Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] April 5, 2006
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep Circeus 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:User AMI
This template has malicious intent and does not benifit Wikipedia in any way. I think that it promotes a non-coperative community. Place yourself in the shoes of a newcomer. I would be very cofused by this template, is it not policy to assume good faith?? This template should be deleted.Flying Canuck 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- What if it was made to say "This user assumes bad faith on all edits done by a vandal"? --Mboverload 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Let's wait for the new policy before any-more Userbox deletions. And I see nothing wrong with this template, there is no ambiguity to the term 'vandal', even for new-comers. +Hexagon1 (talk)
10:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep as per above. Kukini 14:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep vandals are non-productive and no good faith should be assumed towards vandals. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- JUST TO MAKE EVERYONE CLEAR: I created the template, which was originally intended as a snide commentary on my editing style, even though I do not really subscribe to it. However, the deletetion request got my head in the right place so I added the phrase "Of known vandals". I now believe that the original deletetion proposed by Flying Canuck was justified, but since I have changed the template, I do not believe it is any longer. No ill feelings toward Flying Canuck by me and I beleive he did the right thing to propose the deletetion. However, it's just not needed any longer as seen by the above "Keeps". --Mboverload 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the template. --Andy123(talk) 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I know feel that with this change the template should be subst and deleted. This would satisfy my inital objections. Please also note that text was different when I nominated it. Flying Canuck 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- The template is no longer a harm to the Wikipedia community. Therefore, KEEP. Why must the template be deleted? No offense Flying Canuck, but I don't see how the template could have a negative affect on Wikipedia with the change.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Typer 525 (talk • contribs)
- Even if I did change my mind after the change I cannot just pull out of this. Onece the process is started it must be completed. (Correct me if I'm wrong) I still stand by my comment above. Assume good intent is a founding prinipal of Wikipedia. There are many editors (and even sysops) who were once vandals. Good intent must always be assumed. Flying Canuck 05:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's worst punishment - banishment is so rarely used, pretty much all vandals can come back as legit editors. But when I see an edit "poo arse bullf*ck" or something from an editor who has made those edits repeatedly despite all warnings and what's-not, am I to assume he's Mother Teresa in disguise? +Hexagon1 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, now I'm just horribly confused. --Mboverload 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, but your not supposed to assume he's always going to be a vandal and all his posts are vandalism. Assumptions are dangerous. Flying Canuck 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- But the template doesn't say that, it merely states that he assumes malicious intent, so he won't give 'welcome to wikipedia' warnings for repeated edits such as "bob is a fa**ot". Even users once blocked have every right to be legit editors. And what are you confused about Mboverload? +Hexagon1 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- But the template doesn't say that, it merely states that he assumes malicious intent, so he won't give 'welcome to wikipedia' warnings for repeated edits such as "bob is a fa**ot". Even users once blocked have every right to be legit editors. And what are you confused about Mboverload? +Hexagon1 (talk)
- Wikipedia's worst punishment - banishment is so rarely used, pretty much all vandals can come back as legit editors. But when I see an edit "poo arse bullf*ck" or something from an editor who has made those edits repeatedly despite all warnings and what's-not, am I to assume he's Mother Teresa in disguise? +Hexagon1 (talk)
- Even if I did change my mind after the change I cannot just pull out of this. Onece the process is started it must be completed. (Correct me if I'm wrong) I still stand by my comment above. Assume good intent is a founding prinipal of Wikipedia. There are many editors (and even sysops) who were once vandals. Good intent must always be assumed. Flying Canuck 05:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Under CSD a template can be deleted if it is "divisive and inmflamatory". I feel this template is, and that is why I have nominated it. It is currently used on two users pages. Is it really too much too ask them to subst: them? Also note this was created after the moratorium on userbox creation in the main template namespace which began well before March 18, 2006 (template created April 4, 2006) Thus it should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Userboxes Thanks to all for remaining civil, Flying Canuck 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Jimbo's note reads "Their use and creation is not recommended at this time.". It doesn't say all userboxes created after this warning will be mercilessly destroyed. And this userbox isn't "divisive and inmflamatory", it merely states the editor's dealing-with-vandals preference. If you don't like that preference, maybe you should take it up with the user, not the userbox. +Hexagon1 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't asked they be "mercilessly destroyed" I've asked that the template be taken off the Template namespace. People who have it now are welcome to keep it. Divisive (acorrding to Oxford Dictionary) means: "tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. " this looks like a disagreement to me. And inflammatory means: "arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings" I'll admit it doesn't meet this as much but it still seems to cause some grief here and I did feel at least motivated enough to post it here. If the CSD isn't enough then look at the criteria for deletion: "The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);". Again, I feel this template should be subst: and userfied (if someone wants it) OR deleted (if no one does). Flying Canuck 01:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Jimbo's note reads "Their use and creation is not recommended at this time.". It doesn't say all userboxes created after this warning will be mercilessly destroyed. And this userbox isn't "divisive and inmflamatory", it merely states the editor's dealing-with-vandals preference. If you don't like that preference, maybe you should take it up with the user, not the userbox. +Hexagon1 (talk)
- TAKE NOTE I feel this has been one big, huge misunderstanding. This template was made as a joke about assuming good faith. It is not serious. It first said "This user assumes malicious intent." I have a hard time believing anyone would take that seriously. I do take responsibility for not putting the template in the "Humor" section. However, after the delete vote I changed it to "This user assumes malicious intent by known vandals." I have no problem assuming that a piece of scum that constantly makes bad edits has malicious intent in mind. It's just that I will not accept "testing" edits by a known vandal.
- Because I tried to accommodate others it has become a huge mess. It started out as a joke to myself and I evolved it into this over-complicated debate about wikipedia policy. I am removing it from the userbox listing space. Since I created it I see no problem with removing it. I'm sorry we had to do this and I'll wait and see. I take responsibility and I have no problem with anyone who has added their opinion in this debate. --Mboverload 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry this happened. I'm sorry if I offended anyone too. I just wanted to make sure people understood what I wanted to say, I might of gotten a bit too enthusiastic. Just for fun I'm going to think of some possible re-wordings that would be more ....happy :)
- This user is suspicious of known vandals.
- This user monitors known vandals.
- This user fights vandals.
- This user enjoy vandal-whacking.
- Well...just some ideas. So you know what I think would be good and uncontreversial (sp?). No hard feelings. Thanks, Flying Canuck 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry this happened. I'm sorry if I offended anyone too. I just wanted to make sure people understood what I wanted to say, I might of gotten a bit too enthusiastic. Just for fun I'm going to think of some possible re-wordings that would be more ....happy :)
-
- mboverload shakes hands with Flying Canuck --Mboverload 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- As long as we all agree, I'm happy. I recommend the first, it's closest to the original, or the second maybe, but I think there are adequate userboxes already for the last 2. BTW, I've removed the 'for deletion' thing, as that's largely off the table right now. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- As long as we all agree, I'm happy. I recommend the first, it's closest to the original, or the second maybe, but I think there are adequate userboxes already for the last 2. BTW, I've removed the 'for deletion' thing, as that's largely off the table right now. +Hexagon1 (talk)
- 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
