User talk:Kelly Martin/Deletion of userboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deletion of userboxes

One word: Why? And what criteria of speedy deletion are you using to delete these without a proper TfD (or if there was a TfD for all these, can I have a link?)? I think in many of these cases you don't have the authority to speedily delete these. Deletion log —BorgHunter (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW I absolutely agree with Kelly Martin on this. Userboxes should state facts, not opinions. These userboxes are increasingly being used to create organisations of Wikipedians by POV which are bad. David | Talk 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good. Propose a policy, put up a TfD, do something to gauge community consensus. Unilateral deletion of all questionable userboxes is not appropriate, and is contrary to what a wiki is. Moreover, it's a violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm enforcing existing policy. I don't need TfD to enforce the existing Wikipedia:User page policy, or to enforce rules against incivility or against the inappropriate use of non-free images. The only place where I'm even remotely stepping outside of existing policy is in deleting the political and religious templates, a position which is drawn from comments made by Jimbo. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of your reasons, we would like to be informed before you make such sweeping changes. Besides, why the selectiveness? Why is {{User:UBX/Communist}} deleted while {{User marxist}} is not? Why is {{User antimonarchist}} deleted while {{user Monarchist}} stayed? You seem to be systematically deleting every kind of userbox imaginable, yet you leave out some very conspicuous ones undeleted? We'd like a clarification on the userbox Wikiproject talk page. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've only made it through the C's. I'll get to the other ones later. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:UP is guideline, not policy. You are deleting these out-of-process. Non-free images can be removed from the template without damaging anything, and if there is incivil language in a userbox, it can be removed. There is no policy that supports this widescale deletion. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From WP:UP What can I have on my userpage?: A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. Obviously, this will depend on how comfortable you are with respect to privacy. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And indeed I left behind the templates about being a cat-owner, or about liking Coca-Cola, because they didn't meet any of the three criteria I was using to decide which templates to delete. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's statements carry a lot of weight. More, to be sure, than anyone else here. But, unless I am very much mistaken, he did not unilaterally demand that such deletions be made, which means that you are violating process and abusing your authority as sysop. – Seancdaug 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He made a statement, and I derived a policy from it. I've done this before, and I'll do it again in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You should know full well that you cannot "derive" a policy outside of community consenus. To quote the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines section on policy: "changes and additions are made by consensus." It is quite clear from the response to your actions that you did not bother to gauge consensus. – Seancdaug 23:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why delete AME-0 as well? I don't want to speak American "English", and I want to display that Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my determination that that series of templates is incivil, and reflects a divisive attitude inappropriate for Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's uncivil to call petroleum by the name of a state of matter, but a lot of US Wikipedians do it without thinking, and the internationals are left to clean up after them. The "American English" / "International English" boxes were about Wikipedians as Wikipedians, and should have been left there. The same with the Grammar Nazi/Language Nazi userboxes - these were about editing behaviour. I concede that the image (of a swastika) could have been considered offensive, but the image should have been removed rather than deleting the userbox. [PS. Sorry if this seems a little unorganised, messy or short, I've had to retype a few times due to edit conflicts. Obviously a lot of people feel strongly about this] - Synapse 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your attitude toward the "civility" of using a different dialect of the English language is divisive. As to the "grammar nazi" userboxes, they were deleted both because of the swastika (which is deeply offensive to many people) and because of the use of the word "nazi", which is also deeply offensive to many people. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support using language that is neutrla internationally - this means avoiding terms like "gas" to refer to petroleum or LPG. In my POV, this should be a wikipedia policy, and stating your support of it on your userpage isn't inappropriate. - Synapse 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see whay you deleted some, but others were just stupid. Why "user Communist"? Or "User Christian democrat"? Or the userbox that shows support for Amnest International, for god sakes. That's totally not your own POV. Morgan695 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo has indicated, and I agree with him, that we should discourage Wikipedian from aligning themselves along political or ideological lines; these templates' only real purpose is to facilitate such alignment. In addition, the Amnesty International one was deleted because it contained a non-free image. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I created the image for the User AI template and published it for free on wiki commons. I believe this is a case of Admin powers gone array. Deleting templates such as User AI is simply unacceptable (that is a POV ;-)). When I state that I support Amnesty International on my user page, it is not a POV, but a fact that I do so. I'll be contacting wikipedia staff on this later on indepentant of the RFC. TCorp 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't just "recreate" a copy of a logo and declare that it is now free of the original copyright. That logo is and remains a copyrighted and trademarked symbol of Amnesty International, and is therefore nonfree. If it's on Commons now, it should be deleted. I'll bring that up with one of my admin friends over there. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But the fact remains that if you state that you support Amnesty International on your user page, it is not a POV, but a fact that they do so. And if the image is copyrighted, remove the image, not the entire template. Morgan695 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point, though. The NPOV doesn't apply to user pages; the appropriate policy there is CPOV. Content which does not facilitate the purpose for the community to exist is inappropriate there. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The image bares little resemblance to the original AI logo. Unlike the AI logo, my image has an "S" shaped barbwire and is furthermore in black and not in white. The flame of the candle is also filled and not open. You can view my talk page as to why this was done. I could go into detail on what the copyright really means, but you're going to have to do your own research. It's new year's eve. TCorp 23:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that not a ludicrous form of argument? Of course it's a POV to say one supports Amnesty. Would you say a userbox reading "This wikipedian believes in the international Jewish conspiracy" is NPOV and acceptable? David | Talk 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (PS this debate needs to be shifted off this user page RSN)

A request for comment on this dispute has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you doing this??? you deleated a box called "Support the U.S. Troops" among other good natured boxes.Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This template (user page bumpersticker, really more so) serves to align Wikipedians along political or ideological lines and is inappropriate conduct for a user page per the user page policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But you have no justification for your actions. You've failed to cite any relevant Wikipedia policy for your deletions, and have stated that such policy does not concern you. As an administrator, it is frankly appalling that you have so little respect for both the rules and spirit of this project. You are free to make a case for your deletions through the appropriate channels. As things current stand, your actions, and your blatant disregard for your responsibilities as an administrator, are far more damaging to Wikipedia than any of the templates you have deleted. – Seancdaug 22:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've stated a rationale for deletion several times now. And I have the utmost of respect for the spirit of this project, far more than do the people who create this pox of stupid and useless userboxes. I have long been on record as willing to disregard the formal written policy of Wikipedia when it gets in the way of doing the right thing. Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not proscriptive; administrators (and in fact all editors) are expected to use common sense and reasonable judgment to make decisions that forward our core goal (to write an encyclopedia) and not get bogged down on slavish devotion to policy or process. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Then propose a policy banning such userboxes. Alternatively, list them on TfD. As it stands, you are deleting userboxes because of your opinion, not consensus. Admins are servants of Wikipedia, not unilateral crusaders for certain causes. Again, if you disapprove of the use of userboxes to express affiliation, you are perfectly free to propose a policy banning or limiting them. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If it links to nonfree images, then erase the link instead of the entire template! KirbyMeister 22:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw Jimbo's statement on the mailing list and agree with it... Indeed, I have lots of userboxes on my page, but not any of 'that' sort for precisely the same reason he cited. However, you had to know this userbox pogrom was going to make people crazy (see above). So why not write it into policy and get Jimbo's blessing before going full tilt at it? Also, I've seen stuff about a 'political compass' project to define the politics of various Wikipedians. I've stayed away from it like the plague so I don't know much, but the point is that there's more to this issue than userboxes. A stated policy is likely going to be needed. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read the user page policy and see nothing written against the statement of political, religious, or ideological beliefs and I'd love it if you could point it out to me. I resent a lot of the template deletions going on including several by you. What's wrong with expressing my opinions so long as they aren't condescending? Some of the derogotory templates (such as the Commie Bastard template and others that are meant to insult and degrade) I support the deletion of. But the other such as the ones on religious beliefs, political beliefs and others I strongly oppose the deletion of. And, Kelly, you are being very selective (as was pointed out above) for reasons I have yet to understand. Many of your template deletions and those of a few others seem VERY POV to me. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I was very selective. I took a break after finishing A-C. Inappropriate templates starting with "User D" through "User Z" have not yet been evaluated. As I explained quite clearly above. (I deleted several templates which would be appropriate on my user page, if they were appropriate on anybody's user page, that is. Don't accuse me of pushing a point of view here, other than the one that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.") Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make further comments here. Instead, make them on the RfC or its talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)