Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template:User ProIsrael 2 Template:User varied sex 3 Template:User Triceratops Accident 4 Template:User antiuserboxdeletion 5 Template:User Darwinist 6 User:UBX/Communist 7 Template:User No Marxism 8 Template:User infidel 9 Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master 10 Template:User against Saud 11 Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist

[edit] Template:User ProIsrael

Sean Black deleted "Template:User ProIsrael" for reason: Divisive. This template said simply "This user supports the continued existence of a free and independent Israel." Exactly how expressing the desire of a nation not to be "wiped off the map" is divisive is beyond me. Isn't "this use advocates the use a [[serial comma]" also divisive to some degree? —Aiden 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per TX. Metamagician3000 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure A divisive political viewpoint with no encyclopedic value. Also shouldn't this be on the Userbox deletion review page? JoshuaZ 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Acceptable discretionary use of T1. The subject of Israel and its relations with its is among the most polarizing issues in global affairs today. In contrast, to my knowledge anyway, no war has been fought over the serial comma yet. Xoloz 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • must... kill... evil infidels who don't use serial comma.... JoshuaZ 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Though I'm normally against deleting userboxes, this is one of those that truely qualifies as decisive and/or inflammatory. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• About as clearcut as you could ask for, IMHO. Endorse closure keep deleted... (and thank you to whoever moved it to DRVU from DRV) ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - while I 100% agree with a free and independant Israel, I wouldn't want the other side to make a userbox that says, "this user opposes the existence of Israel". If you would like, I have a section in my userspace - User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes - feel free to post the code for that userbox in either the Judaism or the Religion in General section. That way, anyone who wants to can copy/paste the code from there onto their own user page. BigDT 03:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This is exactly what T1, T2, and Jimbo's views are all about. --Cyde Weys 08:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - absolutely cut and dry. Nandesuka 11:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - unfortunately, falls under T2. Can always be restored if a better policy is implemented. TheJabberwʘck 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, good riddance to something divisive. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User varied sex

A userbox celebrating masterbation. I deleted this on May 8th as blatently unencyclopedic, a waste of resources and potentialy offensive. User:Sceptre undelted it today, in contravention of Arbcom's rulings against reversing admin action without prior discussion [1]. Since I'm not going to wheel war with him, I bring my original deletion here for endorsement or otherwise.--Doc ^ask? 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endose my deletion I believe it was appropriate use of IAR to remove pointless crap from wikipedia template space. We don't need to celebrate wanking here. --Doc ^ask? 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete encyclopedicity is not a CSD.  Grue  16:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, per above. It's funny, though crude. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: this does nothing to promote the building of the encyclopedia in any way, shape or form. —Phil | Talk 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted More junk, some could find offensive perhaps some might find some vague amusement in it for a passing second, can't see any actual value in it, userfy if you must. --pgk^(talk) 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Sceptre's action was an out-of-process undeletion of a valid speedy. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Enough is enough. "Funny" is not an adequate justification for wasting everyone's time with these templates. Nandesuka 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it really should have gone through TFD because I'm not seeing how it fits T1 or T2. Divisive and inflammatory? Not really. Divisive or inflammatory? Still no. Professes a personal belief, ideology, etc? Not seeing it. Also, when did arbcom make 0WW policy or for that matter when did arbcom start making policy? Kotepho 17:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  A long time ago. Please don't make the mistake of rules-lawyering. The Arbcom has made it abundantly clear that "wheel-warring," the undiscussed reversion of an administrative action, is grounds for desysoping. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  It has made it clear that a pattern of undoing admin actions without discussion or doing it multiple times is disruptive and grounds for desysoping. I fail to see how saying "blah blah restored it against arbcom decree!" is relevant or even useful to the discussion of the merits of the original speedy deletion. Kotepho 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  It's relevant so long as people vote undelete because the deletion was "out-of-process." Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Undeleted and list at TFD. Undelete a Speedy Deletion is acceptable (though it should be communicated to the original sysop). Deleting it again is what gets the wheel spining. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and put me down as a "strong delete" on the ensuing TFD discussion. It's stupid, but unless it was speedied as patent nonsense, stupid isn't a CSD. I will 100% agree that it is "potentially offensive" and I have no desire whatsoever to see it, but "potentially offensive" is not "divisive and/or inflammatory". I 100% believe is should be deleted, but there is no criterion for speedy delete that fits the bill and thus, it should not have been speedied. BigDT 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It should not have been speedied, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there's really no sense in reanimating a dead userbox so it can be re-killed according to process. That's the very definition of when process has gone too far. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per GTBacchus. Not a T1, so it should have just gone straight to TfD. But we can discuss it here just as well as we can there, so there's really need to revive it just to ship it off. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeking a vote to keep deleted here is not the same as seeking a consenus vote to remove on tfd. These are sepearte processess for a reason. I'm really getting sick of DRV beign used a forum FOR DELETING THINGS, that's what xfd is for. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    "These are separate processes for a reason." Ok, but what's to keep us from having a conversation here, if this is where we happen to be? Are you really arguing to shut down a discussion, move everyone to a different room, and restart the discussion there? Does that make sense? How does the reason that XfD and DRV are separate and different mean that we have to stand on ceremony? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Simply put the criteria for the pages is seperate, in where it would normally take a consensus to delete a page on xfd, it requires a consensus to save on this page, even if the speedy deletion was overturned by another sysop. IMHO, this page should only be used to overturn deletions brought through xfd, or that have been speedy deleted, withough any reversals. All too often the nuclear option is being utilized here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - non-encyclopedic, doesn't belong as a template. --Cyde Weys 18:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• With respect to GTBacchus, the guidelines used for speedying are what needs fixing. That said, I don't support reanimating it just for the sake of TfDing it though unless there's some reason to believe this doesn't fit the crisper T1 and would survive a TfD. Keep Deleted (and I can't believe this arose on my birthday... ) The user could and should userify it if they wanted to. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Motion to close - Template no longer has any incoming transclusions, thus there is absolutely no reason it needs to stay in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  Object. No incoming transclusions is not a deletion reason for a template. Deletion on this ground destroys historical page versions, and future applications. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Does not meet the requirements for T1 ("divisive and inflammatory") nor for T2 ("express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues"), anymore than any of the other "relationship-status" boxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality, ergo a speedy-deletion is not justifiable by current policy. No real viewpoint is being expressed here, and a quirky little "fun" template like this could hardly be considered "inflammatory" by any stretch of the imagination, plus the speedy-deletion has now been disputed by several users. So why not bring this up on TfD and let it be discussed by the community at large? Borderline templates like this, falling into "grey areas" where no policy clearly endorses or forbids them, are the ideal templates to bring to TfD, since they're the ones that need the most discussion and review (in turn helping us build more study consensus for future deletions of similar boxes). DRV is a review of process, not a "backdoor TfD". -Silence 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per silence. This did not and does not meet t1 or the new t2 under discussion...Mike McGregor (Can) 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with Fire "Celebrates masturbation"? Ewww..... Homestarmy 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Is non-encyclopedic, and therefore doesn't belong as a template. Clearly, this is a "viewpoint on a controversial issue." To pretend this isn't inflammatory and designed to provoke is beyond credulity. Take it out of template space. - Nhprman 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. All userboxes are "potentially offensive". So are all articles. That isn't grounds for deletion. Sarge Baldy 20:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Does not meet CSD. If you really don't like it list on TFD. The Ungovernable Force 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Per Ungovernable Force. While sex and masturbation may be controversial issues, I am not convinced that in this case it rises to being T1. The proper venue is therefore TfD. JoshuaZ 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is beyond stupid. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Triceratops Accident

Cyde deleted this 93:22 6 May as nonsense. He then redeleted it as a recreation. 23:27 6 May.

This is silly; but it's not political; it's not divisive; it's not inflammatory. In short, it's not T1. (And it's not patent naonsense. Nor was the recreation G4, which excludes speedies; at that point it should certainly have gone to TfD.) How did speedying it, and so biting the newbie who made it, help to build an encyclopedia?

• Undelete. Take such things to TfD if you think there is a consensus against them. (If it is undeleted, it will adorn my talk page.) Septentrionalis 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted misuse of general template space - I am quite willing to userfy to any userpage on request --Doc ^ask? 23:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This doesn't make any sense. We routinely delete crap in main article space without having to take it through AfD, and that's article space, which is that actual meat of the encyclopedia. And now you're suggesting that for template space every single fracking thing has to go through TfD?! Users could easily create dozens of these damn things per hour. There's no default right to inclusion for silly unencyclopedic templates. --Cyde Weys 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Examples, please. What articles have been speedied without support from any clause of CSD? Septentrionalis 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cyde, I thought at the time of your RfA you pledged you were done messing about with userboxen? Yet I keep seeing you doing stuff with them. Did I misinterpret what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, basically. I was running under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that the Userbox Policy Poll was going to succeed and all of these userboxes were going to move out of Template: space, and thus I wouldn't care about them one whit. That didn't end up happening though. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted template namespace is not for making jokes Wikipedia is not A kindergarden playground. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or userfy Not at all appropriate for templatespace, nonetheless not a speedy deletion candidate. Is the TfD proccess so scary? By the way, the debate was closed after 30 minutes citing WP:SNOW. I think it's way too early to conclude that (we have tons of nonsensical "humor" userboxes; there may be many who adamently defend this one), so I'm restoring it, hopefully not to be removed again for at least a day. I fail to see what harm it could do to just leave this open for a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Saying "userfy" is meaningless as it has been substituted onto every userpage that was using it. We can just get rid of this thing now. There's no reason it needs to be a template. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, then no need to userfy (I only meant to imply that such things are appropriate in userspace, just not templatespace). I endorse the deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you understand now why this DRVU is pointless? Even if this thing is somehow restored, it will just simply be deleted as an orphaned template. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • One of the purposes of this page is to determine the limits of T1; I think that we should not waste admin powers on harmless jokes. Furthermore, it took a comsiderable time for the hapless newbie to get Cyde to be so gracious. See User talk:Cyde#templates. Septentrionalis 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This was not deleted as T1, and nobody ever claimed it was. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random "harmless jokes". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seem to be forgetting that. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • But if it was not deleted as T1, then what grounds were there for speedy deletion? As far as I'm aware there is no T2 "patent nonsense" criterion, and as the userbox was clearly created in good faith it would likely have been better (IMHO) to TfD rather than speedy. I'm not saying I disagree that the template should be deleted, just saying there's nothing inherently wrong in listing such userboxes on TfD, gaining consensus to support its deletion, and then deleting--that's how you get rid of the nightmare of DRVU, and it would make life so much less stressful for both you and the poor newb whose new userbox goes inexplicably missing. It seems that when any uncertainty arises we should default to follow the process, as that makes everything so much easier and more peaceful for everyone. Just my thoughts. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Admins have always been able to speedy delete nonsense in any namespace without needing a specific speedy deletion reason. CSD A1 is for articles and is the only one that is specifically listed as a reason. Would you really argue that that means that admins can't speedy delete nonsense in other namespaces, like Wikipedia:, Portal:, Image:, Category:, Help:, etc.? No, of course not. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
            • What authority does Cyde claim for this statement? "Patent nonsense" (citerion G1) is defined in WP:PN; this userbox is silly, arguably a hoax, but both of those are excluded - precisely to keep admins from deleting whatever they don't like. Septentrionalis 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
              • (sticks foot in mouth) Okay, per WP:CSD#G1, admins can delete patent nonsense, and as such a "T2" is obviously necessary, though it would seem again that "nonsense" is a highly subjective, and arguably derogative, term that seems to apply differently to userboxes. For instance, {{User:UBX/1337-5}}, {{User sdrawkcab}}, {{User alien}} all look like patent nonsense to me, but they would not be deleted under G1 as they are userboxes, for which G1 must be interpreted differently. As Pmanderson stated, they are "hoaxes," which don't fall under G1; the exception is in place as hoaxes are acceptable in some facets of Wikipedia, just not in the article namespace. Nonetheless, even with policy on your side, it just seems easier to bring these things to TfD where you can quickly find out if the community is beind your decision or not and thereby save yourself and others a lot of stress. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Take your foot out, Ami, you were right the first time. (I was unclear.) WP:PN says that "patent nonsense" means unsalvagable gibberish; which this isn't. Hoaxes are removable everywhere; they are speediable nowhere - because there may be an argument for what appears to be a hoax (it's a joke, it's a fiction, it's a famous hoax...) Septentrionalis 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC).
• Keep deleted, totally pointless. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is not an appropriate use of project templatespace. If users want to decorate their user pages with stuff like this, let them, we do allow sillyness. Userify but keep the template itself deleted. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As I already said, this already has been "userfied". Check the what links here .. the only page linking to it is DRVU page. --Cyde Weys 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no need to check, I take your word for it. So... excellent news, but I was talking about the state it should end up in, not the state it's in now. And as I already asked, why are you involved in this at all, Cyde? Am I misremembering what you said during your RfA? And do you think all DRVU's are pointless, or just this one? I think if the result here is keep deleted, that will make it less contentious in future to speedy (as recreate of deleted content) this template should it appear again, so I am not sure it's pointless to go through the DRVU. But of course I'm a process wonk... and a bit troubled by the lack of information about this supposed userbox moratorium I just heard about. Where all was that announced? ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy compleatly harmless, yet at the same time, it does seem a bit....irrelevant to be a template. Homestarmy 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For the third time, this has already been userfied. Are my messages showing up in white font? --Cyde Weys 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought you said it was subst'd, isn't that kind of not the same? Doesn't userfy mean make the same box in the User: space thing? Homestarmy 01:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh? You mean putting it on its own separate page and transcluding it from other user's pages? I thought that idea was done away with a long time ago, and we decided it was a lot better to just subst and directly copy the code around. I just thought userfy meant convert to userspace ... which, guess, what, substing a template does :-D Cyde Weys 01:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Then why don't people just vote Subst instead of Userfy? Homestarmy 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't know, why don't they? Maybe they aren't aware of the correct terminology? --Cyde Weys 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD, where it will die a quick death - much quicker than this whole process. TheJabberwʘck 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Or we could just close this listing as a keep deleted, thus saving lots of time. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand that reasoning, because DRv is neither equivalent nor preferred to TfD but uses as much time and creates more hostility. --AySz88^-^ 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  It would've had a much quicker deletion if nobody had even brought this nonsense to DRVU, a much quicker death than having to go through TfD. --Cyde Weys 04:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Not at ALL comfortable with that line of reasoning, or that tone, or that approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted have it userfied if it means that much to you. Otherwise it is just nonsense. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What means a great deal to me is acting upon the the recognition that "Process is more Important for admin actions, as one can sow the seeds of malfeasance and distrust much farther with admin actions." from Cyde's RfA. Septentrionalis 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • T1 is process. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And by your own statement[2], this isn't T1. What process do you claim it to be? Septentrionalis 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, you're right, this isn't T1, I was confusing it with something else. The process here is "nonsense content may be deleted on sight without having to waste everyone's time", or in other words, "common sense", or, more formally, WP:IAR. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Citing WP:IAR is a sign (to me anyway) that you're conceding that you know what you did wasn't quite on the up and up and you shouldn't have done it, and you're looking for cover. I can't speak for anyone else but whenever I see IAR, alarm bells go off. I fail to see why process could not be followed. What's the rush? The box would go away anyway but there would be a lot less uproar. IMNO at any rate. Cyde, I think you really need to disassociate yourself from these crusades. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Fascinating. Then although WP:IAR is more important for normal actions (same sentence of RfA), destroying this piece of moderately attractive silliness (and biting its creator) was important enough to spend hours of your time doing, redoing, justifying to the newbie, substing, and arguing against it here. Nominating for TfD would have taken two minutes. Please explain; how does all this build an encyclopedia? Septentrionalis 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I think we're done here. There's no point in arguing over the deletion of this nonsense. Next think I know there's going to be a huge uproar over me blocking a vandal ... oh wait, that already happened. If you guys wanted your objections to be heard, you had to be reasonable. The past few DRVUs on this page show quite clearly that the pro-userbox crowd is absolutely unreasonable and unwilling to make any compromises. So there's no point in even paying attention anymore. Us admins will just continue doing what is good for Wikipedia and you can shout at windmills all you want. --Cyde Weys 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Us admins? While of course most admins are doing what they belive is best for wikipedia exactly what that is differs from admin to admin. Do not presume to speak for all of us.Geni 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  We admins who cherish grammar, meanwhile, will also keep up the good fight... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Cyde, I'm not sure if it's fair to cast in that light all individuals who would claim to be of the "pro-userbox crowd". Rexmorgan 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Um, dude... you're painting with way too broad of a brush. It is not correct that everyone who thinks you are acting rashly and in a way that may ultimately be harmful to the encyclopedia is "pro userbox". Please review my "nonvote" in this... it's "keep deleted"... does that in and of itself make me pro-userbox? No. My stance here is "pro process". The encyclopedia would have been better served if you had just nomed this for TfD instead of acting out of process. Further, I still think you were wrong to get involved in userboxes again, and especially, wrong to start taking this so personally that you are starting to verge on incivility to others. How much more time are you going to waste on this crusade?? You accuse others of tilting at windmills, but I'm starting to think you're the one tilting here, and I'm truly afraid that you're going to burn yourself out and we are going to lose a good and valuable contributor. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not a T1, but I can't force myself to support digging anything up just so we can rebury it. That seems so wonky to me. On the other hand, speedying something not within the criteria and hoping to be saved by WP:SNOW is a bad habit to get into. Cyde, why don't you stick to obvious T1s? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, crap.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (it is not a T1), userfy (people should be allowed to make harmless jokes in their own userspace), and delete the redirect (because the template is pointless and another TFD will just be more bureaucracy). Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with GTBacchus. This userbox should not have been speedied (that is to say, in this world, where the speedying of some userboxen is not encouraged, this would fit into the category of "userboxen you don't speedy for some reason"). That said, it shouldn't exist either. Resurrecting an idiotic abuse of template space solely so that it can be killed according to process is process wonkism, and that ideology has no good reason to live. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be keep deleted then? --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you per WP:SNOW if this was a single incident, but it's not, it's a pattern. If the vote after a speedy is the same as a TfD vote, admins will be able to simply speedy any userboxes they don't like and wait for someone to notice, instead of going through TfD. Voting "undelete and send to TfD" is a good way of preventing this. TheJabberwʘck 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • An even better way of preventing it, if it's a pattern of behavior from some admin, is not to break the system (digging things up just to rebury them), but to treat it as a behavior issue, and an example of gaming the system, which it would be in that case. We shouldn't send something to a snowball's TfD to make the wp:point that process is being abused; we should make the point directly to the admin in question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong ... we have "User X", a userbox that everyone (including your good self) agrees needs to die. It gets speedied. You say "send to TfD", and want to send us through useless hoops and help cement the quite silly view that process wonkism has a place on Wikipedia, so that ... "User X" doesn't get speedied? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and keep deleted. It made me laugh, but that's not enough to warrant a place in the Template: namespace. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per GTBacchus and take the next such crappy userbox to TfD rather than relying on WP:SNOW. It's not much more trouble to follow the proper process, and it keeps people's confidence in the system. Metamagician3000 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Whoever could use it?? --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 16:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 18:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Cyde. Templates should really only be created as a means to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia; if you like having bizarre things on your user page, then userfy it rather than filling the template space with inappropriate content like this. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and make all such Userbox templates into fossils (and don't dig them up again.) Nhprman 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - serves no encyclopædic purpose, and yet further process-wonkery doesn't, either. James F. (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User antiuserboxdeletion

Deleted as unessecary T1. It is not offensive or demeaning in anyway, and was simply deleted because it reflected POV against userbox deletion. The userbox was rather popular, and simply expressed some views against unecesscary userbox deletion. The Republican 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted The criteria for T1 under WP:CSD require neither offensive nor demeaning material. Instead it is intended for divisive and inflammatory material. Which this seems to be, because it's only purpose to raise controversy. Also the popularity of a userbox has no bearing on whether or not it can meet such criteria. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Huh? This is probably a failure of language, because I initially interpreted "divisive and inflammatory" as pretty synonymous to "offensive" rather than just inclusive of that, probably because of whatever context was going on at the time (I think it was the pedophile boxes). The meaning really should be cleared up first, because apparently different people take it to mean different things.... --AySz88^-^ 03:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  let me clarify, I believe that offensive and demeaning typically fall under inflammatory, however I do not necessarily look at those terms as being synonymous. I was just trying to explain to what I thought was a misinterpretation of CSD T1 of this undeletion nomination. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete or delete eveything in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Wikipedic views, attitude and preferences. If we can have {{user anti-anon}} which goes against a foundation principle, then we can certainly have a userbox that expresses an opinion on the userbox conflict. Divisive yes, inflammatory no (though again, that's all in the eye of the beholder). Only concern here would be ballot stuffing, but that's an issue for a TfD. I may change my vote once a kind admin posts its contents here though. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Should have read through the edit conflict. The box has now been posted, and I stand by my opinion that is not inflammatory and rather defines the user as an inclusionist when it comes to userboxes. Nothing wrong with expressing that opinion with a userbox, IMO. It's just an interpretation of policy. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Changed to keep deleted. In looking at it again, it does seem controversial and intent upon inspiring conflict. Perhaps if it had been worded differently, maybe "This user errs on the side of inclusion when confronted with userboxes" I could support. But the wording, "mass anhilation," seems to suggest its purpose is only to attack userbox deletionists. (Though I might add that, regardless of what userboxes someone has, true anti-userbox deletion advocates will make their beliefs well known.) AmiDaniel (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Opinions about boxes have nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia. Warring over Userboxes is contrary to WP's purpose. This box serves no other purpose than to support more warring, rally the MySpacers and transform WP into a social networking site divided into pro/anti deletionist tribes. Enough is enough. It has to end. Keep deleted per T1, (very) divisive.Nhprman 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is manifestly divisive is the practice of speedying userboxes without consensus. Septentrionalis 04:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Lots of things are painful but necessary nonetheless, like going to the dentist. In a community this large no matter what kind of an action you take on some issue you're bound to step on some people's feet. The alternative, which you are suggesting, is to let this place turn into a free-for-all by doing absolutely nothing because you can never achieve 100% consensus. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  doing absolutely nothing has a lot to recomend it. It works a lot more often than people expect.Geni 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Allowing WP to turn into MySpace has very little to recommend it. It's a law of Internet Entropy that websites where users may post content will tend to degenerate into MySpace unless you input energy to keep them on task. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  What is the connection between MySpace and userboxes? As far as I know MySpace doesn't have anything like userboxes. Thus, userboxes differentiate Wikipedia from MySpace even further. And deletion of userboxes makes Wikipedia more like MySpace! I'm not sure if it's a good thing.  Grue  09:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  On MySpace you hve your own page which you fill up with things about you, your favourite songs, your views on the antiapartheid movement, who you want to go out with and a list of all your 'friends'. It is a social networking site. Wikipedia isn't. The Land 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Oh really? Yes it is. That's why Wikipedia succeeded and Nupedia didn't. Userboxeless user pages aren't much different from MySpace user pages. The pages with userboxes allow users to focus less on creating their user page, and focus more on building the encyclopedia.  Grue  12:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  If only that was the case. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Really obvious keep deleted - Jeebus, why is this even here? --Cyde Weys 04:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Probably tradition. Should be interesting when someone figures out that due to the wider defintion of template aprently being used by some User:Sam Hocevar/burninhell will need to be deleted.Geni 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete obvious t1 -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, meets the speedy deletion criterion for templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted correct application of T1. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - bumperstickers for wiki-partisans are inherently divisive --Doc ^ask? 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, grow up. And stop trying to bait people. And edit some articles. And stop touching your userpage, it'll send you blind. And get a haircut, you look like a hippie. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete userbox reflects the Wikipedia policy and position of Jimbo on the issue and as such cannot be divisive or inflammatory. If you don't like it, tough luck, but there are other wikis, you know...  Grue  09:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Doesn't help writing an encyclopedia. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. The Land 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. And I'm offended that my name wasn't dragged through the mud by the nominator. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• SUBST: then KEEP DELETED. This is an inflamatory template against editors and sysops, editors have the right to have this opinion, but this box is over the top. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is a rare userbox that is both divisive and inflammatory. Metamagician3000 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clearly t1. --pgk^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Doc. Wikpiedia is not the place for bumperstickers about Wikipedia policy. This is a perfect illustration of the problem Userboxes have become for the project. Nhprman 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per User:AmiDaniel. TheJabberwʘck 05:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Everyking 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  For what reason? --Doc ^ask? 08:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I am in favor of people using pretty much whatever userboxes they want. I see no reason to discourage people by restricting something that does no harm. Everyking 09:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  In other words, you don't read policy and you wouldn't like it anyway. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Darwinist

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

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

• Undelete for lack of qualification under the inflammatory reasoning. Netscott 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - And who refers to themselves as a "Darwinist" anyway? The only time I've heard someone using that word is when creationists are being incredibly ignorant and railing against the perceived Darwinist conspiracy. If you want to proclaim that you understand science, you don't need to use a silly userbox to do it. Just do what I do. Here's a direct quote from my userpage: "I'm mostly interested in anything having to do with science, including but not limited to, evolution, encryption, astronomy, science fiction, SETI, and computer programming. I'm also interested in politics, mostly because of the negative influence on science it's been having lately. I am an unabashed naturalist." --Cyde Weys 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted Evolution and Creationism is a very inflammatory issue (if you don't believe that, look on the talk pages of related articles and some of the comments from people on both sides). That's clearly what this template is about not about happening to agree with some general scientific theory. And I'll try to refrain from making puns off the word "specious" JoshuaZ 16:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Origin of Specious? LOL! Nice comment! Netscott 16:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As a reminder to everyone, we're not saying you can't say that you support Charles Darwin, evolution, creationism, Karl Marx, or whatever. We are just saying that it's inappropriate to use template space to do so. --Cyde Weys 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JoshuaZ and Cyde. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Following this logic, I suppose the Template:User creationist userbox should be deleted as well. --Netscott 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Undelete. Wish the great compromise had gone through to move all of this to user space then maybe this issue could go to bed once and for all. --StuffOfInterest 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, keep chipping away at the great T1 mass of bumpersticker boxes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Yes, all this stuff should go. Creationist, darwinian, intelligent design. If you're into this stuff write about it on your userpage, but you don't get to use template space and the transclusion mechanism to say it. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Another valid T1 deletion. Rx StrangeLove 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1 Amen. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Isn't the "Darwin fish" an absurdist parody of the Jesus fish? If so, that makes this template clever, adorable,... and an appropriate T1. Using Wikipedia's resources to appropriate religious symbols for controversial uses is not a good idea. Xoloz 23:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Neither divisive nor inflammatory for rational and/or openminded people. Not a T1. TheJabberwʘck 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not a T1. The Republican 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Usable for POV-pushing/"vote" stacking. And I agree with it! Michael Ralston 02:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive along the lines of creationism vs. evolution. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and keep deleted. No ENCyclopedic value. Misza13 ^{T C} 09:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:UBX/Communist

Last deleted version (?):

Version as of last TfD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:User No Marxism

• Deleted under T1 some weeks ago by me. User:Mike Rosoft has without consultation undeleted it.
  • I bring it here for endorsement of the original deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid T1, clearly divisive and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This does not help build an encyclopedia --Doc ^ask? 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1 for the obvious-impaired. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, correct application of T1. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, ditto everyone else. Mike Rosoft should not be undeleting clearly T1 templates. --Cyde Weys 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Clearly falls under WP:CSD#T1. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per GTBacchus. TheJabberwʘck 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Changed to Speedy keep as I understand the current situation: it already survived a deletion review, and nothing has changed since then. I wish there was more transparency here so I could vote accurately the first time... TheJabberwʘck 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, etc., etc. Correct application of T1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy I'd say I hate being the odd man out, except...I don't :/. Now, since its in template space I suppose it's, well, not really Wiki template type material, but I don't see the harm in it being in user space, I mean, alot of people probably don't like Marxism, and it doesn't seem to be that mean a template...... Homestarmy 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and early close this review, per Kotepho's's comments. Noted the prior actions on the template talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  The notes on the talk page give no grounds for keeping, much less "speedy keep", which would traditionally require a bad faith nomination (not the case here) or a withdrawal (which I decline to do). This unequivocally divisive and inflammatory template will remain deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Keep restored, list on TfD obviously there is debate among admins on this one, get consensus and do away with it, the project won't hurt by having this out there for a week. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to Speedy Keep above.

  Ten or so against one isn't a debate, especially when the one was wheel-warring. Mackensen (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this establishes that no abuse of administrator powers was involved in deleting the template. Would anybody like to redelete and close this? --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  If im reading the timestamps right, this vote is only like a little more than an hour old and most of the votes seemed to rush in during the first 30 minutes or something, I think a little more time would be nice :/. Homestarmy 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why? We've already got a very strong administrator consensus in favor of my speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You should at least mention that it was sent to TFD after a DRVU that resulted in keep. Last I checked the multiple deletions of this template would fall under wheel warring too. Kotepho 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Let's ask Mike Rosoft, who has restored this template a remarkable three times. Much of this occurred before T1 was accepted as policy (as it now is). Since then, Tony Sidaway deleted it, quite properly, and Mike Rosoft restored it, two weeks later, without discussion. That is wheel-warring. Mackensen (talk)

  It takes n+1 to wheel war. Kotepho 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's not a reflection on n. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  If it is done without discussion it sure is. Kotepho 01:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Recreate In light of Kotepho's comments. Normally I would want to userfy, but speedy deletion after a TfD said keep is Out of Order. I hope some of the above votes reconsider in light of this. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Many inflammatory and divisive templates are speedied correctly after being kept at TfD. The campaigns to keep such templates are precisely the reason why we have a criterion for their speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  I don't strongly disagree with that, excepting that this was already brought to DRV after being speedied last time, and it was decided then that it should be decided in TfD. That was less then a month ago. Continuously cycling this through the system is taking away valuable time from everyone involved. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Quite. So why was it undeleted two weeks after the fact? It clearly wasn't missed. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Are you refering to these logs below? The TFD ended on 7 March 2006, and it was restored the next day after a consensus was determined by User:Mailer diablo. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. 2006-05-08 21:56:08 Mike Rosoft restored "Template:User No Marxism" (5 revisions restored: Userbox repeatedly survived a deletion vote, and was previously undeleted)
  2. 2006-05-08 21:54:26 Mike Rosoft deleted "Template:User No Marxism" (Restoring, userbox repeatedly survived a deletion vote, content was: '<noinclude>{{deletedpage}}</noinclude>' (and the only contributor was 'Tony Sidaway'))
  3. 2006-04-25 15:51:46 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User No Marxism" (CSD T1)

  Are you suggesting that because noone wheel wared this template while it was in debate means it wasn't missed? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  I would agree that it wasn't missed, simply because I had absolutely no feedback about this routine speedy deletion from anyone for two weeks. What seems to have happened then is that the original creator noticed and complained about the deletion--not to me, but to another administrator who is known for his repeated undeletions of templates validly deleted by administrators under CSD T1. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Blatantly T1. JoshuaZ 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Divisive and inflammatory? Sure, I can see how one could think that. Kotepho 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Salt the earth. Blatantly T1, and an abuse of the template: namespace and userspace privileges. This should never have been undeleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive and inflammatory, but then again, all political boxes (even the "pro" boxes) are divisive and have no place here. Nhprman 02:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by the creator of the template As already noted consensus has been twice for retaining this template (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_27#Template:User_No_Marxism). * Also, I think it's biased to remove the only anti-communist userbox in a situation when we have tens of different communist ones and all in all, hundreds of political templates. That's a thesis which I've already presented months ago, and the situation has not changed, on the contrary, new communist ones have arisen.

  My opinion is that every more or less 'mainstream' ideology might have its userbox. We needn't have tens of communist userboxes, but one or two, and naturally we ought to have an anti-communist one as well. 'Divisive' etc thing is ridiculous -- all the political userboxes might be regarded as 'divise'; so far, mr Sidaway&co has not started a complete userbox deletion campaign (leaving a doubt if userboxes except for the anti-marxist one seem too hard to swallow?!).--Constanz - Talk 05:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your apology is politely requested:
  • 15:51, 25 April 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Communist" (CSD T1)
  • 15:51, 25 April 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User No Marxism" (CSD T1)
• Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 06:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Had you read my notes through, you would have noted that I supported having both some communist userboxes (actually, i do not care much, how many we have, let'm be) and also the anti-communist box. After your two deletions noted above, the situation is following: not a single userbox opposed to socialist-communist-marxist etc thinking, although non-communism is clearly majority POV worldwide. So, we now have have anti-communism prohibited and following ideologies permitted:

  Template:User progressive Template:user Socialist Template:user Socialist2 User:Bill_Du/Socialist4 User:Bill_Du/Socialist3 User:UBX/Democratic Socialist Template:user libertarian socialist Template:user libertarian socialist2 Template:user Christian communist Template:user marxist Template:user Trot --Constanz - Talk 06:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Exactly. It seems a very well organized clique on the Left is dominating by quickly responding to any attempt to delete, and are VERY aggressive against boxes they oppose. The answer is delete ALL political Userbox Templates but allow them as text on Userpages. That takes them out of template space and out of the realm of community debate here and elsewhere. Nhprman 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well, if left was able to save their boxes due to good organisation, then the fact reveals that speedy deletion on basis of T1 has not been exercised concerning 'red' userboxes. Also, all the templates could be deleted if the list would be composed and consensus reached. However, I think no admin dares to do so, for then he might face the whole community. Thus, a weird form of 'divide et impera' has been used.

  That's a good exposition of what's going on. Nhprman 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[The leftists] are VERY aggressive against boxes they oppose -- well, the aggressiveness here towards the only anti-communist box has definitely not releaved the pressure. --Constanz - Talk 06:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are of course welcome to delete those userboxes also. --Tony Sidaway 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Consensus has been against, also, i'm not an admin and I'm against uncautious deletions.--Constanz - Talk 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Consensus has not been against. We have a rough consensus of MySpacers who want them kept, a rough consensus of dedicated admins who want them gone, and a full consensus of actual encyclopaedia writers who don't give a damn either way and want the issue gone. By the way, I see you note {{User progressive}} in your list of Evil Commie Boxen. Progressive? Get some perspective, dude! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  The Myspacers are winning the debate, and as long as the Writers are complacent and don't care, the MySpacers win by default. The situation is not a good one. Nhprman 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Myspacers winning? How do you figure? I would have said the opposite. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  How can you look at the bottom of this page and say that the MySpacers are still winning? That's 11 "keep deleted"s in a row! TheJabberwʘck 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  So 90% of userbox templates (User:Democrat/Republican/Christian Marxist/Loves the U.N./Pro-abortion, etc.) are sacrosant and can't ever be deleted, but they are NOT winning? Going after the "anti" boxes is a great first move, but if admins are stymied in their attempt to go further, they are losing the fight against the Myspacing of WP. - Nhprman 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  Whatever gave you the idea that such templates are sacrosanct and cannot be deleted? --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  I personally do not believe them to be sacrosanct and I hope they are deleted soon. But to hear the pro-box arguments currently in fashion, unless it's "negative" (i.e. "User No___ " or "User Opposes ___") they cannot be deleted because they're not divisive. My view, though, is that politically oriented Userboxes are inherently divisive, and even inflammatory, since they inspire opposing boxes and divide the WP community into camps (or "tribes" as I've called them) who seek to save their favorite boxes and debate over their wording and design. And of course, they inspire the very kinds of endless debates we're having now, which are a huge distraction - though frankly it's a NECESSARY distraction, much like when a water pipe bursts in your house. It needs attending to, and I reject those who say "leave them alone" because you don't leave a menace alone, hoping it will go away. - Nhprman 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, keep deleted, whatever you need to do to get rid of it. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1 is not up for discussion here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete TFD already decided that this one is not T1.  Grue  10:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, this tfd: [3] doesn't address that at all, in that most keep voters cited no rationale whatsoever, and the few that did simply stated things like "discloses editor's POV", which side-steps the issue altogether. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, the very strong support for the T1 deletion shown above also suggests that claims of a consensus that it wasn't a T1 are either out of date or incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, both of you cited no rationale whatsoever to delete this template above, so I don't know whether you think it should be deleted because of T1 or something else entirely. Remember, this is not a vote, just writing "*Keep deleted. ~~~~" is not enough.  Grue  18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  In this case a Keep Deleted is a clear affirmation of T1. If we didn't agree that it was T1 then we couldn't very well vote to keep it deleted. You still haven't addressed the issue I raised. Mackensen (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clear T1. There's no other relevant issue here. Rx StrangeLove 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Just userfy if you must. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, or userfy at worst. I don't think that it meets the speedy deletion criterion (which demands the userbox to be divisive AND inflammatory); and, if it were such a clear case, it wouldn't have been undeleted once and survived two deletion votes. (And, frankly, I consider it misguided to declare something no two users will agree about to be a speedy deletion criterion. After all, exactly what does it mean that a userbox is "divisive"? "Expressing an opinion somebody might disagree with"?) - Mike Rosoft 22:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So you think it's okay if a userbox is divisive but not inflammatory, or inflammatory without being divisive? Seriously? This sounds most unusual. The divisive and inflammatory nature of the userboxes in question have been established over a long period by the extremely bitter debates that the continued toleration of their presence on Wikipedia, an avowedly neutral encyclopedia, have occasioned. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is neutral, its editors are not. We are supposed to adopt a NPOV when editing articles, not "you cant edit here unless you have no beliefs." You'll prolly accuse me of exaggeration if you respond to this, and you'll be right. I have a tendency to exaggerate, and I have a Christian bias. I try to be as Nuetral as possible, but sometimes I can't help my biases, thats why its good to be able to identify them. Let anyone who voted Speedy Delete show me an instance where this box divided people (i.e. caused an edit conflict) and do it without citing the deletion review, Self-referential arguments are no good here, deletion review is about Admins overstepping their bounds. Sorry about the rant, but unfounded claims tend to piss me off, I should make that a userbox... (Just Kidding, please dont ban me Jimbo) -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I might also add that all userboxes express a POV, and most are divisive (i.e. expressing that I speak German divides me from the non-German speakers.) The inflammatory part is key in speedy deletions: A userboxes saying "Non-German speakers are all idiots" is both inflammatory and divisive while "I speak German" is simply divisive. This userbox, given the previous TfD, may not be a clear-cut speedy candidate (though I personally can see how it is interpreted as inflammatory as well); however, I still feel that this userbox in any case portrays the image that Wikipedia is meant as a medium through which to profess one's dogmatic Marxist beliefs, which it certainly is not, thus my vote to keep it deleted. Undeleting and sending to TfD is just another unecessary link in the bureaucratic chain--what's the point in discussing whether to discuss something when we can discuss it here? (Though, as an aside, it does seem to be the "Marxist" way to do things lol.) AmiDaniel (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, as will all such political opinion userboxes. In the future, it might be advantageous to speedy delete opposites at the same time, so that we cannot be accused of supporting one viewpoint. --Constantine Evans 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a pulpit. If you want webspace to express your views get a hosted account someplace. --Gmaxwell 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - T1 -- Tawker 05:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User 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<DataType>)
• 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)

I would hope not; userboxes exist in template space but are only tramscluded into user space; and therefore can be legitmately viewed as either. Septentrionalis 05:36, 10 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)
• Keep deleted, this is not about censorship, you can write such paragraph on your user page. It's about having a global template for drop-in. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD. If a DRV is inevitable then it is not valid for speedy deletion. Only things that would be deletedunanimously or almost-unanimously by established users are eligable for speedy deletion. Everything else must be discussed. Thryduulf 15:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is being discussed here. Stop making a point and wasting everyone's time by saying it needs to be discussed somewhere else no matter what the outcome is here. --Cyde Weys 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't be discussed here. The purpose of DRV is entirely different to the purpose of TFD. I also think you shouldn't jump at such experienced user as Thryduulf, who probably has a far better grasp at the policy than you.  Grue  18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Personal attack and appeal to authority noted with amusement. --Cyde Weys 20:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not a personal attack, just friendly advice. You really should read Deletion policy more often, or listen to more experienced users than you.  Grue  10:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Larix 22:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep deleted per CSD T1. Cynical 11:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at TfD Will (^E_@) T 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and speedy all like it. Divides our userbase. --Gmaxwell 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There seem to be at least two different opinions among the KD voices as to what line it divides along; given this, I doubt it. In any case, this sort of discussion is what TfD is for, where this should have been brought to begin with. Septentrionalis 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Wish the great compromise had gone through to move all of this to user space then maybe this issue could go to bed once and for all. --StuffOfInterest 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master

Both were deleted by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) 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)
  • The correct template for user names registered to prevent impersonation is {{Doppelganger}} - see WP:DOPP. Thryduulf 15:24, 6 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)
    • as has been pointed out by others there are existing templates that do that job. Thryduulf 15:24, 6 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)

• Keep deleted Redirect to {{User Alternate Acct}} and {{User Alt Acct Master}}. I concur with Dijxtra. - There's a reason why they're deleted. The WP:SOCK policy labels sockpuppets as alternate accounts which are being misused. (A sock puppet is an alternate account used in a disruptive manner or against Wikipedia policies.). I'm all for the alternate user userbox, just as much as I'm for alternate accounts within policy. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (updated 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

  However, as of May 1st (just three days ago), a sockpuppet was an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The redefinitition of the term to mean a malicious account was only recently implemented and IMO incorrect. The point is that there may have been reasons for deleting them per the rewrite, yet they should not have been deleted without gaining consensus. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete these have a definite value to the project if placed on a userpage by its 'owner'. And the template 'what links here' could be used as a quick way of identifying sockpuppets Cynical 09:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • {{sockpuppet}} already does that, and abusive sock users (the ones we're really wanting to track) don't usually identify themselves by choice. Garrett^Talk 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • {{sockpuppet}} is used to tag malicious accounts; it is not meant to be placed by the owner. My sockpuppets are not malicious, but I would like for others to know that they belong to me (so that I don't come under scrutiny for using undeclared sockpuppets). There is a very grave difference between {{sockpuppet}} and these userboxes. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the first one per abberwʘck. Undelete the second one - frivolous use of template space but that is not yet a legitimate basis for deletion. Metamagician3000 01:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and speedy keep first, Overturn and TfD second. The first template is certainly useful and not malicious, so I'd hope that's just a misunderstanding that'll be cleared up soon. The second shouldn't be speedied, as it's not obvious to me (and apparently others) that it's divisive or inflammatory. --AySz88^-^ 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC) clarified 07:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  Change vote to overturn, speedy keep, and reword both to repair the userboxes to their original function. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not useful template IMHO. Lincher 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (possible explanation) I've been looking into WP:SOCK, and I think there's a complex situation of miscommunication going on here, starting with a "major rewrite" of the policy. Somehow the original usage of the userboxes was missing from the rewrite or dropped from the new policy, and the boxes were not reworded in accordance with the new definitions. This probably caused all this confusion and the thinking that these templates were some sort of joke, instead of actually having a use. The redefinition of "sock puppet" also would have caused the current userboxes in question to be reworded from "sock puppet" to "alternate account", probably getting rid of all these connotations that these boxes were jokes and so on. I mentioned the original context of the template at Wikipedia: Sock puppetry#Tagging your declared multiple accounts, and I think people might wish to take a look the context in order to see how the templates were (I think) intended to be used.

  To anticipate an argument, even if, since the rewrite, some users have been treating the userboxes as jokes, their primary purpose was legit, and the userboxes should be repaired to their original functionality instead of deleted. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, please read this I'm the guy who produced the whole mess when I rewrote the WP:SOCK page. So let me put the record straight: this template is not inflamatory, it is not meant to be funny and it is not disruptive. This template is obsolete. The WP:SOCK page is going through a major change in terminology at the moment. Until few days ago, a sock puppet used to mean "an alternative account" and therefore could be used for useful purposes and was legitimate. And users which had more than one account used this template to mark that. Then we changed the terminology to reflect common sence: now "an alternative account" means "an alternative account", and "sock puppet" means "an alternative account used for disrupting the policy of Wikipedia". If you state you have 2 accounts, you are not a sock puppeter. If you use 2 different accounts to cast double votes - you are a sock puppeter. As simple as that. The template in question reflects the old terminology. Therefore, this template should be undeleted, then all of it's occurences should be replaced with {{User Alternate Acc}}. Maybe a bot could do that. When every instance of the template in question is repleaced with {{User Alternate Acc}}, then it should be deleted. I'm terribly sorry for not doing this before. I just forgot about the template :-( I hope everything's clear now... --Dijxtra 12:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly that simple. Many people (myself included) feel attached to the userbox versions, since they are 1. smaller and 2. more light-hearted. So perhaps with a slight change of wording (to fit within the new policy) they could be kept as alternative versions? Misza13 ^{T C} 13:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but then we would have to move that template. Mentioning "sock puppet" in the name of the template is just not acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dijxtra (talk • contribs).

Agree to moving the template, and that's the best solution I can think of (though leave a redirect behind). --AySz88^-^ 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, although they were not speediable under the definitions of T1 (which I believe is interpreted way too widely in many cases), they would be deleted in any TfD. There is nothing funny about them and they are redundant to exsting templates {{sockpuppet}}, {{sockpuppeteer}}, {{sockpuppet-proven}}, {{doppelganger}} and others as mentioned above. Thryduulf 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you please read my comment, thanks. --Dijxtra 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite. I do see the legitimate uses brought up above, but the wording is of concern. I'd say that the best way to please the most people is to keep the userbox format and word it similar to {{sockpuppet}}. If someone misuses the tag, that's what the shiny flamethrower is for. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Larix 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore (I just restored these without prejudice) and list on TFD if desired. Note, these have ALREADY been on tfd on 17 January 2006. The result of that discussion was Speedy Keep. With regards to process, these do not seem to fall in the the T1 classification, as they are designed to be used by a user for themselves, as specified in WP:SOCK. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Both are currently redirects, but can someone please merge the histories? --AySz88^-^ 02:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Someone did it; thanks to whoever it was.... --AySz88^-^ 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Arguably, those are in effect completely different templates. In any case they're still divisive because they use template space to encourage the officially deprecated use of multiple accounts, so I will speedy delete them under T1. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Huh?! When was the use of multiple accounts "officially deprecated"? I fail to see how the new wording is remotely divisive or inflammatory. —David Levy 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, particularly the first paragraph. Obviously the new wording is pretty divisive if it can lead people such as yourself, an administrator, inadvertently to misinterpret Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses" (WP:SOCK). "This user has multiple Wikipedia accounts" (the new wording). How does that go against policy? Anyone? Would you rather I leave my alternate accounts unidentified so I could indeed use them as sockpuppets, rather than tagging them so that everyone knows these accounts belong to me? I think you are the one who is unable to interpert the policy, though I will admit it is fairly ambiguous at this point; that or you're trying to make the point that you disagree with WP:SOCK and feel that any use of alternate accounts should be prohibited. Restore the templates, and TfD them if you still want to see them deleted. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Again...huh?! Where on that page is it indicated that the mere use of multiple accounts is prohibited? I see no such statement, but I do see an entire section pertaining to legitimate uses of multiple accounts. —David Levy 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  They appear to be redefineing the word sockpupet. Much as in law words have formal and non standard definitions it would appear people are doing to the same thing with wikipedia policy.Geni 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, and I agree with the new definition, but the most recent template wording made no reference to "sock puppets." By definition, someone who openly acknowledges that he/she is using "multiple accounts" (the term used in the policy to describe legitimate uses) is not engaging in sock puppetry. Tony claims that all uses of multiple accounts are prohibited, and he believes that this is indicated at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. That clearly isn't so, and I'm having a difficult time understanding how Tony could feel otherwise. —David Levy 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  Here's a rather old version of WP:SOCK [4] . As you can see, the use of socks has been deprecated for a long time. This isn't a place for revising policy, and the point that the userboxes misrepresent policy and encourage the use of alternate accounts is a valid one. --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  Quoth that rather old version: "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses." Again, where are you seeing anything about their use being deprecated? It seems that you're attempting to revise policy. —David Levy 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reminder, WP:DRV is not designed to be a place for deprecating templates, or discussing policy changes to the project (e.g. WP:SOCK); it IS intended to be a place to Review Deletions and determine if they have been handled improperly. This disucssion started with 2 template deletions, then the restorals, their subsequent changes to redirects, and now their deletion again. All of the deletion/restores have been speedy so far, and even AGF, this issue has wheel potential now; to that end I'm recusing myself of speedy restoring these templates, but do think they should go through an xfd (I suppose rfd now?) as their removal may break historical versions of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Certain persons need to grasp the fact that a bit of text in a box is no more dangerous or abusive then a piece of text outside of the box. If said individuals were going around editing other peoples userpages to remove anything they didn't like (and citing CSD) no-one would stand for it. But because the text is in a box for ease of use, Oh Noes... divisive, speedydelete it now, NOW! Uggh... -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about "certain individuals", there is a specific deletion policy for templates. These templates were deleted under that policy. --Tony Sidaway 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    They were deleted because of your unsubstantiated belief that the use of multiple accounts has been disallowed. —David Levy 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    Absolutely and categorically false. They were deleted for the reasons that I have stated. I have not voiced that false belief that multiple accounts are not allowed--rather I have told you, correctly, that they are deprecated. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

    Despite repeated requests, you have not yet cited a page on which this is indicated. You pointed me to the current version of WP:SOCK and one from December 2004, both of which explicitly indicate that "multiple accounts have legitimate uses." —David Levy 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've restored the current versions at Template:User Alternate Acct and Template:User Alt Acct Master. There can be no justification under T1 for the deletion of these userboxes. They provide useful project relivant information. Mearly declareing you have an "alternate account" is not divisive.Geni 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is simply incorrect. Using template space to do so gives the false impression that this kind of activity is supported by Wikipedia. It is, rather, tolerated, and we shouldn't make it seem to be officially condoned. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Geni is saying having alternate accounts is supported; I think he is saying that disclosing the existence of these accounts is supported. That's what the template makes it easy to do. Kind of like the rest of the userboxes - POV exists anyway; the templates bring it out into the open. TheJabberwʘck 03:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:SOCK explicitly encourages users to tag their multiple accounts in precisely this manner, and it lists these exact templates as a means of doing so. In other words, you speedily deleted templates, citing a policy that recommends their use. I'll also point out that the policy contained the word "allowed" until you changed it to "tolerated" yesterday. —David Levy 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) Yes, it is simply tolerated (though in some cases, such as mine, absolutely necessary), yet it is only (for the most part) tolerated when a user explicitly states that an alternate account belongs to him. That's what this template does. As Geni said, they provide highly relevant project information, and I do not believe they give the impression that using alternate accounts is condoned; rather, they send out the message that I can't use alternate accounts without declaring them. And, honestly, what's so horrible about making it seem that using alternate accounts is condoned (though I don't believe this userbox does that)? So long as the accounts are not used in an abusive fashion, and preferably if the owner declares his accounts and employs these userboxes, I don't see any problem with encouraging it--at least they'd be encouraged to indicate the owners of the accounts so blocking for sockpuppetry would be easier. In any case, your reasoning that they make sockpuppetry seem "officially condoned" doesn't seem to place it under WP:CSD#T1, and so I'd like to suggest that you list it on TfD if you disagree with keeping the userbox in templatespace, rather than deleting it again. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is supported by wikipedia under certian conditions. Running a bot under your main account is a great way to anoy RC patrolers. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 shows that people are prepared to accept the idea of sock accounts although generaly not as admins. I have yet to run into any significant oposition to well labled sock accounts.Geni 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted don't feed the trolls. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing wrong with labled sock account use... but these are silly and are more likely to be used to taunt people. --Gmaxwell 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure if there isn't a confusion now if we are talking still about the old templates with their joke "sock-puppet" language, or the more sober new ones at Template:User Alt Acct Master etc.). I agree that the existence of some such templates is definitely necessary and called for by policy. But maybe Tony's concerns could be addressed by changing the wording to something that more clearly expresses the exceptional, not-routinely-to-be-recommended nature of such multiple accounts. For instance along the lines of: "This user has other accounts besides this one, and is aware that this is not recommended except for special good reasons". That would avoid the danger of suggesting to casual uninformed readers that it's just straightforwardly okay and normal. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  As I understand it, we're now talking about the new renditions of the userboxes. With those in place, I see absolutely no reason to restore the above templates (I'm the nom by the way), as the new ones serve the purpose much better. I do, however, wonder why the templates have been protected from restoral... I think it would make sense to restore them as redirects, as they were prior to the (almost) wheel-warring, and there haven't really be any attempts to recreate the templates as they were previously. In any case, I think it may be appropriate to close this discussion as "the templates have been deprecated and replaced by {{User Alt Acct Master}} and {{User Alternate Acct}}, which better conform to the new wording of WP:SOCK." AmiDaniel (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  I agree, I don't think the old templates in question are disputed anymore, and if anyone wants to delete the new ones, those would have to go into a new TfD of some sort. I wish all this could have been cleared up through discussion first, though, and I hope that is what happens next time.... --AySz88^-^ 05:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  Definitely. It would have been so much easier if these had just been nominated for TfD or if someone would have just tweaked the wording to reflect the policy changes (someone honestly intended to imply anyone, not a specific user). Rewording is soooo much easier than deletion review, wheel-warring, bickering, and other wastes of time that resulted from this dispute. It would seem that following process honestly speeds these things up, rather than slowing them down as is often suggested. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, then as per the above, it's keep deleted the old ones (and keep the new ones, possibly further reworded, if anybody has concerns about them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speaking for myself I think it's reasonable to keep the new ones for now, though without the redirect. We shouldn't be using template space or transclusion in a manner that may appear to condone sock puppetry; moving from tolerating alternative accounts to actively promoting them with the new templates is horrible, but it isn't quite as bad as the sock puppetry. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User against Saud

This has survived T1 and Tfd in the past so why has it been deleted now? Please restore. --Horses In The Sky 16:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The objection to T1 speedy last time (10 March) was "T1 is still too controversial for implementation." This is no longer true; T1 is now a strongly established deletion criterion. This is a divisive and inflammatory template whose sole purpose is to express opposition to the royal family of a country. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Strongly established? Hardly. I'm not the only one who proposed reverting T1 and all actions taken under it, before generating a sensible, understandable, policy. (I accept that reverting might include sending to DRVU or TfD without actually undeleting.) As for the template — my vote would be Undelete and send to TfD (where I'd probably vote to Delete.) And it's still probably not really T1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  "whose sole purpose is to express opposition to the royal family of a country". Would you be so offended if the userbox said this user is opposed to capital punishment? or fundamentalism? or opression of women and religious minorites? or nepotism? The list goes on because that is what the House of Saud stands for and as far as I know, noone apart from administrators has found this userbox a problem and it has been used on many userpages.--Horses In The Sky 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  You misunderstand my point. I have no love for the Saudi royal family, and I'm not at all offended by the statement. I would absolutely support a T1 on a userbox that "this user is opposed to capital punishment, or fundamentalism, or opression of women and religious minorites, or nepotism." Expression of such opinions is divisive and inflammatory, even though I happen to agree with them. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  Could you please provide a convenient list of said boxes? Template space is inappropriate for such activity. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll never understand the instistence on sending it to TfD even though you think it should be deleted and it will be deleted there. That's ludicrous and it wastes everyone's time. If you want it deleted, you want it deleted. Don't make some kind of stupid WP:POINT and vote "undelete and send to TfD". --Cyde Weys 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Deletion Review. If someone thinks it has a shot in TfD even though they think it should be deleted, you are supposed to vote to overturn and TfD. --AySz88^-^ 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea from?! This is to confirm if templates were correctly deleted under T1. A template can easily be T1 and still have people in here clamoring for its undeletion; we have some real lunatic MySpacers in here who are voting "undelete" on everything. We're basically just ignoring them. But we don't appreciate other people going along with them for some kind of weird process wonkery reasons. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course sending something to TfD if you think it should be speedily deleted under T1 makes no sense, but if someone thinks it should be deleted but not under T1, sending to TfD makes sense. --AySz88^-^ 19:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that the 'royal We' Cyde, or something else? ;) --Doc ^ask? 19:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To Cyde Weys: Wikipedia:Undeletion policy suggests that most reversals of "incorrect" Speedy Deletes should also send the article to WP:AfD? If you don't like it, change the policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Tony, WP:NOT a soapbox. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. My reasoning was the same as Tony's. On a related note, the deletor is supposed to be given first refusal before listing here. Ah well. Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. --Doc ^ask? 17:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Can someone show the userbox? I have an idea on what the content is, but I don't know the wording that was used.--Toffile 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, obviously. It's one 'o them anti- userboxes. --Cyde Weys 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - agree with Cyde's above reason. --Hunter 18:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy T1 doesn't apply to user things, right? It doesn't seem like its that horrible a userbox :/. Homestarmy 20:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Larix 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously. Stop wasting our time with this crap. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Anyone who thinks this has a place on Wikipedia should re-examine why they are here and absorb this comment by Jimbo Wales:

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 Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not obvious, and might have been less of a waste of time at TFD. Still, does not belong in template space. TheJabberwʘck 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. If you want to put a userbox on your userpage, then copy-paste the code. Cynical 10:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Tony and others. Divisive and inflammatory. It's also an "anti" box, but frankly, if there's a pro-Saud box (it's bound to happen) that would also be inappropriate here. WP is not the place for political debates, social networking with like-minded users, or unregulated self-expression on every issue under the Sun. Nhprman 15:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, blatant T1, divisive and inflammatory, basically an attack template, not to mention that it's as unencyclopedic as can be. Regarding any argument that something that's been deleted should be recreated just so we can delete it some different way instead, I've got three words: wonk, wonk, wonk. It's perfectly valid to decide at DRV that, while something wasn't done quite right, it still needed to be done, and let's not dig it up to rebury it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist

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)
• Keep deleted, this is not about censorship, you can write such paragraph on your user page. It's about having a global template for drop-in. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Larix 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)