Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fredil Yupigo/CAUBXD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jareth. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fredil Yupigo/CAUBXD

Please see WP:AN#Cyde and CAUBXD and WP:ANI#Wikipedia is not for crusades for more information. Regardless of your position in the userbox debate, an "association" promoting and advocating a certain position is simply unacceptable. Calling other people "enemies", recruiting members, and keeping things covert is also simply not acceptable. To quote FreplySpang, "Combative, inflammatory attitudes - not to mention votestacking - are not welcome at Wikipedia." Also to be deleted, serving the same purpose: User:Fredil Yupigo/AHH CYDE IS INVADING, User:Fredil Yupigo/welcomeCAUBXD, User:Fredil Yupigo/WTJ?, User:Fredil Yupigo/rejected, User:Fredil Yupigo/signature, and User:Mboverload/template/CAUBXD. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: It has been been speedy deleted because I requested it. This just got so far out of hand and I see the wikipedia community did not think of it like I thought of it, a good-intentioned information center. It started out as a black and white page but I wanted to craft it into something that had a real value, a value which was not shared amoung the community. Thank you to everyone who took the time to put their opinions here. --mboverload@ 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sarcastic Keep Delete. But how else are people going to hear about my Userboxen Furry Party? -M^ask 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying Delete by the way, in case that was beyond someone. -M^ask 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, attempt at vote stacking, attack pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Combative, inflammatory attitudes - not to mention votestacking - are not welcome at Wikipedia. FreplySpang 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just a concerned group of people getting together to discuss options. Nothing wrong with that, especially in the face of admin abuse. JohnnyBGood t c 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Doesn't help build an enyclopedia in any way, but is divisive and inflammatory. --kingboyk 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Attack, vote stacking, ect. --InShaneee 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vote-stacking effort. --Cyde↔Weys 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block all those here to play games rather than build an encyclopedia. --pgk^(talk) 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as POV fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes. Kusma (討論) 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the organizational page, delete the other nominated subpages. I absolutely cannot distinguish this "club" from, for example, the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians or the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, amongst the membership of each of which are many valuable contributors. To be sure, each page contains some facetious comments, but so to does each, in a way, seek to introduce members who think similarly apropos of notability, in order that the disposition of certain deletion debates might be consistent with a given Wikiphilosophy. Because the subpage is composed primarily of benign remarks made with respect to the actions of certain editors (rather than with respect to those editors themselves (where WP:NPA would be relevant), because the subpage expresses views with respect to a quasi-encyclopedic issue (surely those who advocate for the preservation of userboxes do so in part because they believe such userboxes to foster a sense of collegiality whence collaboration may come, even as others of us may disagree), and because the page ostensibly exists not solely to group editors improperly to influence deletion discussions (after all, XfD is not a vote, and, in any case, if users work together to formulate a legitimate reason for the keeping or deleting of a template, they're acting consistent with the idea of a Wiki), but rather to stimulate discussion amongst those who support userboxes as to the best way in which to convince others (within policy) that userboxes benefit the encyclopedia, it ought to be kept, IMHO. Joe 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The other two pages you named exist on Meta. This is the English Wikipedia. The two have entirely different standards. The Deletionist and Inclusionist Wikipedian clubs would be deleted if they were here. --Cyde↔Weys 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, these boxes have nothing to do with the encyclopedia at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I recognize the different standards, but I certainly think the deletion of each on English WP (especially if in userspace) would be hotly contested were it essayed. W/r/to Mackensen, on the whole, I agree with you that userboxes are unencyclopedic; those arguing for them, though, often suggest that they serve several encyclopedic purposes, and I simply meant to contend that, for the purposes of adjudging whether the page should remain in userspace, we ought to take them at their word (viz., that a primary motivation in the fight to preserve userboxes is that they create a climate in which collaboration can be undertaken, even as we might not think userboxes to serve that purpose). Joe 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I don't see any evidence of vote stacking, but the mere presence of these pages (and Fredil's childish attempts to "covertly" discuss Cyde like this is some kind of SEEKRIT CLUB) is divisive, inflammatory, assuming of bad faith, and incivil. I have no information on the controversy behind all this, but I don't need that to know that this sort of thing is bad for the encyclopedia. Powers 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Delete per Joe. You convinced me. Powers 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom (attacking and out of English Wikipedia Scope) -- Avi 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and banish into the firey inferno from whence it came. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-contradictory. For one, they claim it's against the "Userboxen War", while on the other hand it's "purely [for] the protection of userboxes". So which is it then? I'm afraid it's yet another resistance organisation that will only fuel up the wars instead of calming the situation. Why not adopt a policy instead? And how would the "protection" be achieved? By vote stacking on deletion debates? Or, by wheel warring with deletionists? Both ways are a no-no, hence my vote. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kusma. Jkelly 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate on several levels. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cesarb 22:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Martin 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a very unfortunate effort to create a fictitious and inexistent "consensus" on an issue that has given us enough bitter moments. I can hardly think we'd like to go through another userbox crisis - and this seems like a perfect invitation for that. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a sad state of affairs when divisive nonencyclopedic crap isn't simply deleted without voting. Yes, this is voting. Has everyone been gelded? WAS 4.250 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  My understanding is that it was brought to MFD precisely to demonstrate the "true" consensus regarding efforts like this. Speedying it might have been more expeditious, but just would have martyred it for the Cause, IMO. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  There were several reasons I decided to take this to MfD instead of speedying it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - To my understanding, vote stacking is getting a bunch of people who don't really care about a discussion to participate in it, making it look as though one side has more support than it really does (correct me if I'm wrong on this). CAUBXD does not do this, but instead informs Wikipedians who have acknowledged their opposition to mass userbox deletion of any events pertaining to that subject. Since these users care enough to be a part of CAUBXD, they would probably participate in relevant discussions anyway. CAUBXD informs caring users when such discussions are occurring, it does not recruit random users to flood these discussions with supportive votes. I do not necessarily agree with titling a page AHH CYDE IS INVADING, but the intent was to question Cyde's intentions in joining a group against userbox deletion when he himself nominated many userboxes for deletion. Timrem 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Correct me if I'm wrong..." Ok, Timrem, you're wrong. "Vote-stacking", at Wikipedia, sometimes called "ballot-stuffing", or perhaps more accurately "busing voters", refers to what happens when someone advertizes a deletion discussion to people they think are likely to "vote" a certain way. It undermines and derails the proper purpose of deletion discussions, which is to carefully determine the correct application of policy. If it were a vote, bringing as many people as possible would make sense; if it's to be a discussion, maybe not so much. In practice, when busing of voters happens, the discussion degenerates, rather than improving. People use vote-stacking to try to force a no consensus when the strength of their arguments isn't enough. That undermines our ability to get the information we should from the discussion. It makes things worse; I've seen it again and again. That's why we can't have it, even if it's done in good faith. I hope that helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, or move and protect as proof positive of the fears of the anti-userboxen crowd coming to fruition; vote stacking, talk page spamming... I'm almost thinking this was somebody's troll for userbox supporters to get caught in a Venus flytrap... -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Per JohnnyBGood--GorillazFan Adam 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you also endorse Johnny's "admin abuse" comment? Do you therefore believe that declaring an action you don't like is license to flout the practices around here? That's what your vote, as written, is saying. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Had any of you actually read the page, you would know that it isn't for vote stacking. It is a place for rational information and not hype. --mboverload@ 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, we did read the page, and then we watched the vote stacking take place. We also watched you try to bully Cyde off the page because you didn't think he "fit." Do you take us for fools? Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What? It just started this week, no major userbox offensives have taken place since then. The page SAYS that TfD is NOT a vote. It is a page about userboxes and protection against propaganda like "crowding Template space." None of this content even exists yet. --mboverload@ 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Protection? Propaganda? Offensives? Are we waging some kind of campaign or crusade here? Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Putting 30 userboxes up for deletion in one day is an offensive against they even existing. Saying that these are "crowding template space" or "taking up space on the server" is completely absurd since they will always exist in the logs. That kind of information --mboverload@ 00:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • And here we go again [1], removing people from the group whom you don't like. There's a campaign afoot all right. I'll do you the kindness of addressing all your points in this response; the same courtesy in the future will be appreciated. Listing 30 userboxes in one day is no more an offensive against them existing then creating 300 an attempt to force there acceptance via a fait accompli. Your two "quotes" (sans attribution) are points of view held by various editors and are well known. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Those were spam members who sarcastically inserted themselves. --mboverload@ 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Yah. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a good project. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the page originally contained both a list of supporters and a list of "enemies" ([2], later changed by another user to something less offensive: [3]). It also contained a statement verging on a legal threat ("I may consider making it a legal action form sometime in the future"). --bainer (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth. If people want to write and/orb edit an encyclopedia, that's jes' fine; if they want to get their anti-authoritarian ya-yas on and play "Fight the Power" (Home Edition), they need to go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.