|
It has become clear to me that my two deletions, even though they seemed right at the time, have caused far more consternation than I envisioned. I apologize for dragging everybody through this debate and thank everyone for remaining civil. Picaroon (Talk) 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also co-nominating User:Crimsone/template/User_NoBlocksFemale. I liked having this user box on my user page, which is just about as policy based a reason for undeleting it as was the reason for deletion: "utterly obnoxious". As to policy, consider this was a user box in user space, and does not appear to violate WP:UP. User:Crimsone appears to be absent from Wikipedia right now. I ask for this to be overturned and listed at mfd for the community to decide. Nardman1 10:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Pretty subjective as a criterion for deletion, huh? Stammer 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oberturn Subjective speedies like this end up looking like censorship, which of course we try to avoid doing on Wikipedia, don't we? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Block nominator so that they cannot use this userbox any longer :-) Just kidding: overturn. Tizio 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Er, WHAT? I'll assume that some kind of mis-click happened here, as I cannot imagine this box being obnoxious, nor Picaroon9288 just speedy deleting even something he deems obnoxious. CharonX/talk 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I stand by my deletion log comment; this userbox, whether intended to be or not (I'll assume not), is indeed "utterly obnoxious." It has no possible benefit to the project but does have the potential to demean users with a block record. How is it possibly the right thing to do to lord it over every random visitor to your userpage that you have not been blocked yet? What if they have? Step into their shoes. Even those who were rightly blocked have every reason to be offended; and what of those mistakenly blocked? This userbox effectively divides the community into those who have been blocked and those who haven't, which is a terribly counter-productive thing to do.
- On the topic of the properness of the deletion? Well, in case you haven't noticed, I don't particularly care whether my deletions follow the correct process (whatever that may be). I care that my deletions are the right thing to do. The fact that I ignored the rules is so tangential as to be beyond consideration, and I ask anyone who understands that fundamentally important concept to at least say so, if not endorsing my deletion. Judge actions on their merit, not the process under which they were made. Picaroon (Talk) 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I find your lack of assumption of good faith distrubing... if the box had said "this user has never been blocked, but you have, nyah, nyah" - well, then I could understand how you might come to view this as obnoxious (which incidentially still does not allow you to swing your Mop&Bucket and wipe it away, unless CSD have changed greatly within the last few days - WP:IAR does not mean "do what you want") but using your argument one could construe the userbox "This use is male" as obnoxious - clearly it divides the wikipedia into male and non-male users... And yes, I found the slightly arrogant tone in your response... obnoxious. CharonX/talk 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- No no, you misunderstood me when I said "I'll assume not." I meant I'll assume the creator didn't intend for it to be obnoxious! Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chances are, if you need to justify your improper actions as "the right thing," it never was to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- What improper actions? Picaroon (Talk) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- You may wish to review the current discussions/thinking on WT:IAR. Consensus read seems to indicuate that using IAR to not care about consensus and to do what you like is in fact the wrong reading of IAR. That proper application of IAR is unnoticed because it already agrees with consensus, and using IAR to justify just generally poor and disagreeable behavior is in fact in error. But do have a read and see for yourself. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, divisive template. How is crowing over an empty block log anything but divisive between the displayer and the hundreds of Wikipedians that have been blocked but are still productive contributors because they were unlucky or learnt their lesson? --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's been made pretty clear in the past that labelling something a "template" because it is transcluded is inaccurate; a template is only a template if it is in the template namespace. It may well be "divisive", but it's certainly not a template. --Deskana (AFK 47) 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- From Help:Template: "a template is a page which can be inserted into another page via a process called transclusion". That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Namespaces aren't even mentioned in the lead. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- endorse deletion - useless obnoxious crap.--Docg 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Divisive, serves little purpose. Not worth keeping it. --Deskana (AFK 47) 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per above. No way. Let Nardman have his box. And whew, Deskana. For a minute there with the word "divisive" in reference to userboxes I could have sworn Kelly Martin hijacked your account. Rockstar (T/C) 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've blocked him for 1 sec, so now he doesn't need it ;) --Docg 07:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. You rogue admin, you. Rockstar (T/C) 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- overturn, divisiveness is dubious and should be a matter for tfd, not here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Perhaps they could be construed as divisive, but IAR deleting them without an MfD wasn't a good idea, particularly considering the wide latitude traditionally offered in userspace. Krimpet (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I need to write an essay on the subject of "your userspace is not your castle." Picaroon (Talk) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn WP:CSD#T1 should be reserved for blatently obvious stuff, which this isn't. i don't even see how it can claim to be offensive. Since discussion at the admin's incident board, the 3RR board and similar places often raise the number of previous blocks that a user has, and since anyone can find this from the block log anyway, i can't see how this factual template is offensive or divisive. "Unencyclopedic" might be argued, but then most userboxes are arguably unencyclopedic. DES (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I didn't delete it under CSD T1. Had this been in template space when I deleted it I would have used the exact same deletion summary. Second, you say that anyone "can find this from the block log anyway." Since it is a trivial matter to find this out - two clicks from a userpage - why crow about it with an obnoxious userbox? Picaroon (Talk) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. at worst, it's mildly snotty, but no more so (IMO) than many other userboxes. As far as "crowing" goes, how is this different from the (incredibly stupid IMO) edit-count userboxes? Or the 1RR userbox I use to brag about my ability to avoid getting sucked into edit wars?. Or the fistfuls of userboxes that were discussed recently which advocate positions at odds with basic policy? While this is not a userbox I would consider using myself (despite my own clean blocklog, which I hope to keep), I see nothing particularly divisive about this when viewed in the context of accepted userboxes as a whole. Not getting blocked seems like a pretty minor accomplishment in the grand scope of things, but aren't people allowed to be proud of even their minor accomplishments? If this were in template-space, I would advocate userfying ASAP, but it was already in userspace. Xtifr tälk 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. I keep barnstars on my user page, is that "divisive" in the sense that not everyone has them? Same for articles created, articles that have seen DYK or GA or FA... it's an achievement. Some of these achievements are harder to achieve than others, and not everyone can or has achieved them, but there's nothing inherently wrong with being proud of achievements. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why not keep it, but block anyone who uses it for a token 1 second for being a show-off.--Docg 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I am away, but I pop back briefly every now and then. Firstly, please note that this is only one of two userboxes deleted from my rather small UBX archive - it has a matching female UBX which has also been deleted. Secondly, I'm unimpressed that a page in my userspace has been deleted without so much as a mention on my talk page - particularly given the fact that a quick look at my userpage would inform the deleting admin (or anybody who might have wanted to place a CSD teplate on the pages) that I am in ill health and currently not participating heavily in Wikipedia. Simple courtesy might suggest that leaving such a message should be appropriate, especially were IAR may need to be cited as a justification in any following review! For that reason alone, if I considered it appropriate to "vote" (which I don't) in a deletion review of a page in my userspace, I would suggest it be overturned. The only reason I even know of this discussion is because I briefly checked my watchlist where an edit had been made to a UBX in my space - when I looked at the archive itself I saw two red links, which I had to follow back through "What links here". Perhaps some people feel that the UBX's concerned are devisive, and if that's the case, fair enough, but obnoxious is taking it a bit far - especially in light of WP:AGF - I stand by my deletion log comment; this userbox, whether intended to be or not (I'll assume not), is indeed "utterly obnoxious." does demonstrate a certain amount of doubt in the good faith nature of the contributions concerned. Even after (I assume) looking at the userbox archive page both were listed on and seeing my intent on the page, noting that I was away from my userpage, and failing to leave a note on the talk page doesn't suggest much in the way of respect - even something brief like "have deleted two UBX's from your space, discuss on my talk if you wish to, regards, ~~~~"
- These userboxes, if there is a problem, should have gone through MfD, not speedy. Truth be known, they were created in good faith - I'd done a fair amount of editing, and felt the need to learn a bit about templating (coding has never been a strong point of mine!) UBX's represented a simple form of template, and cleanly linking (ie, without the arrow symbol) to non-[[nonxyz]] format pages etc was one of the things I was interested in working out - and I had had the idea of creating a minimalist archive with a reasonably inclusive selection of basic UBX's and some original ones (and I don't mind admitting that I was short on ideas!). I saw no harm in the ones I created, and if any real harm has been found and agreed upon then I would be more than happy to see them deleted - but through the proper process, not unilaterally using the reasoning "well, I speedied it, but even if a speedy criteria wasn't really applicable or right here, I'm still citing IAR because I personally don't like it". OK, maybe that might be a little harsh on the deleting admin, but then, as I've not been shown even the slightest bit of respect or courtesy, I feel I've every right to be a little harsh (but not too harsh! lol). Obnoxious indeed! Divisive maybe, useless possibly, but not obnoxious no, not in my opinion and not in my intention. The community is already divided into those who have been previously blocked and those that haven't by the simple fact that there is a freely accessable block log for each user. All the userbox (which has been around for a long time now) did/does is to allow those that want to display the fact that they haven't been blocked (a small number in my estimation) to do so. What I was hoping to do, for the benefit of my learning only, was to expand the box to say "this user has been blocked "1/2/3/whatever" times" automatically, untill I realised that it might invite use by those who might take pride in being repeatedly blocked (in much the same way that vandals like to increase the number on peoples vandal counts), which to me was a clearly bad possibility. Of course, I could simply have tried to create the userbox privately anyway on an obscure pagename, but realised that I probably don't have the technical skill. For both of these reasons, I left it as what I thought was just another harmless userbox in the archive. What I find obnoxious (Compact Oxford English Dictionary definition: extremely unpleasant, — ORIGIN originally in the sense vulnerable: from Latin obnoxius ‘exposed to harm’.) is the way in which the deletion was performed and handled, and the lack of courtesy shown in the process. Crimsone 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am not one to bother people about things which should be so minor that no one should bother with a deletion review in regards to them. Furthermore, did you not see my reply to CharonX, who misread my comments in the exact way you seem to have done? (I even adorned said reply with an exclamation point.) I said it was obnoxious "whether intended to be or not (I'll [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume not]])," which means, quite simply, that I assumed you didn't intend the box to be obnoxious; your comment further reassures me so. That said, let us quibble over vocabulary. At wikt:obnoxious, I find "Very annoying, offensive, odious or contemptible" for a definition. "Annoying" and "odious" don't really fit the bill here, but "offensive" and "contemptible" both describe the feelings which those excluded from use of this userbox would have perfect reason to feel were they to happen across one. Picaroon (Talk) 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough Picaroon, I will assume good faith myself given your re-iteration, and apologise to you for it. However, you will note that I gave no conditions for the use of the userbox, that someone who had been mistakenly blocked could still consider themselves free to use it, and for those who had been rightfully blocked, it could be easily adapted to say "block free since...", or whatever. I still do not believe the boxes to be offensive in the slightest, or expect them to be widely used to be honest. I also stand by my statement that the deletions were way out of due process, and were based on your personal opinion rather than concensus, especially given their location in userspace. I also feel that respect and common courtesy should have lead you to leave a brief message on my talk page regarding the deletions, if not so that I could keep the archive tidy as per my obvious desire from the page, but so that I might request a review if I so wished at a later date, given that my userpage has me as away (which I am for the most part). I feel both the action to be inappropriate, and the execution of the action to be disrespectful and incourteous, especially under the circumstances and given the location. As mentioned above though, if overturned, I would welcome you in taking the pages to MfD and following the process that should have been followed the first time around should you feel that strongly about them. Crimsone 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I wonder under what circumstances providing factual and accurate information about onself should warrant deletion. It appears to me that, according to the the standards(?) proposed by some participants in this discussion, virtually any statement can be construed as obnoxious. Stammer 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Misapplied IAR, appearance of censorship, and misapplication of common sense. Additionally, admin is hostile toward editors commenting on DRV in good faith. Please review obligations as an administrator and act as a custodian, not as an overseer. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - I think userboxes are obnoxious, horrible things. I think out of process deletions are much worse. If every admin starts deleting things they don't like, it'll be chaos. -Halo 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
|
