Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Userbox debates

message: And now we see the peril of opposing only "attack" templates. If something can evade this by expressing support for the opposite, it's also no good. POV-userboxes are the problem, to a larger degree than just crap like . -- nae'blis (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: opposing only attack templates

message: Here's another reason why this is entire debate is silly:
	This user does not support the United Nations.
is not now and never will be up for deletion.  Hell, you'd have a hard time deleting
	This user passionately dislikes Jimbo.
Why?  Because they're not templates.  They're just boxes.  Because, instead of using , it says:


	This user passionately dislikes Jimbo.

So, if people want to state an opinion that the Highers-Up of Wikipedia don't want to be a template... they can just do it this way.  Not to be melodramatic, but getting into a fight about user boxes will just push their use out of templates and into lines of code.  I'm going to respect WP:POINT, but if I were to put that second user box into a new user page and just leave it there, do you think it would ever get noticed?  Ever?  Nah, once it's not a template, there's really no way to efficiently police it.  The boxes won't go away, and instead, users who want to express their POV in their user space instead of in the encyclopedia will have a reason to resent admins, and will have a point to prove about, and a method to go about, sticking it to the man. m     Talk 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, having everyone use raw code would solve most of the actual problems with userboxes.  Notice, for example, that you would lose the (rather problematic) ability to use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User J1mb0 1s teh sux0R to find a group of like-minded anti-Jimboists for your planned takeover of Wikipedia. ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I would have to agree. I support userboxes, but feel that they should be substed, rather than transcluded. Also, userbox categories should be given the ax - they are not entirely useful to any encyclopedic project, but they are exceptionally useful to vote-stackers, POV pushers, and trolls. Substing userboxes and nixing associated categories would go a long way toward solving problems with them. In addition, you are afforded a degree of protection on your userpage by using subst - if the template is vandalized, deleted, or simply nominated for TFD, your userpage will not be affected by the change. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, your third point isn't quite correct (although the cases I'm aware of revolve mostly around user categories, rather than userboxes).  For example, during this discussion, a user spammed the members of :Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians in an attempt to sway the outcome.  Granted, the stakes were not particularly high in this case; but I see no compelling reason to make this sort of thing easier, particularly when the only benefit of doing so is a little extra eye-candy on userpages. —Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, my example was the "Catholic Church of Wikipedia" rather than the more nefarious "Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia".  Of course, it could be that the same userbox+category combination was used in both. —Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: userbox code

message: Please don't use  when nominating a userbox for deletion, it is highly disruptive. Use  instead.
Here is a code sample, just paste this into the box after the text: 
Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use tfd-inline! 

message: :How did you go about deciding that? --Fang Aili 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Sweep has unilaterally decided to silence all debate about this issue by blanking the DRV discussion. Can someone please help? --God of War 19:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave a note on Jimbo's talk page. This has gone far enough. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion moved from "Global notice" section

message: Thread moved from project page: 
:It's not a common occurence, it just started a day or so ago with some admins deciding to delete whatever boxes they wanted. See my userpage if you want more info. The Ungovernable Force 10:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, all proposed deletions shoul go throught Templates for Deletion but certain power hungry administrators have just gone crazy, this is the end people, welcome to the wikipedia police state. --Horses In The Sky 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess it's a warning in future to have policies, even ones dictated to by Jimbo, carefully worded so they don't have humungous ranges in interpretation. enochlau (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move 

message: This is just the comment of one user, but these kinds of comments make me worried: . One issue that hasn't been discussed is that the whole-scale deletion of userboxes that express a point of view will put a large number of users offside. If a userbox is innocuous and doesn't offend anyone, but expresses a point of view, the argument that it does not contribute to encyclopedic content is wrong to say the least: it keeps people happy, it keeps them here writing articles, it gives them something that makes them feel part of Wikipedia. If someone wants to put  on their user page, let them. enochlau (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The issue here is the misuse of templates. No one's stopping someone from expressing their views on their userpage; the objection is to templates. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Misuse of templates how? Templates are considered perfectly viable for use on userpages, so I do not see why templates created for userpages are a particular problem. "Proper use of templates" is no more than an opinion, and should not be used to rule the debate. In any case, I think you will find that the majority of the anti-userbox crowd is in fact opposed to POV on userpages. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that very much. Misuse of templates is clearly not an opinion, as there's a valid CSD category for such templates. Please go read up on all this. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh. This makes me very sad: all our effort, it seems, is now on bloody user boxes. Whatever happened to the good old days of editing articles?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting people offside 

message: As the debate page is getting extremely long, and an archive was established, I thought it best to also establish an archive policy so we don't find ourselves debating when to archive debates.  I said debates should be archived after 48 hours of inactivity (which I don't think should include repeated additions by a single user, in case that comes up).  If anyone has any objections let's hear 'em, but I think that's pretty reasonable given the usual speed of debates on this page.  Regards, JDoorjam     Talk 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about closing and archiving debates after 5 days like most high traffic deletion debate pages? Thryduulf 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. JDoorjam     Talk 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  Well, I was going to update the archive page with the oldest debates, but someone locked it.  Could someone unlock it, or move the debates older than five days over there? JDoorjam     Talk 15:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving policy

message: I'm pretty sure userbox DRVs are a waste of time. I know this subpage is still young, but can anyone point out a single matter that has actually been settled here? Threre are something like 6000 ubserboxes, and at some point it's looking like most of them will make an appearance on this page, and all I'm seeing is an endless argument with no result. -R. fiend 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not endless. 6000 will surely take some time, but we're patient. ;-) Misza13 (Talk) 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waste of time?

message: Personally, I see only one way out of this mess: Notices sent to every single registered Wikipedian with at least one template-space userbox that the decision has been made (and, naturally, Jimbo has to step forward and make it) to remove all such templates. Give about a month for compliance, then begin the deletions, starting with the orphans, until you "wipe them out. All of them." (Yes, the empirical reference is intentional [grin].) Once done, create at Template:Userbox one generic template so people (newbies especially) have the basic code upon which to build their own, and create a Wikipedia:Userboxes page that explains what userboxes are, how to use them, and where to find them (of course, with the destrustion of a central repository in template-space, either one would need to be created in user-space or, if that's impossible, a forum of sorts may need to be created for people to request/offer/trade boxes).
"Many boxen died to bring us this information." RadioKirk talk to me 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to host any and all of the above mentioned pages on my userspace. I would consider it an honor. And I think this is a good solution. Except for the Jimbo making the decision part, but still, it's fairly acceptable and I feel there could easily be a consenesus for it. Gotta love the star wars reference at the end btw. The Ungovernable Force 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I kind of agree with that. Not so sure of the mass nuclear deletion part, but it's an idea, and a good one at that. Although for those who worried about screwing up the code, may I suggest Cut & Paste? --D-Day  Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was supposed to be the idea in creating one generic Template:Userbox, because once everything's nuked, that would be the only thing to C+P absent finding a box you like on someone else's user page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ooooooooooooohhhh, OK. I'm beginning to see the light. Yes, there can be no mass speedies, as there is just one template. WikiProject Userboxes can go on as scheduled. We can display our POV's without them getting deleted(well sorta). Sounds good to me! --D-Day  Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree that it is an acceptable solution. Actually, Wikipedia needs any solution at all - and in my opinion we have only two plausible solutions left with no middle ground possible: mass nuke (and back to stone age) or keep all. Regarding the central repository - the current gallery maintained by the WikiProject:Userboxes should be kept (but reduced to using only one template) - no use in forcing it into underground. If not in User: namespace then completely off-site but they will prevail - banning it will just be an inconvenience. Misza13 (Talk) 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just posted a link to this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. We'll wait and see what happens.
Incidently, a vandal listed his user page up for speedy deletion under T1. Has this discussion gotten to us all?? --D-Day  Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: RadioKirk talk to me 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The time given should probably depend on the solution to the userbox centralisation issue. If we decide to keep the current WikiProject:Userboxes galleries then they should probably be prepared first and then two weeks at most should do it (inactive users can be handled manually). Misza13 (Talk) 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they should be controlled, as they've gone on a rampage recently. As of more/less arguing about this, we'll see after officially proposing this as a solution. Misza13 (Talk) 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue as I read it, Taxman, is allowing userboxes in individuals' userspaces, as opposed to templatespace, where boxes can be used to foment a division or polemic battle among a greater number of users more quickly and efficiently. RadioKirk talk to me 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This I'll agree with. If userboxes didn't add userpages to categories or facilitate finding others with them so easily it would solve 50% of the problem immediately and there'd be no argument that could be made against that. The rest of the problem is the divisive sentiment in some userboxes, and that's going to require a policy change it seems. - Taxman Talk 14:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Right here.  --Cyde Weys 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.  But it seems to me that getting them out of Template space is more of a band-aid, and the primary problem is the activism in those userboxes. --AySz88^-^ 04:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution?

message: Given that the primary objection to userboxes raised by Jimbo (if not by all involved) seems to the presence of userboxes in template space, why not move them? To where? To User:Userbox. Essentially, move every single page in Wikipedia:Userboxes to User:Userbox and use subpages of User:Userbox to store the userboxes. Obviously there would still be a few userboxes requiring deletion, but the boxes that are problematic beyond simply being in template space are very few and far between, and I think TfD could handle them civilly. (I only use User:Userbox as an example because that page has already been created by someone [other than myself]). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the objections to userboxes are more than just misuse of Template: space.  A lot of them are absolutely pointless and quite a few are polemical or divisive.  Jimbo strongly discourages the bumper sticker mentality that userboxes are leading Wikipedia towards becoming.  --Cyde Weys 03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Jimbo wants to act like an actual executive and issue a declaration from on-high, his opinion has no more weight than anyone else's. Microtonal 04:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except he can and does issue declarations from on-high, and not only that, he does stuff.  Check his Special Log.  He deletes pages and the like.  ArbCom has to refuse to accept any cases against him because they are appointed by him.  Saying Jimbo's opinion has no more weight than anyone else's is simply false.  --Cyde Weys 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a link to ArbCom refutal of arbitration on those very grounds? That would be an interesting read.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Solution 

message: Hello! I'm a userbox. Delete me! I know you want to... This userbox has been killed.May it rest in peace.
:Uh, is this really necessary? ... aa:talk 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: G'day

message: Uh, when are these being closed? The archived userbox polls don't seem to be closed at all. Am I missing something? Babajobu 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any admin can close them. But it's a lot of work and many are reluctant to dive into this. Let's say someone tallies up the recommendations on the bottommost discussion (as I did at WP:AN) and decides that the boxes in question should be undeleted. If she then goes ahead and performs undeletions someone is likely to delete again and wheel-wars are no fun. But hopefully we will soon have a new policy which most people can live with. Check out WP:UBP if you haven't already. Haukur 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me the most sensible thing at this point is to simply create userboxes in User space, where TfD does not apply.  They can be freely cut/pasted, transcluded and substed in User space - and only the most cruel administrator would seek to delete the content of a User page.  The arguments against boxes are all fairly weak, as are the arguments for them, but this issue cannot possibly be important enough to waste this much time on.  Boxes are supposed to be fun - and since purge #1, they have been anything but.  Debate is fine, but not for the sake of debate - I say move the boxes into User space and call a truce.  --24.21.224.93 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ability to organize a POV mob is a very large problem. Substing userboxes is fine, cut/pasting them is fine, trasncluding them so that someone can use "what links here" to easily seek out people who share their POV on a topic is bad. Michael Ralston 06:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Any admin can close on the strength of a deletion review, and only re-SD would be an out-of-process wheel war. StrangerInParadise 09:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When do these get closed?

message: Apparently there is no edit button on the userbox debates page.  Is it just me, or is this a little bit rediculous?  --70.218.15.218 05:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is semi-protected.  You need to log in. StrangerInParadise 09:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Edit Button

message: Why are they listed as "speedy delete keep-bad faith nom" in the archive section when there are only 4 votes (2 keep, 2 delete) on each and they were only up for about an hour (judging by the times of votes)? I never saw them until they were archived, and this page is on my watchlist. What's up with this? I propose they be relisted so that more people can discuss this. Who gets to decide if the nomintation is in bad faith anyway? Since there were two votes in support of nomination, I think this should be given another look. Archived discussion here and here.--The Ungovernable Force 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Keep Deleted of Insurgent and Revolution

message: Actually, when I restored the material two sections up, I did it directly from history; not having noticed it. Nevertheless, since that is the policy under which this page is being conducted, it should be on the page, rather than here. 23:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that no one has bothered to comment on the proposal to restore what Jimbo actually said to the project page. Does silence imply consent? Septentrionalis 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It was not policy, but discussion, it is best on the talk page. If we had something on the main page, it would have to be agreed policy, and I doubt we could get agreement. In fact, the policy that governs this page is already on the main page of WP:DRV, this page is mearly a convenient overflow. --Doc ask? 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I shall remember this, the next time Cyde quotes Jimbo. Septentrionalis 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted material

message: Why wasn't the voting for User feminist archived?-- ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not worth it. --Doc ask? 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was archived and it was worth it. Classic misuse of T1. StrangerInParadise 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why didn't anyone put it under "Archived Discussions"?-- ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 21:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: According to SIP, any use of T1 is a misuse. --Doc ask? 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I added it back in. Let it go, Doc.-- ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminist userbox vote not archived? 

message: Look what I found on Wikipedia:Words of wisdom. "While editors' points of view are certainly welcomed, please remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy with regards to writing articles. To that effect, editors should work with other editors despite their conflicting egos and points of view. Through collaboration and presentation of either a neutral point of view or all points of view article, Wikipedia helps to illustrate good information."
Translate that as you will. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 10:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But it says to me 1) we are a neutral encyclopedia - and whilst individual POV is inevitable, we should never focus on it or celebrate it 2) we are in the bussiness of collaberative article writing, not dividing into partisan groups with little badges promoting egos and points of view. 3) We should remove anything that gets in the way of working together towards a neutral point-of view - particularly anything that is divisive or inflammetory. 4) we should view each other as fellow-editors and not as representatives or advocates of any political or ideological beliefs. --Doc ask? 12:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're playing the interpretation game, i'll give it a shot myself :). 1. the NPOV should be reflected in wikipedia articles rather than people's POVs (unless of course the article is on a person's POV) 2. editors should learn to be able to work with each other, despite clearly conflicting egos and POVs. 3. collaboration + presentation = information. And please don't remove my brain, it gets in the way of NPOV because I don't agree with everyone :(. Homestarmy 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 13:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can agree with that too. --Doc ask? 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: Why are all those useboxes deleted? Do they break any laws or rules? For example, why delete: 
	This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman.
After all, even if this got deleted, we can still use code to use this userbox further... So there is no point in deleting userboxes because they 'insult' you... Korodzik 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *A good place to start learning why is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not a place for political debates. Aside from this philosophical argument against Userboxes, the practical problem here is that by making this a template, someone made this a community issue. So if people simply cut-and-paste the code onto user pages, as you did on this page, that practical problem simply disappears. Then perhaps a vast majority of people who are up in arms against them simply ignore them, since they would no longer be used (through Categories) to rally "tribes" against one another - something for which WP was not designed. Nhprman 14:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Some people just get real exiteable about all this I guess. Homestarmy 13:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why delete?

message: *Keep deleted.  Get a life. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... was that really necessary? RadioKirk talk to me 20:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Exactly. Get a life. Misza13 T C 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On all sides, please... RadioKirk talk to me 20:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If Grue can assume bad faith and act like a jackass why can't we? Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because two wrongs make an escalation? Looking at this from the standpoint of a potential future admin, aren't we supposed to provide a better example than "he's doing it and he's an admin, so I can do it too, neener neener neener"? RadioKirk talk to me 22:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd always thought so, which is why I hate to see admins sniping at each other (note the linked article). These debates seem to bring out the worst in people. It's odd, really, because a bumper sticker is a silly thing to fight over when you get the car for free. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe! RadioKirk talk to me 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting comparison Mackensen. Allow me to expand on your metaphor, and say this. Do we allow other people to tell us what bumper stickers we can or cannot have on our car? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we do. On the other hand, you're permitted to paint whatever you like on your car, short of outright personal attacks. Templates are bad. Raw HTML is good. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "calling up" a "template" saved within a user's space? RadioKirk talk to me 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's in Template space or User space the effect is the same. It's a bumper sticker and not a paint job. Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, writing the code into the page (as opposed to calling it up from a saved "template") would produce the identical result. Wasn't this supposed to be the purpose of subst'ing to user-space that which currently exists in template-space? RadioKirk talk to me 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Raw HTML is bad. See the debate way back on wether to allow the span tag.Geni 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You realize of course that the argument will come back, "It's not our car, we're merely taking turns driving"? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Get a life?" You're an admin, you have to set an example. Being incivil isn't doing that. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we tried to set an example by writing articles but that clearly had no effect... Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if you read through the User Contributions of editors who defend userboxes, you'll note there are plenty of mainspace contributions. There is simply no defense for the comment Ms. Martin made. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be the exception to the rule.  --Cyde Weys 23:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit counter is down and no longer updated. If you want an accurate count, download Interiot's tool instead. I'm not sure what your point is, but D-Day has 4412 edits, 2611 of which are in the mainspace. IronChris  |  (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get a life 

message: This page has been protected by Cyde to prevent users from commenting crtically on his speedy deletions.  Please make a note of it.  --PunkChicken 05:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that PunkChicken is a confirmed sockpuppet of .  --Cyde Weys 23:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly was the reasoning behind sprotecting the page? I'm too lazy to peer through the history myself, but I'd assume it was something to the effect of sockpuppet vandalism. It still may be considered inappropriate to leave the page sprotected so long without stating a need for it to be (and without leaving a notice about it), as talk pages usually shouldn't be protected, even ones to which new users may not be able to contribute effectively. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: juding by the timeing it would be due to an anon voteing  "*Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy." on the various open polls.Geni 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops, my bad .. I don't know how I mixed that up; I thought I queried the log for the talk page, but I actually searched for the project page. Okay, this I certainly won't object to (at least currently). Sorry. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected Talk page: DRV/U 

message: While I'm sure it's flattering to the egos on both sides of this "war" to have it here, it is probably past time to close this page and return these to their former place on Deletion Review. Thoughts? -- nae'blis (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naeblis' comment received four immediate agreements before this was set up as a poll. This is fundamentally a yes/no question; it seemed useful to see arguments against (if any) separately. (Ami's comment that history should be preserved, and this should be a merge rather than a deletion, is of course right; but such modifications will come out of the discussion, however formatted.) Septentrionalis 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion/closing of DRVU 

message: *Starting to think that makes sense... other things aren't typically broken out this way for long periods of time, are they? ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Why is this a poll already?--Sean Black (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naeblis' comment received four immediate agreements before this was set up as a poll. This is fundamentally a yes/no question; it seemed useful to see arguments against (if any) separately. (Ami's comment that history should be preserved, and this should be a merge rather than a deletion, is of course right; but such modifications will come out of the discussion, however formatted.) Septentrionalis 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Am I correct that a sustained speedy deletion of this template would mean that it is acceptable to repeatedly delete userboxes, ignoring the previous DRV/U decision, until there is a vote sustaining the deletion? TheJabberwʘck 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User No Marxism]] 

message: Perhaps it would bew helpful if I said what I wanted out of all this; I don't want retention of all userboxes; I have usually agreed with the landslide Keep deleteds and not bothered to pile on.
**Speedy deletions should be name under some definite criterion of CSD.
**When there is any reasonable doubt whether thay apply, the box should be sent to TfD. 
**The normal deletion should be preceeded by asking the user not to flaunt userboxes of his political or religious views. 
**Where some rewording to neutral ;anguage is practical, as has been suggested for Templare:User Christian, it should be tried. 
 
Comments/ Septentrionalis 05:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goal

message: I refer to Wp:tfd#Template:User_sumofpi and Wp:tfd#Template:User_Sumofpi2.  
In the case of the former, there were 24 keep votes and a whopping FOUR delete votes.  Most people who expressed any other meaningful sentiments at all clearly understood that they were voting to keep the template itself, not just the content.  Yet, the closing administrator completely disregarded the voting process and deleted the template.
In the case of the latter, 21 people voted to keep it.  Six voted to userfy or delete it.  Again, those who expressed an opinion from which an understanding can be derived seemed to understand that they were voting to keep the template itself, not just the content.  Yet, the closing admin deleted the template.
So I ask - why are we even bothering to vote?  I have endeavored to consider each userbox on its merits.  In a number of cases, I have voted to delete them or even suggested that they should be speedied.  Why am I even bothering if the administrators will completely disregard the consensus and do whatever they feel like doing?
BigDT 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with you, but it would take so long to fix the system that it's not worth it. My advice (I elaborated on BigDT's talk page) is to wait for Wikipedia:Userbox policy or similar to be completed, and then work on undoing the harm done. TheJabberwʘck 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to draw your attention to WP:MACK, where some of us, tentatively, are trying to do just that. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If we stop voting, templates will be again deleted after one or two delete votes, and it will be called "consensus". Well, at present some users seem to call this way a lost 4-21 vote but if we keep voting, the "consensus" quality is at least visible. Friendly Neighbour 07:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm curious, what DO you think "consensus" means? Wikipedia's definition is skewed from the usual (unanimity, or no opposition), but rough consensus is used for the purposes of getting things done. It doesn't mean 50%+1, or 51%, or even 66% (usually). In RfAs it means 80% (or close to it), and for Bureaucrats it's even higher. AfD pegs it at 3:1, but DRV is an abberation in Wikipedia in using "majority" rule, mainly to keep from cycling things back and forth between DRV and AFD. Policies are even more confusing, as they tend to get adopted by the "propose, discuss, slap-a-policy-tag-on-it, if-not-reverted-then-it's-policy" method. How do you cut the Gordian knot? -- nae'blis (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious consense was to keep the template on some of those deleted templates, mainly the Pi ones. I disagree with the assertion that the people just meant the content and not the template. People often do not differentiate between the two. If a user votes to keep something, they generally mean keep it, not fix it for the current users and delete it anyway. While I can see the reasoning behind most of the current deletions being debated currently, those two obviously should never have been deleted in the first place. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm going to bring up an RfC against some of the admins after I talk with them.  Would you go along with it? --mboverload@ 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in cases such as this, and maybe that Christian userbox thing in regards to Cyde and Gmaxwell. I believe Mackensen took a good approach in deleting and protecting that particular template. In general, I figure that most of their decisions were at least somewhat supported, though maybe slightly bias. It's just this particular issue of deleting templates clearly voted on to be kept that irks me. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just left a message with him and after further review I think it will only be a request for comment and will not claim any wrong-doing of any of the admins. Assume Good Faith =O --mboverload@ 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I always tried to assume good faith, but it seems that a few admins are currently on a powertrip. They have a fixed view of what userboxes should be (deleted and gone if possible, especially if they are slighly controversial, i.e. anything regarding religion/believes/political or sexual orientation/ basically anything you can make a good argument about on the net). When they ignore TfD results is only the tip of the iceberg (well, they have - as they should - leerway regarding the votes but a clear supermajority also indicates consensus). What is even worse that they just Speedy-delete Userboxes - even if they have been kept by a TfD before, even if they have been restored by Deletion review after a speedy before (after being kept by TfD) - basically they have their views how things should be and enforce them claing T1 or T2 or WP:IAR. I hope should I ever get adminship here that I'd be strong enough to resisit the temptation to violate WP:POINT to hit them with a Clue-by-four. 84.145.234.98 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add WP:SNOW to their reasons for deleting or keeping these deleted on DRVU. Ansell Review my progress! 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why even bother with the TFD if the consensus is just going to just be totally ignored? 

message: NB: This was originally from a DRV discussion, but needs its own heading
*Comment. Let's be clear about this: administrators have always been given leeway in interpreting *fD, based on policy concerns. My principal motive here is to end the Userbox Wars for good. They could be over tomorrow. I think this would be a beneficial result; we could all go back to the article space where we belong. There are, to my mind, two principal factions: there are users, largely long-time sysops, who abhor userboxes in the template namespace. Part of this is a legitimate concern about vote-stacking. They also feel it sends the wrong message. I think I'm safe in saying that, at this point, keeping most userboxes in the template namespace is a non-starter for this group. Now, the other "faction" is numerous on Wikipedia, but counts few administrators. This has contributed, in my view, to a culture of misunderstanding, which is unfortunate. They view userboxes as a legitimate tool of self-expression; while I do not agree, I must respect this view. Attempts to remove the userboxes from the template namespace have been treated as censorship; I think most admins would disavow any such inclinations, but that's what it looks like, and we have not been as communicative as we could have. So. Where to compromise? I think the answer obvious. We subst all userboxes onto userpages and then delete them from the template namespace. This way, everyone has their boxes. Lists of template code can be maintained so long as there is no transclusion going on. This will satisfy the sysops, of that I am sure. I would call this a Burkean peace–Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord fomented...It is simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. Boxes for all, but not in the template namespace. On your userpages they are safe forever, and sysops will quake no more. How about it? Is there anyone else out there who could agree to such an idea? Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud any effort to end the Userbox Wars. Septentrionalis 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just a note. I think WP:MACK better addresses where we are NOW than the others do. One of them, the last, is effectively dead. Misza13's is still in development and is very simliar to Mackensen's Proposal. - Nhprman 04:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *And Wikipedia:Userbox policy? I would recommend this one to any userbox fan for this portion: "[Userboxes] may not contain images or language deliberately inflammatory, destructive, or obscene." I find this a much better compromise than either T2 or Mack's proposal. But I definitely think people should be focusing on the proposals, rather than on deleting the userboxes right now. Iamthejabberwock 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mackensen's Proposal 

message: For reasons not well understood by me or anyone I know, template review discussions were once redirected to a sub-page.  As there don't seem to be any extant sensible discussions I've moved them back to Deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 06:36, 26 May 2006 UTC
:You meant "...userbox review discussions were once redirected to a sub-page."? The userboxes were given a subpage when massive discussions like  or  were visiting there and constituted a major portion of DRV, effectively disrupting its normal operations. They're no longer very active, so it's a good idea to go back to DRV. What about the WP:UBD shortcut? Misza13 T C 09:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would someone be kind enough to move the debates onto the main page. Deleting the history makes it hard to find this information, and it is relevant. Ansell Review my progress! 09:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DRV

message: Too many DRV's closed improperly, without any good reason, means he should be banned from closing deletion debates, deletion reviews, and any other userbox related matters.  He should also be banned from speedy deleting such content.  Even the son of god needs to learn a lesson now and then.  --Tonyphile 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then who was the old messiah? Dun dun duuuuuun..... (And I can't seem to format this comment to go below this userbox, but just to be clear, im responding to it, I didn't put it there)Homestarmy 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Sidaway should be Banned from Userbox Deletion