this is the kind of noncontroversial deletion envisioned by CSD. While assuming good faith, I do think that a disinterested party should look at whether sanctions on the original deletion are in order for the following reasons: First, this userbox is in User space, not Template space, so T1 is, by my reading, inapplicable. Second, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would consider the deletion of a userfied userbox as noncontroversial, much less the deletion of a userfied userbox dealing with abortion. Undelete it, leave it be, & edit articles instead. --Ssbohio 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Halo2Leagues.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

This page is not spam, we are posting information about a free leagues website. If MLG has the right to a page we should also have that same right. CBTS Pennywise1 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per sixth word of the above nomination, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your site. No version of the article asserted notability despite repeated recreation, let alone verified it with reference to non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. No-one has the "right" to a page, see WP:INN. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• See WP:ILIKEIT, that one article exists is not automatic permission for any article on the same subject to stay around... if whatever MLG is doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, feel free to nominate it for deletion. --W.marsh 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - the page was actually up for about a week or two before it was deleted, so deleting it then was a little harsh. Regarding verification and reliable sources - I own the site, so anything quoted on that page can be sourced from the site - most of the info is on the "About H2L" page. I feel that information that appears on our site which describes it, it's purpose, features and history should be included in an encyclopedia, as it is worthy content. And also MLG was nominated for deletion before, but managed to remain after it was voted to keep the page. Can I also add - if you guys seem to think that our page the way it was didn't comply with your views - how should we create it so that it will be worthy of being in the encyclopedia? --- TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think you'd be a neutral source about yourself, and certainly your site by itself is not enough to support your article. Try independent non-trivial material from reliable sources instead. If you're talking about Major League Gaming as the article that was kept, you'll see references from MSNBC and Gamespot in that article. ColourBurst 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this was a valid A7. Also per W.marsh, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:INN. --Coredesat 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid CSD A7 and WP:COI issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:NOT and yes, this is spam. Xiner 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, salt, blacklist - Per above reasons and perhaps even corporate vanity. -WarthogDemon 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)