Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template:User scientology 2 Template:User liberal 3 Template:User liberty 4 Template:User chav & Template:User notchav 5 Template:User hate 6 Template:User Wikicheese-ologist 7 Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

[edit] Template:User scientology

Original deleted template:

Proposed template for undeletion:

Tony Sidaway deleted this page based on the new in-discussion T2 deletion criterion. I propose that, regardless of whether T2 is or becomes established policy or not, this template be undeleted so that its original, belief-based contents ("This user is a scientologist.") can be replaced with new, specialty/interest-based contents ("This user is interested in Scientology."), so that, rather than dividing users based on ideology, it brings together users with a shared involvement or interest in an article topic. The reason I can't simply create a new userbox under the old name is because the page is protected, and I would greatly prefer that the template be undeleted so that the edit history is accessible (I can see no value in hiding it from non-admins) and the old style and layout of the userbox can be continued even while the text is changed. (Note that if T2 is not accepted policy, I would propose that a new userbox, {{user scientologist}}, be created for the old contents of this box.) -Silence 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rewrite to express an interest/expertise rather than a belief. (This will also make the template much more widely-used than it was: it only had one or two users before, but I expect it'll end up with dozens once it's opened up to include non-Scientologists who are interested or involved in this encyclopedic topic.) -Silence 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I actually like Silence's idea. Unfortunately, not everyone who expresses a religious POV is neccessarily interested in editing such articles. So I think it would be better to delete all existing religious userboxes, and then create new templates for editing interest in religion - I certainly would find any such templates unobjectionable. --Doc ^ask? 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that not everyone who expresses a religious POV is interested or willing to edit the articles in question, but I think that the vast majority are at least "interested in X", and those who aren't can easily remove the userbox in question after it's been moved and rewritten. However, although I don't think it applies to this specific template (only about one user was using it in its old form, and its actual name is suggestive of an "interest" template, not a "practitioner" one, so rewriting it would be very easy to do), your point is a valid one for at least some belief-based templates: the racism userboxes, for example, probably couldn't be rewritten to "This user is interested in racism." without getting complaints, so it may be necessary to simply delete those under T2. For most of the religion-based ones, though, I think that relatively few users would object to simply renaming them: anyone who uses {{user alchemist}}, for example, probably won't care much if "This user is an alchemist." is changed to "This user is interested in alchemy." However, if you think that it's better to be safe than sorry in terms of changing the text of userboxes, I propose that we do the following: subst all userboxes in their old text, then move and reword them. Anyone who doesn't like the substed version can then freely switch to the new, interest-based box, and as a bonus we don't lose edit histories, layouts, or talk pages in the transition, and cause a minimum of disruption or controversy. Plus it's simply faster to subst and then move a template than to start a whole new template from scratch, and one of the biggest concerns about userboxes is that they draw too much time away from working on the encyclopedia, so a simple and quick solution is a very good thing. What do you think about that possibility? -Silence 23:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Another advantage of the subst-and-move/rewrite version of my proposal, incidentally, is that it will at no point involve a template-deletion, meaning that users will be unable to bring the transferred box up at this DRV page (they'll have to discuss it on the relevant Talk pages instead) and flood us with more debates if we do decide to mass-subst-and-move most of the boxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. :) That's surely an appealing bonus, Doc, since you, Cyde, and many others have been complaining so much about the time and effort wasted by having to deal with so many userbox deletion reviews. Accordingly, the most efficient way to solve this mess is surely to eliminate the POVed templates without involving deletion in the process at all! A further benefit of the subst-and-move/rewrite (as opposed to "subst-and-delete") is that this renders the process transparent and viewable to non-admins, so there will be less ill-will or hostile accusations of "admin abuse" involved, and the change overall will seem much less dramatic and excessive than a mass-deletion of userboxes would, even while it still successfully neutralizes the expression of POVs from transcluded user-templates. Win-win, don't you think? -Silence 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. There is nothing wrong with expressing an interest. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - T1&T2. --Cyde Weys 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2. If you want to say you're interested in Scientology, why would you want to transclude this template, even if it was changed as Silence suggests? What if someone changed it back? Suddenly you're no longer interested in Scientology but a Scientologist yourself. We know quite well there are enough people to start a revert war. Just write it down, or if you find it so hard to put it in context, create your own userbox. Know what - since it takes an entire, wearisome 2 minutes to create a custom userbox with the special generic template supplied at WP:BOX, here you go: User:Samuel Blanning/User scientologist. Subst that and you're done. I'll delete it the second I see someone transclude it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  This is an unrealistic and trivial concern. Such a change would be reverted within minutes; you might as well argue that Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology is a bad idea because a Scientologist could try to edit the text to make it a pro-Scientology WikiProject rather than just one that's about Scientology. I very much doubt that such a thing would ever happen (Scientologists have shown very little interest in userboxes, as shown by how very few have ever used it in the past: they tend to find it easier to further their agenda when they aren't so explicit about their beliefs), and even if it did once or twice, it'd be an incredibly minor issue and would cause no lasting damage to anything. I think you're imagining a problem where one doesn't exist here. A template for users interested in Scientology is no better or worse than the templates we already have for users interested in politics, users interested in assorted musical instruments, users interested in history, etc., and no one has seriously proposed deleting those. Although I'm sure your complaint is in perfectly good faith, and I very much appreciate you taking the time to create a userspace page for users to subst: the code from, I think your zeal to destroy these boxes is causing you to dismiss an effective and simple compromise before it's been given a chance to work or not work. -Silence 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I don't consider the possibility that a page on a wiki might be edited to be unrealistic and trivial. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  Two fallacies: strawman, and appeal to ridicule ("if evolution is true, that means my grandmother's a monkey!"). Rewording and mangling someone's argument to make it seem like something it's not is not counterarguing against it, it's just rhetoric. By your logic, we wouldn't have any templates, because it's possible for every template to be edited (unless it is protected, which is just as easy to do for this template as for any other, if your notion ever really does become a problem in the future, which any reasonable user can see it almost certainly won't). The hole in your conception is that you don't seem capable of acknowledging what a trivial and transient nuisance such vandalism is, how absurdly easy it is to remedy, and how incredibly unlikely it is ever to occur, much less to occur in significant enough quantities to become a meaningful annoyance (in fact, if a Scientologist ever does try to change the template back to "This user is a Scientologist.", it's almost certain to be a direct result of your suggestion that they can do so; an examplary WP:BEANS demonstration). "We shouldn't have a useful template for X topic because someone could edit it someday to say something it shouldn't" is amazingly flawed and unconvincing reasoning. -Silence 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  Two fallacies in a single sentence that most would consider uncontroversial. I feel like I should get a prize, or at least a booming Unreal Tournament "DOUBLE FALLACY!" voiceover. Anyway, your argument rests on the claim that changing this template to say 'This user is a Scientologist' would be vandalism of the same scale as changing it to say "This user is a tool" and thus reverted without question. It's quite obviously not. It could legitimately say either "This user is a Scientologist" or "This user is interested in Scientology" - we know that's true because it used to be the former and you're suggesting the latter. And yet they're two completely different things, and anyone who used it could suddenly find their userpages changed to something completely different from what they wanted to say. And if it's not meant to ever be changed, why does it need to be a template? P.S. I also like your claim that I'm WP:BEANSing: "This will never happen, but if it does, it's your fault, Blanning". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Two fallacies in a single sentence that most would consider uncontroversial." - Please read logical fallacy, since you're clearly unfamiliar with what a fallacy is. A fallacy is not necessarily untrue: you could use an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss my arguments, for example, and even if the ad hominem was accurate, it would be irrelevant, because propositions are not judged based on the merits of the proposer. The core of a fallacious argument is not that it's necessarily untrue, but that it's a distraction from the issue that was actually being discussed: by distorting beyond recognition the argument I'd actually made, rather than simply responding to my statements, you changed the debate to an entirely unrelated subject, and I had the option either of letting you do so or of pointing out the fallacy and thus asking you to respond directly to what I'd said; I chose the latter. I apologize if I was unclear in this in my previous post.

  "Anyway, your argument rests on the claim that changing this template to say 'This user is a Scientologist' would be vandalism of the same scale as changing it to say "This user is a tool" and thus reverted without question." - Actually, my argument does not rest on that at all. It merely rests on the notion that any interested users will have it on their watchlist; vandalism does not necessarily have to be dramatic to be reverted quickly, as anyone familiar with Wikipedia is surely aware. And I, certainly, will be keeping an eye on the template once it's undeleted, to revert any malicious edits to it immediately (though I doubt any significant ones will ever occur, as I noted above already; none have ever occurred in the past, so why should they in the future?). Your fears are thus misplaced, and even were they , would be a reason not to forbid users from expressing this specific interest on this specific userbox, but rather reason to protect the page once it's recreated to avoid such an eventuality (were your fears justified, that is). Either way, the problem is (A) a very slim possibility, and (B) a ridiculously trivial problem even if that possibility ever is fulfilled. It is therefore unreasonable to ban a userbox such as this from existing based on such speculative grounds. Though I appreciate your concerns, they are clearly exaggerated a thousand times out of proportion here, and this argument doesn't really have any special relevance to this template, as there is no more chance of it being targeted than of any other box (including babelboxes), and certainly less chance of such vandalism being troublesome to revert than for many other, less-mainstream userboxes.

  "we know that's true because it used to be the former and you're suggesting the latter." - It used to be the former solely because of how disorganized many userboxes' names are. The correct formating for the old version of the userbox would have been {{user scientologist}}, in keeping with the other religious boxes. The fact that this one was in use at all is just a historical quirk, not a meaningful distinction between this and any other box.

  "And yet they're two completely different things, and anyone who used it could suddenly find their userpages changed to something completely different from what they wanted to say." - Get your facts straight. Next to nobody uses this, and next to nobody ever has. This is one of the most obscure and underused religious userboxes on all of Wikipedia (especially remarkable considering how old it is). Undeleting it so it can be reworded to an appropriate, non-T2 version (which will also inevitably be dozens of times more popular than the old, less-useful POV-expressing version) poses no significant risk whatsoever. You are so devoted to your bizarre hypothetical future scenario that you're completely ignoring the actual circumstances of the page in question.

  ""This will never happen, but if it does, it's your fault, Blanning"." - This is something of a misrepresentation. I correctly pointed out that the most likely reason such a thing would ever happen in the future, if it were to happen at all, would be because of your suggestion (since it's such an unusual and unlikely thing to ever happen at all for any reason, considering how incredibly underused this template was in its "This user is a Scientologist." form, which you don't seem to grasp: most users won't even realize it ever had such a form, once it's reworded!) This is not meant to put any present or future blame on you for anything, merely to point out, correctly, that, as with the "beans" analogy, it's near-certain that noone would have done what you're describing if we hadn't wasted this time discussing it; now it's still extremely unlikely, but if it does occur, it'll be pretty obvious that it was inspired by this inane discussion. However, my real argument, in full, was more "this is extremely unlikely to ever happen, and if it does, it'll be so trivial and easy to fix that it won't even be a blip on the radar". Which is true. Your worry really is unsubstantiated by any evidence that such a thing would actually happen, much less by evidence that it would pose the grave, life-ruining threat you seem to be imagining. This is such a silly, quibbling, and unlikely eventuality that I'm amazed we're even discussing it. April Fool's Day is long gone, right? Baffling. -Silence 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per T2 and per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2 and use it as a Userbox in User space, however you choose to word it. - Nhprman 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T2. Enjoy the power of creating wiki markup on your very own user page, which no one will interfere with. There's no good reason for these to stay as templates. Nandesuka 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  It clutters and disorganizes the page's code horribly, wastes much more time and effort copy-pasting than a template (thus taking away editors' valuable time from editing the encyclopedia), and has no benefits over the simple and convenient mechanism of userspace templates. If you personally prefer not to use templates on your user page, you are free to do so; forbidding everyone else to do so, however, is unjustifiable by policy or by common sense. Plus it's actually beneficial to let different users who are interested in Scientology contact one another: the problem is with Scientologists gathering, not users interested in Scientology gathering, and this is a very convenient, simple, layed-back way to facilitate such interest-based communication without requiring the more formal, obligation-implying measure of joining a WikiProject. -Silence 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  If your userpage is cluttered by markup, either you should consider organising your userpage in subpages, or you've got too much markup and not enough content. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  More judgmental, do-exactly-what-I-say-and-lay-your-page-out-exactly-as-I-wish userpage-mandating. Usertemplates have a long, long history and cause no server issues, have no inherent problems with letting users contact one another, and are valuable tools for efficiently adding significant, compacted information (like web browser, editing interests, and languages spoken) in a specific style and format, for users who prefer to use them than to use the raw code. It should be left up to the users' choice, not forced on them my unnecessary stylistic omniconformity. Ultimately, forcing people to deal with the code will cause many of them to waste more time with userboxes, and thus spending less time on the encyclopedia; it is in everyone's best interests to keep things simple, or at least to give people the option of doing so. Moreover, userboxes are not currently against policy, so even if it is your opinion that they should all be scourged from the face of the planet, it is inappropriate to entirely disregard current policy and process on a DRV by voting based on what you wish the state of affairs was. -Silence 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted divisive.--MONGO 02:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  "This user is interested in Scientology." is divisive? In the way a Babelbox is divisive, I suppose... -Silence 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted and spend the time you would have used debating this and write a fuller, well rounded description of your interest in Scientology on your userpage. Wouldn't that be more useful? Rx StrangeLove 05:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  My proposal above is specifically designed to help us avoid wasting time on userboxes. By simply altering most userboxes (like this one) to express an interest rather than a POV, we can satisfy the wishes of both sides effectively, while avoiding endless DRV nonsense and factionalizing. This is the userbox DRV to end (almost) all userbox DRVs, if it can only get some support so we can get the "move templates from beliefs to interests" idea rolling and avoid another war over this crap. Are we so in love with this silly conflict that we instinctively reject any attempt to resolve things peacefully? -Silence 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  As long as there's transclusion going on you'll get objections. Mackensen has the right idea, I don't think you're going far enough. I think we should all get behind that and be done with it. I also think you should stop questioning every entry here. Rx StrangeLove 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted how would this help the encyclopedia? --Tbeatty 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  By helping users who are interested in the many Scientology-related articles on Wikipedia state their interest in a simple, easy way. -Silence 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology. If you feel the desperate need, see if the other people there would like to have a user box like {{WikiProject member/Scientology}}… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  I already pointed out above that there is a major difference between joining a WikiProject, which entails responsibility towards that project's specific goals and aims, and adding an interest-related userbox to your userpage, which only denotes interest or involvement in an encyclopedic topic: much more casual, and thus much more appealing to users who don't want to get tied down by individual WikiProjects, but do want to express their interest or expertise in certain areas of Wikipedia. Plus, obviously, many WikiProjects find userboxes extremely valuable tools for identifying members at a glance, so this could just as easily become a userbox used by that project (and, in fact, surely will, as soon as it's undeleted). I don't see a "desperate need", but there's also no desperate need for Babelboxes: they're just a valuable utility for Wikipedia, like interest-based userboxes (such as {{user politics}}, {{user baroque}}, and {{user architecture}}). I don't see the benefit of forbidding users from having a template specifying an interest in a specific major religion with dozens and dozens of important Wikipedia articles devoted to it. There's obviously nothing wrong with {{user religion interest}}, so why is there something wrong with corresponding userboxes for individual religions? Arbitrarily forbidding them expressing a certain major and significant interest in userbox form, and essentially forcing people to use a specific method if they want to contact other users with an interest, seems rather absurd, and certainly counterproductive with respect to Wikipedia's interests. Giving users more options is a Good Thing. -Silence 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  I was unaware that joining a WikiProject entails "responsibility towards that project's specific goals and aims"!!! The project I have the most experience with, WP:Beatles, has a core of dedicated users and a larger number of people who just seem interested in the topic and edit as the spirit moves them and there's nothing at all wrong with that. So I'm not following that argument too well. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  And I'm sure not all of those users have signed up at the project, much less all of the users who commonly edit articles related to The Beatles! I was not trying to imply that any one WikiProject or other is at all restrictive in its goals, merely pointing out that some users prefer to sign up at WikiProjects, and others prefer to express relevant interests using userboxes. Forbidding one or the other, and especially arbitrarily forbidding a specific interest-related userbox for a randomly-selected religion, is clearly not remotely helpful to anyone (and is, in fact, harmful). There is no policy justification for banning the use of messages along the lines of "This user is interested in the encyclopedic topic Scientology." or anything of the sort, especially when the template hasn't gone through TfD (or even been given a chance to exist at all, even is a test run!). I'm not arguing against WikiProjects, I'm arguing for letting the users decide how they prefer to help Wikipedia! More options means more activity and interest from users with different tendencies and preferences, which ultimately, in the long run, means much more valuable editing. Why is that simple idea apparently so repulsive to so many users here?

  The complete unwillingness to compromise, discuss the relevant propositions (chiefly "subst + move/reword" as an alternative to "subst + delete" for certain templates), or try new solutions out to at least find out if there's a better way, being expressed here is horrifying. Are we so stuck in the mud at this point that we shoot at any hand that tries to pull us out of it? Replacing belief-expressing userboxes with interest/expertise-expressing ones is an extremely reasonable proposal that could have immense value for Wikipedia, both in converting userboxes of mediocre relevance to ones of high relevant for Wikipedia, and in diffusing a huge number of potential conflicts and disputes that will arise over merely deleting such templates without weighing the other options. The only explanation I can see for such unwillingness even to discuss that proposal is that too many users are wrapped up in battling the "enemy" to evem remember that peace is more important than absolute victory, as that's what will let us, all of us, return to editing the encyclopedia as quickly as possible with as little hostility and resentment as possible. That's all I'm arguing for. -Silence 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. JUST KIDDING ... undelete as an improper speedy. Admins should enforce policy, not invent what they would like for it to be. BigDT 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm fairly disappointed that you, and several other users above, seem not to be paying any attention at all to the specific argument above for how to handle all these userboxes, but just voting as a knee-jerk reaction the same way you vote for all religion-related userboxes. No wonder we're having such a communication breakdown on these debates, if people are just autovoting for everything based on their hot-button issues, not on the specific situation or possibilities.... Oy. -Silence 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  My vote has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't utter. I meant exactly what I said (all joking aside) in this vote. If I were basing my vote on religion, I certainly wouldn't be voting to keep scientology, atheist, or varies sex. As I said in my vote on this and on ever other DRV, my vote is because it was an improper speedy. This deletion, Template:User Church of Christ, Template:User sumofpi, Template:User atheist, User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian, and Template:User varied sex - every single one of them - were improper speedies. The ONLY question that matters is whether or not the speedy was proper. It is not a knee-jerk vote on a hot button issue. It is a vote against out-of-process deletes that by all rights SHOULD have been speedy undeletes. This is hardly even debatable. If something doesn't fit the WP:CSD, how can it be speedied? If the speedy was improper, the only recourse I see under the rules is to undelete. "We don't like the policy" is not a reason for ignoring it. BigDT 12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  "My vote has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't utter." - And nowhere did I say that your vote was based on religion. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't utter. The thing is, sumofpi and varied sex were improper speedies because they don't fall under T1 or T2, but atheist and CoC and Christian and scientology (and Zoroastrian and sikh, which haven't been nominated here yet) were improper speedies for non-policy-related-matters: because they should have been resolved through renaming and rewording, rather than immediately going to the last resort of speedy-deletion. And they still should: {{user atheist}} should be moved to "user atheism", "This user is interested in atheism." If T2 is here for keeps, then we should vote in the appropriate manner to enforce it, but we also shouldn't get so trigger-happy that we don't consider any viable options except speedy-deleting! -Silence 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  "voting as a knee-jerk reaction the same way you vote for all religion-related userboxes" - I interpreted this to mean, "you are voting this way because it is about religion." If you say that this was not the message you were trying to convey, I will WP:AGF. If T2 becomes the law of the land, then obviously, everything having to do with religion gets speedied. As for changing the content of Christian, atheist, etc, I don't like that one bit. Make a new one that says, "this user is interested in Christianity" - that's fine. I can't speak for everyone who has the former {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}} on their page, but I would think that many/most would have little interest in one that just expresses an interest, rather than a membership. Take it out of the context of religion for a moment. "This user is a Senator". "This user is interested in the Senate". They express totally different messages. It may be that both are true ... but you can't just assume that they are both true and put words in everyone's mouth. I put the userbox on my page as an expression of belief, not as an expression of editing interest. It happens to be an editing interest, but that doesn't make the two equivalent. If T2 becomes law, I'd rather subst/speedy all religion boxes than turn them into something they don't necessarilly mean. BigDT 03:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  I apologize for being unclear in my initial comment, I didn't mean to imply that the religious nature was playing a role in people's votes, merely pointing out that the same people who always vote "delete" on this type of userbox are voting delete here, and the same people who always vote "keep" on this type of userbox are voting keep here, which suggested to me that users were ignoring the actual suggestion I made for this box. The comments confirmed it: only one or two users seemed at all aware of what I was suggesting, and even those misunderstood certain aspects of it. For example, you've missed the aspect of my suggestion where we subst all these templates before moving and rewriting them (in other words, "subst-move-and-rewrite" rather than the laborious "subst-delete-and-DRV"), thus ensuring that the original users keep their version, while we simultaneously fix the problem with that version for future users, all without any messy deletions and the fights they inevitably generate. Simple, subtle, effective. The pro-userboxers get their substed T2 versions and their templateified non-T2 versions, and the anti-userboxers get to eliminate all POV-expressing user-templates in a non-offensive and easy way that will ensure the quickest and smoothest transition period, thus allowing us all to get back to working on the encyclopedia. So, to state yet again the sequence of events (example template: {{User:UBX/muslim}}): (1) subst {{User:UBX/muslim}} to all the users' pages; (2) move {{User:UBX/muslim}} to {{user islam}}; {3) change text from "This user is a Muslim." to "This user is interested in Islam."; (4) profit! -Silence 20:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. —Phil | Talk 08:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - although I've no objection to a 'this user edits Scientology-related articles' neing created as an alternative. --Doc ^ask? 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I created this vote for: to make such a template, something impossible to do at the most consistent and intuitive name available ({{user scientology}}) unless the template's undelete-protected. And if we're going to do that, we might as well just undelete the template itself and then make the change, since it hardly makes a difference one way or the other if the POV-expressing version isn't the current one, and salvaging the edit history is a very worthy thing to do in the long run. Though if for some reason that's completely unacceptable, at least unprotecting it would be sufficient for making the new template, and would be satisfactory in the broader sense. The main reason I brought this to vote wasn't to see how many people like or don't like T2 (such a banal and irrelevant matter is already demonstrated by other DRVs): it was to get an idea of whether people would be interested in getting rid of many of the POVed userboxes through subtler and more diplomatic means than deletion where possible, like rewrites and page-moves, since I've suggested this in several places so far but gotten little response. So far, that attempt at opinion-gauging has been unsuccessful, as most peole don't seem willing or able to judge the specific situation at hand and say what they think about the "opinion -> interest" move option. :/ Thanks for voicing your mind on the matter, at least, doc, even though I don't fully understand your vote. -Silence 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Scientology seems to me often more like a business than a religion. Homestarmy 12:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  That isn't really a relevant issue here. -Silence 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well it is to me in terms of me deciding what my vote is :/.

• Keep deleted for obvious reasons. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted in parallel with all the other religion/belief userboxes that also need to go or stay gone. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• SUPER Strong keep deleted as discussed - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Although it would be nice to know why the hell this whackjob is messing with the Psychiatry page, just no. --mboverload@ 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Long history of deceptio
• Undelete, by standards of Wikipedia:Userbox_policy. I am rather disgusted that the votes focus entirely on the subject matter. This should not be the case. It doesn't really matter whether the subject matter is scientology or the scientific method. What should matter to us are the standards that we universally use to judge the appropriateness of userboxes..... oh, wait a minute. There's the big problem. We don't have accepted standards on this yet. That, of course, leaves people to vote with their gut. Hence the guy who voted undelete because he or she did not like the Church of Scientology. Thank you much for the vote, I think it's the right decision, but I disagree with your reason behind it.

  And, unlike some people (let's not be coy, I'm talking about Cyde), I don't think the ends justify the means, no matter how correct the ends may be. This entire userbox mess is a prime example of the necessity of playing on an even foundation, an even playing field. What we really need is order. That is why I strongly suggest that you take your decisions on votes for deletion or undeletion of userbox templates based not upon individual feelings (e.g., "I'm afraid templates are going to take us over! TOO DIVISIVE. DELETE." or "I smoke weed, so I should support the FREEDOM OF SPEECH of this pro-drug template! UNDELETE.") but upon a standard policy. Imagine if we had the same situation, where everyone is coming from a different direction, with NPOV. Or notability. Every single AfD vote, people would be coming from different ideas as to what is notable. (Come to think of it, sometimes people do, at that, but they get sorted out...)

  Now, one important thing. Yes, I know there isn't OFFICIALLY a policy on this but this doesn't prevent you from using it. When the userbox policy went to the polls it got 61%, so it's not just some random idea out of nowhere. Most support it. It's not official policy at this time because it didn't achieve a supermajority, and we really need to get something that is official. But, as long as you are going to vote by some criteria, for Wikipedia's sake, please, do it by an orderly criteria such as the candidate official policy. You can see it at Wikipedia:Userbox_policy. I hope we can make it actual official policy soon (or, some other policy, after discussion). This is very important, as it is causing a total lack of order that is very harmful to us. Follow Wikipedia:Userbox policy! D. G. 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete even though this is an almost useless userbox forced by T2, it doesn't meet T2 (or T1) standards, and thus should be send to TfD. TheJabberwʘck 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why does it seem like close to 100% of the "delete" and "undelete" voters alike didn't bother reading the initial reasoning for the undelete? Nowhere have I contested that "This user is a Scientologist." falls under T2: the reason this should be undeleted is so that a new, much more valuable (as shown by the fact that almost no users ever put the original form of this template on their userpages) template can be created in place of the original, while preserving the original name and edit history. Both sides of this debate seem to be too much on autopilot to really consider the circumstances here.
• The reason this, {{user atheist}}, {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}}, {{user sikh}}, {{user Zoroastrian}}, etc. should be undeleted isn't because they're OK in their current formats (they aren't, if T2 is policy): it's because they can extremely easily be converted to acceptable versions, thus diffusing the problem and slicing smoothly through the tangled Gordian's knot of this dispute. Rather than wasting more time on DRV debates like this, why not simply remove the unacceptable elements from templates like these and convert a troublesome problem into a useful tool, all while avoiding deletion-generated hostilities? That is what I'm arguing for, and why I proposed this DRV: so we can stop wasting time on this userbox hatin' and return to editing the encyclopedia, transitioning into a T2-adherent set of userboxes as smoothly and easily as possible. Are the pro- and anti-userboxers too consumed by this debate to care anymore about striving for peace and compromise? -Silence 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - if someone wants to create the above "This user is interested in scientology", there is nothing whatsoever stopping them from doing that. The focus of this DRV should be solely whether the deletion of the template that actually existed was appropriate, purely because the two templates are not mutually exclusive. You can create "This user is interested in scientology" right now, today, so there doesn't need to be a vote/consensus/expression of opinion/whatever you want to call what we are doing here on it. BigDT 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  You are incorrect, it's impossible to create a new template with the same name at Template:User_scientology: the page is protected. The same applies to {{user christian}}, {{user sikh}}, {{user atheist}}, {{user Zoroastrian}}, {{user Church of Christ}}, and, come to think of it, {{user creationist}} and {{user evolution}}, which could also be converted into very valuable interest/specialty-expressing templates. (And, as is the case with the scientology template, I'd expect that most users who are interested in creationism on Wikipedia, and work regularly on that topic, aren't actually creationists.) Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, it would be very helpful to be able to keep the old edit histories around (i.e. accessible to non-admins), hence the benefit of an undelete here, and an undelete-and-move for the other templates I just mentioned (in addition to the benefit that it will make it impossible for us to waste more time with DRVs of these in the future, will keep the Talk pages cohesive, and will consume less time than a simple subst-and-delete). -Silence 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  Compromise Suggestion I apologize - I misread your point and purpose then ... how about this as a solution, (1) request that this DRV be ended as WP:SNOW. It isn't really going to ever accomplish anything because the only question answered in a DRVU is whether the template that used to exist should be undeleted. (2) Create a new template somewhere else containing the text that you would like. (3) Use {{Editprotected}} on the talk page of Template:User scientology and request that an administrator unprotect it and redirect it to your new template.

  I very much appreciate the helpful suggestions, but I don't like this specific suggestion at all. It sounds like a monstrous waste of time, incredibly unnecessary, and honestly just plain silly in the level of bureaucratic wrangling and redirecting required. What's so intolerable about the 20 seconds required to undelete the template, alter the text slightly, and move on with our lives? That suggestion itself was a major compromise. Yours just seems bizarre: I see no reason to believe WP:SNOW applies here, this template is meant to answer the question of whether the template that used to exist should be undeleted (the only difference is the reason it should be undeleted: so it can be edited into a more useful template, not so it can be kept in its unacceptable form), creating a new template elsewhere is wasteful of Wikipedia resources (and making brand-new userboxes at this point is discouraged anyway), and {{editprotected}} won't restore the edit history, though if this DRV fails (though I see no reason why it should; no good rationale's been proposed yet for not undeleting this so it can be converted into an acceptable and valiable userbox), I'll certainly use {{editprotected}} so the new template can at least be created, even if the history's lost. C'mon, I thought the main rationale anti-userboxers were using for all their "creative" DRV and TfD interpretations was that result, not process, is importnat? If that's the case, then why are those exact same people suddenly refusing to consider the result (and the quickest way to reach that result) when the circumstances change slightly? -Silence 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, T1. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Consensus seems to be emerging to disallow such religion templates in template space now, but let's allow people to place this on their userpages in raw code only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, T2 isn't even a solid policy yet. How can it be enforced? JohnnyBGood t c 00:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  It's become policy because it reflects a pre-existing practice that fulfils a need. That need was previously being met by a contrived reading of T1. Having a clear T2, as we do now, is a much better solution than stretching the words of T1 beyond their natural meaning. You'll find that a lot of admins will enforce T2, even people like me who were uncomfortable about the way the words of T1 were previously being stretched. Metamagician3000 09:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted policy is decriptive, not proscriptive. -- Drini 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The only reason this was brought here it's because Tony Sidaway deleted it. It's a bad faith nomination with no real arguments and thus should be closed. -- Drini 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  This claim is grossly inaccurate, and rather bizarre (why would I care who deleted it? I have no issue with Tony Sidaway). You clearly have not read any of the discussion involved in this template's nomination at all (much like most of the other voters here). Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith and remember to treat your fellow editors in a respectful and polite manner, and also remember that a healthy debate requires that all participants respond to one anothers' points, and do not merely dismiss arguments based on ad hominem claims. (In reality, the reason this template was nominated for undeletion is because a template for "This user is interested in Scientology." would clearly be very useful and appropriate for Wikipedia, and having such a template at this specific name makes by far the most sense, and is by far the most consistent with the dozens of other userboxes which have now been changed per my above proposal at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. The fact that this vote has failed to generate any real discussion of the issue it was nominated for is indicative of an unwillingness by the editors here to discuss or reason about the relevant issues; it will now be necessary to wait until the environment has changed to a healthier and more open-minded one before this template can be renominated for undeletion, unfortunately.) Thank you for your vote, and have a nice day. -Silence 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  Huh? Why do you think that? Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per accepted intepretation of T1. Cynical 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom & reword. An interest in Scientology is not inflammatory or divisive to me, and I can't see it being taken as such by others.--Ssbohio 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and reword, deletion is not the only course of action and I don't think is the best one for templates like these. --AySz88^-^ 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. You don't need this undeleted to create a legitimate version of this template; just re-create something worthwhile at the same name. If we accept that the template as it used to stand was unacceptable, what possible reason is there for wanting undeletion first? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 21:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, no, you can't do that - the page has a {{deletedpage}} and is protected. --AySz88^-^ 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  It doesn't need to be undeleted to fix that, just unprotected. There's no reason to undelete this template in order to replace it with a legitimate one. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  The benefit of unprotection is that the edit history, within which there was absolutely nothing so unacceptable that it can't even be permitted to be viewed as a past edit, can be viewed by users to see the template's history. If it makes you feel better to fit unprotect this template and replace it with the current version, then undelete the old edits so they can be viewed again, that's fine too; it doesn't make a difference to me. But if for some reason (noone's yet provided a convincing one) it's unacceptable to let people view these old edits, then I'll be satisfied, as I've said several times above, with at least the bare-minimum change: unprotection so a new template can be created here. -Silence 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  I am willing to unprotect the template right now, if I'm assured that no-one will try to take advantage of this to recreate an unacceptable template. I am not willing to undelete a template that was quite rightfully deleted when I'm not convinced there's a good reason to do so. My talk page is over there somewhere -----> fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. All or nothing policy is needed or this one by one battle will go on forever. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I think the form "This user is interested in Scientology" is acceptable. If it reverts to its original form I'd say then it should be speedied and no second chance. concur with GTBacchus that attempts to turn this into a speediable belief template could be treated as vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as an interest box, not a belief box. That's a critical difference, and helps maintain the atmosphere of an encyclopedia, not a clubhouse. If it reverts (spontaneously?) to its original form I'd say it should be dealt with as simple vandalism and/or disruption; i.e., not speedied. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This whole crusade against ideologies has gotten way out of hand. Salvage it as an interest if nothing else. CelestialRender 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Crusade against ideologies"? I know the anti-userbox position has been explained better than that. We're trying to keep an encyclopedia from giving every appearance of a political rally. When you start looking like a political rally, more and more activists start showing up and feeling welcome. They're not. Activists would love to control Wikipedia, because we are becoming more and more trusted as a reliable source of truth. Remember what Jimbo said: "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." Read between the lines - there really are "wrong kinds of people" for this project. It really does mean something to be a Wikipedian. It doesn't mean advertising and representing for your biases. Even if you don't agree, please try to assume good faith, and avoid characterizing the good faith efforts of others as a crusade against ideologies. The only ideology I'm against is the one holding that Wikipedia is a free webhost. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  CommentSorry this isn't threaded right, but I have no clue on that formatting yet. I'm trying to AGF but it's getting difficult due to the fact that this whole userbox war has been started...in order that userboxes won't divide us. I hardly see how someone expressing their views on their user page makes Wikipedia look like a political rally. The pages are still far less biased than half of the textbooks I've read, and I think that speaks for itself. I just think we should live and let live and stop treading on each other's toes over something as silly as userboxes. CelestialRender 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, first of all, I wouldn't call it a "war". That's a divisive metaphor, because it requires "sides" and "fighting". I'm not fighting and I'm not on a side. Calling it a war makes everything worse. What we have is a bunch of people, some of whom misunderstand each other to varying degrees. I refuse to call it a war, because someone who simply misunderstands me is not my enemy. I refuse to fight you, ergo, no war. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

  Second, you don't see "how someone expressing their views on their user page makes Wikipedia look like a political rally." Fair enough, let me rephrase that. We choose some content to put on our user pages. That content in some way represents who each of us is, as a Wikipedian. Proclaiming one's ideological beliefs on one's userpage suggests that one is here as a member of whatever interest group, that those beliefs are one's reason for being here. It makes it look as if representing for one's ideologies is a perfectly valid way to be at Wikipedia, when in fact it's not. It's flag waving, bumper stickering, whatever you call it. Activists see it, and think, "ah, here's a good place to practise activism." We want activists to look at Wikipedia and think "ah, here's a place where my activism is really unwelcome, and where I'm expected to at least try to transcend my personal opinions, and see things neutrally." Keeping activists from using Wikipedia to further their agendas is more important than reverting vandalism.

  We'd like to reinforce a culture of neutrality - ideological userboxes reinforce a culture of partisanship. Am I being any clearer than before? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User liberal

This Usebox was deleted by Doc_glasgow. T2 is still contested and untill concensus has been reached we can not delete random useboxes which fall under T2's criteria. It is essential that editors be allowed to show their personal opinions on their userpage in order to make any biases known. --—David618 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, T2. --Cyde↔Weys 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, listing does not address policy considerations and the template namespace has nothing to do with someone's personal user page. Put another way, the nominator has not made a case for the decision to be overturned. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion, T2 was correctly applied -- Drini 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted t2. We've kept 'Communist' and 'Darwinist' deleted - so why should liberal be different? --Doc ^ask? 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Of course we can delete userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I see no correlation between the existence of this template and the ability to "show one's personal opinions on one's userpage". Misza13 ^{T C} 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Correct application of T2. It turns out there are 101 ways to reveal ones bias on one's personal page without using a colorful sticker to do it, which makes it look more like advertising for one's bias, or showing that one is here as a representative of one's bias instead of as an encyclopedist. The "making biases known" argument is disingenuous, because userboxes are neither the only way, nor a very good way, to do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Per T2, Doc, Misza13, Mackensen, and especially GTBacchus... Keep Deleted ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Request Can we see the content to which T2 was applied here? --AySz88^-^ 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete T2 is contested, and this template does not meet any deletion or speedy deletion criteria. It should be restored (as should the Communist and Darwinist boxes, btw). --Fudgenudger 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think that putting your info into a nice little infobox is a better idea. --mboverload@ 07:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  A better idea than what? Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete T2 is not reason enough to delete at this time as it is not a valid guideline. JohnnyBGood t c 22:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User liberty

See the template here.

I do not see why it was deleted, and I never saw a notice saying it was nominated for deletion, so I'm assuming it was deleted "outside of process." There is nothing wrong with this userbox; it informs people of a political viewpoint. And if any other political userboxes like this have been deleted, I think they should be undeleted. Undelete.—thegreentrilby 01:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Far from being deleted "out of process", this was speedied a couple of days ago under T1/T2 (in my opinion it qualifies as both). --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - meets and exceeds T2. --Cyde↔Weys 03:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• If this was speedied, Keep Deleted and full marks. If this was TfDed and allowed to run the full course, Keep Deleted and full marks. If this was TfDed and deleted early, slap whoever did it with a trout, (please pick one or the other, T1/T2 speedy, or TfD, but not a blend), partial credit, failing grade for the admin in question, but Keep Deleted just the same as it is pointless to undelete and TfD when it's speedyable. That I am a Libertarian (and proud of it) is irrelevant, this template, like other political or religious ones, is divisive and should be userified at best. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Should this be kept deleted if TfD ran its course and came out 11-1 in favor of keeping the template?--Ssbohio 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, TfD isn't perfect and it gets things wrong. Policy supersedes eleven random people. --Cyde↔Weys 03:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. I meant it for the chav discussion.--Ssbohio 03:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • TfD isn't a vote. That 11 people wanted it kept (or, indeed, that 11 wanted it deleted) is irrelevant on TfD. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but if the overwhelming majority of people seem to disagree, then maybe the policy should be revised. The Ungovernable Force 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Can anyone post the userbox in question here so we know what it was? The Ungovernable Force 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest version says "This user is a Libertarian" with a small Statue of Liberty image in a light green userbox. Rx StrangeLove 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Ungovernable Force, I've just added it. // ^The True _Sora 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Valid deletion of a irrelevant template. Rx StrangeLove 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1/2 --Doc ^ask? 15:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Under current policy (T2), it should be kept deleted. But if we could change the policy... // ^The True _Sora 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User chav & Template:User notchav

The TfDs for Template:User chav (11 keep / 1 delete / 2 other) and Template:User notchav (11 keep / 1 delete / 2 other) have been closed as Delete by Cyde Weys despite overwhelming consensus to keep. No specific reason for ignoring consensus was given. Please consider undeleting these out of respect for process & consensus.--Ssbohio 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus be dammed - we delete crap - speedy close this waste of time. --Doc ^ask? 01:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While I'm concerned that your comment tends toward incivility, on its merits, why not delete WP:DRV/U and WP:TfD? Who needs that "damned" consensus anyway? If we should simply delete "crap" regardless, then why bother with any of the processes? Process is important; Consensus is important -- if for no other reason than it creates an alternative to warfare in the project. We'll get farther if we can come to an agreement on which way we're going. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of people each doing his own thing, not much of a community or a project.--Ssbohio 01:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • TfD was not invented so that people can argue over whether or not they're allowed to abuse Wikipedia as free webspace. It existed well before people started infesting the template: namespace with their favourite userboxen. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Does this template "abuse Wikipedia as free webspace" more than having the same thing in User:space? The template was nominated for deletion, then deleted apparently out of process, since it wasn't explained as being T1 speedy'd. That's why I brought it here.--Ssbohio 04:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You're throwing around "out of process" with gay abandon, without apparently knowing what it means. It was speedied quite appropriately. The debate was closed as "deleted" because the template had already been deleted. A template that should be dead is dead, Tony acted appropriately in deleting it, Cyde acted appropriately in closing the TfD as "deleted", and there really isn't any more to say about this.
          • With regard to "out of process," I stated that it was apparently out of process because of the information provided on the deletion not matching the reality of what process was used to effect the deletion. If I am to treat it as a speedy per T1, rather than per the TfD debate, then it would behoove whoever closes the debate to say so. Cyde closed the TfD as "the result of the debate was Deleted" It was speedy'd per T1, not deleted as the result of the debate. Had it been categorized more accurately, or had the TfD process been allowed to run its course, I would have never brought it here.--Ssbohio 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an extremely offensive term. These are classic T1s. In fact it was I who speedied them, not Cyde. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That differs from what's reported on WP:TfD. Glad to have the record clarified.--Ssbohio 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I'm not European so I've really never heard of the term "chav" before, but I have a question ... is this less or more inflammatory than two hypothetical userboxes that say "This user is a nigger" and "This user is not a nigger"? --Cyde↔Weys 03:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that depends on whether you are or are not actually a chav. But it's irrelevant. The term is offensive and seperates people into categories regardless of congruence with your analogy. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I hadn't heard of it either. Luckily, there's an article about it. That said, if these two userboxes were speedy'd per T1, why was there no mention of that in WP:TfD, even in response to my asking why they were deleted before the TfDs were closed? To me, it's pretty clear that the result of the noms was keep. Can you clarify for me which happened first, the TfD or the speedy? It seems like a deletion started in TfD should finish in TfD, or at least be noted as having been dealt with through speedy, to prevent confusion like this.--Ssbohio 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You can clarify for yourself the exact sequence of events. Just look in the deletion log for the templates and the page history for the relevant day on TfD. I'm not going to do the work for you because frankly I don't care - either way, these things needed to be deleted. --Cyde↔Weys 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the pointer to a deletion log entry which told me that at 11:07, 19 May 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User chav" (Revolting bit of crap) which happened about a day after Masterjamie nominated it at 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC). In fact, when it was speedy'd, the debate in TfD was already 6-2 in favor of keeping it, based on the timestamps.--Ssbohio 05:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • TfD is not a vote. How many times do we have to say this? TfD is not a vote! Maybe if we tattooed it on the heads of all concerned, it might sink in. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, I understand that it's not a vote. TfDs are a consensus process. Stating the number of keeps vs. the number of deletes is simply a way of reporting on the debate without repeating it verbatim.--Ssbohio 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clear T1. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, these meet the speedy deletion requirement for templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto, fairly obvious T1. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If true, shouldn't it have been reported as such in WP:TfD?--Ssbohio 03:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony speedied as T1, and Cyde closed the TfDs as "already deleted". What's the problem? It seems to me that people are bringing obvious crap to DRVU because "it's a userbox, we must save it!" Someone even took a template that had been deleted under the CSD for pure vandalism (because that's what it was!) to DRVU, because these damn things are so bloody holy that people should be allowed to vandalise the main article space provided they do so with userboxen. Why, for Pete's sake? I wish people would just think a little — before TfDing, before speedying, and even before DRVing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Except that Cyde didn't close the TfD as "already deleted", he said: "The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)" Without any other information, and with the debate running 11-1 in favor of Keep, I brought the deletions here, based on what Cyde included (& excluded) from his closure note in TfD. Seeing how different the consensus here is from the consensus in TfD, it makes sense to let it stay deleted, considering WP:SNOW. Next time, though, if the closure is due to a T1 speedy, then that should be disclosed rather than saying that the debate resulted in the deletion.--Ssbohio 04:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, blatant T1. Deserved to die, and it was killed quite appropriately. That a number of people on TfD felt it was valuable only goes to show that a number of people on TfD don't know what they're talking about. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't nominated based on T1, nor did the closure notice mention that it was speedy'd per T1. The Keep comments were in response to a complaint that it wasn't NPOV, which isn't usually a requirement for items used only in userspace.--Ssbohio 05:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter what the nominator says, people voicing their opinions should be doing so based on policy. In this case, they clearly didn't. --Cyde↔Weys 05:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's interesting you say that. Do you think, that people should voice their opinions based on policy here too? Raphael1 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The closure notice mentioned that it had been deleted. That's quite appropriate, and you're just making yourself look silly now. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I know it strikes you as silly, but all I'm doing is trying to explain why I brought this here in the first place. The reason given in TfD for the deletion was that it was deleted as a result of the debate, not as a result of CSD, T1, T2, or any other factor. The debate didn't support the deletion. While other factors did support the deletion, Cyde didn't mention any other factors, only the debate. What he wrote didn't match the reality of the situation. I relied on what he wrote. That's all.--Ssbohio 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

        Actually he didn't "write" the closure notice. It's all boilerplate except for the word in bold at the end. The words "the result of the debate was," appear automatically, whether the closure was actually based on the debate or on some other policy consideration. I can see how that would seem misleading. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

        Okay. Now, having explained why you nominated it and given that we seem to have a strong "keep deleted" view represented here, would you mind if I delisted it? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Clearly your classic T1. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Blatant T1. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment perhaps Cyde and or Tony should have went back and edited the closure after the subst was saved, to change "the result of the debate was" to something clearer. If he had changed the wording from "...the result of the debate was" to "... the debate was terminated early as this template clearly qualifies under T1 in the judgement of the closing admin, Cyde, and the template has been deleted by Tony Sidaway under T1" wouldn't that have been better? I think it would have been. One additional edit, maybe 60 seconds worth to get it right, might have avoided a LOT of discussion here at DRVU... My beef with Cyde, here and elsewhere, and sometimes with Tony too, is that he's not proceeding in a considered manner... a tiny bit of additional thought and wording could avoid a lot of post hoc uproar. It's not hard to take a little extra time and calmly and politely explain what you did instead of just being shrilly selfrighteously defensive about it afterwards, and it might actually be a lot more efficient. No change in view that Keep Deleted is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that I could perhaps have done more "paperwork" on this, although I did annotate the reason for deletion on the templates themselves [1] [2]. I make it a habit not to close a discussion when I have speedied the subject, as I think this is mixing the two deletion modes in an unacceptable and confusing way. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User hate

This userbox was proposed for deletion by Cyde Weys at 18:09 UTC on 14 May 2006 . Barely eight hours later, the userbox TfD was closed as delete by Cyde at 02:30 UTC on 15 May 2006. This seems to be insufficient time to have allowed any but a very few comments, which is not in keeping with the spirit of TfD. That it was closed so quickly by the admin who created the original TfD raises questions, but it's doesn't override the presumption that these things are being done in good faith.

This is one of many examples of userbox templates being TfD'd recently. In the past few days, a large number of userboxes have been nominated for deletion at TfD, mostly by Cyde Weys & a small number of others. Without addressing myself to what should happen to userboxes, I think we all need to respect the process by which consensus is being reached reagrding the fate of these templates, not fight these battles over & over in TfD. In my view, this is on the verge of WP:POINT, though not intentionally. I think we'd have an easier time resolving these userbox issues if both sides refrained from taking these kinds of actions until the community has decided on an overall process.--Ssbohio 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, T1. It was going to be deleted at TFD anyway - the majority of the opinions when it was closed were "Speedy delete, T1". And for the love of God stop bringing up WP:POINT. It's so not applicable here. --Cyde↔Weys 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • When other userboxes TfD'd are getting 15 or 20 comments over the relatively long times they are open for discussion, the fact that in the eight hours this one could be commented on, five of six comments were 3 speedys, 2 deletes, and a neutral doesn't (to me) suggest the discussion was over, much less at the point of consensus. Practically any TfD could be closed at the right moment to achieve a desired result. I don't think you were trying to do that, but you can see why this deletion would at least be open to question. Lastly, it's my sincere belief that the large number of userboxes being TfD'd by a small user population are motivated by the point being made about userboxes, and that their large numbers are disruptive to the normal working of TfD. That said, it's only my belief. It wasn't intended as a statement of fact, and certainly wasn't intended to upset you. Please accept my apology for any offense given, but please also consider that it is not to be discounted simply for being an opinion, or my opinion.--Ssbohio 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can't decide on a userbox if I can't see it. --mboverload@ 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, seal grave with concrete -- Drini 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Naconkantari 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse early closure and subsequent deletion for obvious reasons. Metamagician3000 01:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Let's face it, if it's ever recreated it will be speedied under T1 as an obviously inflammatory template. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You'd take that template seriously enough to be inflamed by it? I guess I don't see it.--Ssbohio 01:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the person who wrote that template doesn't have a clue what Wikipedia is about. I think he would be happier on myspace or somewhere. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's likely you're right about whoever wrote it. I took it as humor, not a statement of abject hatred for all & sundry. If the same text were on a userpage, would it be similarly liable for deletion?--Ssbohio 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (Not that it's not clear...) My point in requesting undeletion is about whether this deletion had a real opportunity for comment & consensus to develop. In a larger sense, I question whether running so many userboxes through TfD is helpful in resolving the controversy surrounding userboxes, especially when applied before a policy consensus has developed.--Ssbohio 01:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Why was this brought to TfD at all instead of speedied under CSD:T1 ??? I'm confused on that point. Sending it there seems wrong. Closing it early seems wrong too. But reopening it seems a colossal waste of time. Endorse Deletion but could people try to choose the right venue instead of listing and then changing their mind? (or whatever it was that happened here) ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, because it isn't worth wasting time over. I may not agree with Cyde's occasional rapid closures, but I can say with some certainty that no one cares about this template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I care... But for me, it's more about trying to do things in such a way as to achieve consensus. I didn't see this particular TfD as doing that particularly well.--Ssbohio 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Hate everyone??? If this template doesn't cause divisive and inflammatory as stated in T1, then nothing else would. Hunter 08:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can understand the perspective, but it can also be viewed as wryly self-referential, even funny. I hadn't thought of it as being taken literally (& offensively), because it was fairly over-the-top.--Ssbohio 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Will (^E_@) T 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for obvious reasons. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Wikicheese-ologist

Original deleted template:

• Please don't delete userboxes just to settle petty grudges against people you don't like, this template seems both harmless and a reasonable way of signaling interest in a given area of study, no reason to delete and chase away constructive new users, please reconsider this deletion.--Cyblox 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete harmless template, deleted by rouge admin Cyde Wells--Cyblox 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The userbox was created with a specific intent to damage Wikipedia. The user who created it went on a vandalism spree, inserting the box [3] [4] [5] ~20 times. It appears the user was backing up his threat to do exactly as the userbox suggested. A userfied version of the box is located at User:Nn-WCO. Since every contribution by this editor in the main article namespace was vandalism, User:Antandrus permanently blocked the creator of this userbox. --Durin 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

All were deleted just 2 days and 4 hours after the nom by the nominator. I suggest relisting. --Rory096 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Utter crap - keep deleting - and if anyone really want the code we can put it on their page. --Doc ^ask? 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if it should be deleted, we should be going through process to do it (and it probably would have been deleted if it had). --Rory096 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Take some time to read WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per compromise above. Let me remind everyone that the templates themselves were only deleted after they were substituted onto all userpages that had included them. These templates are now a non-issue, as even if they are undeleted, they will just simply be orphaned unencyclopedic templates. --Cyde Weys 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So if templates are substed before being deleted out of process it's fine? That seems silly to me. --Rory096 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I suggested, take some time to read WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:POINT? Like TfDing dozens of userboxen with the same nom and then closing the debates yourself? --Rory096 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please read WP:POINT again. What you are describing is NOT WP:POINT. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, then I'm not sure what he's referring to. --Rory096 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Subst and delete worked well for MarkSweep. Kotepho 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted and Subst'd so users can continue to use them in User space. Nhprman 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- can we see what the templates being discused are? --T-rex 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- utterly stupid, but not meriting a speedy. And certainly NOT meriting a deletion by the nominator--absolutely unacceptable. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD Do not merit criteria for speedy deletion. JoshuaZ 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, return to TFD - they are stupid, but stupid isn't a speedyable offense. BigDT 03:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly patent nonsense and meaningless. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Userbox policy. D. G. 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The userbox policy is only proposed, and isn't a CSD either. --Rory096 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete improper deletion. these never met T1 or the T2 under discussion. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Matt. TheJabberwʘck 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Seems that they don't meet speedy criteria :/. Homestarmy 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)