Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive

Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover

Doc glasgow speedied these citing T1, but T1 doesn't apply. The reason is that unlike "pedophile," "boylover" and "girllover" lack the criminal/abusive connotations, and imply only the desire and not the act. This is quite different from the common media portrayal of pedophilia; see Pedophile activism#Childlover. The main concern with the existence of the old template was that it (a) would tend to generate bad publicity and (b) sounded like we were condoning criminal, abusive pedophilia. The language change should answer those concerns. Without the stigma, the template is (a) not inflammatory and (b) no more divisive than Template:User gay. It also has value, per all the keep arguments raised on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5#Template:User_paedophile TfD. (IMO, there was no clear consensus on that vote either.)

Childlove is just another sexual orientation. Granted, it's one that cannot be legally acted upon in all jurisdictions, but so was homosexuality 40 or 50 years ago. Allowing such templates as Template:User gay, and deleting these, is clear discrimination. Seahen 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, no. These are certainly inflammatory: Keep deleted. (Btw, were these created for hypothetical use, since you yourself were not using them? If so, I might think you were trolling)) --Doc ^ask? 14:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  How are they inflammatory? Seahen 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment I too fail to see how these are inflamatory, but I will wiat to see Doc Glasgow's reasoning before voting. Thryduulf 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Why in the world are we even discussing this? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would say undelete and list on TFD, but even if it was a unanimous keep on TFD I'm sure someone would just delete it anyways, so what is the point with going through the farce? Keep deleted Kotepho 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. "Without the stigma, the template is (a) not inflammatory and (b) no more divisive than Template:User gay." Er, no. Homosexuality is not illegal in most modern countries, nor does it result in physical and mental trauma. The fact that it's got something to do with sexual preference is irrelevant; this is no more acceptable than "This user wants to murder his family". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Definitely a user-space-only box. RadioKirk talk to me 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Why in the world are we even discussing this?" -Kelly Martin ... EXACTLY. Been there, done that, got the Tshirt, don't want to do it again, I know how it comes out. Keep deleted ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (Edit conflict x 3) I'd need to see the copy. It's possible that a template which implies "only the desire and not the act" might be acceptable. If undeleted, it would have to be protected, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hardly seems worth the effort. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - the language change did not address the issues that were raised previously. --JoanneB 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Naconkantari e|t||c|m 15:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 15:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misza13 ^{T C} 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Whether you are a boylover or girllover is irrelevent to editing an encyclopedia. In addition, they are clearly inflammatory and, as almost everyone knows, these are euphemisms for man/boy or man/girl sex (with underaged children.) Finally, these appear to have been created to make a point, so they are invalid on those grounds as well. - Nhprman 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete doesn't seem to fit T1.  Grue  16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:Seahen seems to have left messages on the talk pages of several editors who participated in the previous Paedophile userbox debate: recent contribs. I did not exhaustively check but it seems to be users who commented "Keep". I am not in favour of attempting to votestack that way if it's true, and would welcome comment from Seahen. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts

	Userbox deletion news	talk edit

---

Notices

• The ParserFunctions extension, which is intended to replace the functionality of if templates, has been enabled (on a trial basis) on all Wikimedia wikis.
• A final decision has been reached in the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. RfAr. MarkSweep has been banned from editing and taking any administrative action with regard to userboxes.
• An incident report has been filed regarding the deletion of {{User review}}, citing consensus established in the previous deletion review and TfD discussions.

---

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates

( Global notice · Archives · Box histories )

• User admins ignoring policy, again!
• User vomit
• User Objectivism and User No Objectivism

---

TfD discussions

• User Thermostat Bicker - Relisted per DRV.
• User United Kingdom resident - Clone/fork of User United Kingdom.
• User SaintCliff
• User supports UN - Apparent clone/fork of User UN.

---

Insert {{WP:UB/A}} to add this box.

---

Logs · Proposed policy · Userfying userboxes

Speedied and protected by Doc glasgow. This came DESPITE the fact it was Mfd'd and kept.[1] and was kept after MarkSweep had speedied it.[2] All I have to say this is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

• Keep deleted. And the vitriol in this nomination is disturbing. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per previous DRV. —Andux^␅ 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a valid reason. You know how pissed I would be if the outcome in 2004 was "Speedy re-elect per 2000 election"?  :-O Cyde Weys 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The arguments presented in the old DRV are just as valid now as they were then. —Andux^␅ 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And since they were invalid then, they're invalid now. Brilliant. --Cyde Weys 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If they were invalid, then why was the template kept? Are you suggesting an improper closure of the previous debate? Misza13 ^{T C} 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted well, let the 'disgusting' admin explain himself. I deleted this template under t1 - as divisive. It has only one purpose, to act as a 'vote-stacking mechanism'. It is designed to allow a clique of like-minded people can be alerted to userbox debates. Within minutes of Misza13 bringing the template below to DRV, he listed it on this page to mobalise members of 'project userboxes'. The effect of this template is (ironically) to allow a cabal to abuse process, and game the system. It is clearly inflammatory and divisive that this able to happen. --Doc ^ask? 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  If you read the comments in the listed Tfd and DRV, you'll find that anti-userbox users used that page to keep track of the debates. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  OK, I've just researched this. In addition to being used on several pages concerning 'project userboxes', there are about 20 users including this in their userspace. All of them, yes, all of them, use/support political, polemical ect userboxes. So the idea that this is a neutral template of use to all irrespective of their views, is simply bullshit. Schoolswatch was being used by all sides, this isn't. It is a vote stacking mechanism.--Doc ^ask? 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  So? Is translusion on one's user page the only way to keep track of changes? I'm sure you have heard of Special:Watchlist. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted(see below 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)) - Vote stacking template. No, you may not build system-gaming machines out of Wikipedia templates. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps but after Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch failed to die the general idea appears to be tollerated.Geni 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Is there a picture of this userbox somewhere, is it like advertising the latest TfD requests or something? Homestarmy 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Important difference, Geni - Schoolwatch is at least about writing an encyclopedia. I also don't see that they have an alert template to "rally the troops" to deletion discussions, though maybe it's just not mentioned somewhere obvious. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  no it is about filling wikipedia with schoolcruft.Geni 01:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  +1, Funny --Cyde Weys 01:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  The inclusionists may have won that round but I'll be back the evil deletionist turns his cloak swirling dramaticaly and stalks out pauseing only to kick a passing puppy.12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted if it didn't come off with such a POV attitude about things like Marksweep and the "again" comment, i'd say this template might be nice. But come on, it's pretty biased looking :/. Homestarmy 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Why don't you help make this template NPOV then, instead of voting to delete it? TheJabberwʘck 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It's just a tool for votestacking. One replication is synced on toolserver, I can produce reports to prove that. --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template's only purpose is to electioneer for votes to manipulate consensus, and as such has no legitimate purpose. Burn it with fire. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Except it is not a template, thus not fails under T1. Wow, all your argument falls apart.  Grue  06:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would argue that, despite not being in the Template: namespace, it is being used exactly as a template would be (that is to say, being transcluded onto many other pages). If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... --Cyde Weys 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted obvious vote rigging ploy. --InShaneee 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and burn with fire per Kelly Martin. Ral315 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. This vote rigging, troop rallying nonsense has to end. Nhprman 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Only useful for skewing consensus, and therefore of no use whatsoever.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It's all been said in earlier KD votes. Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Have any of you actually read the contents of the box? We have made every effort to keep this box as a neutral report of userbox activity. All POV has been removed. If a factual listing of every userbox related debate is divisive then I guess the centralized discussion box is divisive too. How very absurd.--God Ω War 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per God of War. Avalon 06:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ridiculous out-of-process deletion.  Grue  06:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted ridiculous in process deletion. --pgk^(talk) 07:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Subst Undelete and add to the top of this page. I don't see the point of a template for something like this, but the box itself actually seems to be pretty valuable; I wasn't aware of a lot of the above developments at the top of the page, and in fact, when I first came to this section, I mistakenly thought (in part because the TOC is absent right now) that this was a cool new feature being added to the top of the "Deletion review" page, much like that old banner that was displayed here to let people vote on the proposed userbox policy. Keeping track of current events for something like this, considering that the policy state of userboxes is in such flux and disagreement, seems pretty beneficial. -Silence 08:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Its because of this kind of thing that this page (and others) is such a sh*tstorm. :P Votestacking device. -- Banez 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't mind it for the news. If it was reworded so that others wouldn't take offense, I suppose it would be better. But everyone will take offense at something, where do you draw the line? (Read: I understand others' reasons for its removal - than it can be read as divisive, etc). — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Not created in good faith. --Pjacobi 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive, factionalist, etc. Say what you like, but this was obviously created as a stimulus to encourage "keep" "votes" in userbox-related discussions. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD, because "vote stacking mechanism" is not a CSD. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  That may be. Thanks for agreeing that it's a vote-stacking mechanism. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't say it's a vote-stacking mechanism. I only invalidated KD votes based on this argument, regardless whether it's true. Thanks for agreeing that it may not be a CSD. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Never claimed it was a speedy on those grounds. It's certainly divisive. Vote-stacking tools are usually grounds for blocking. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Divisive? No. Informative? Yes. To quote Wikipedia:Vote Stacking (not a policy, but who cares?):

  Notification of individuals about an ongoing survey should be as neutral as possible.

  By all means you're welcome to edit the template to make it as neutral as possible.

  Notification of individuals about an ongoing survey should be as transparent as possible. Surveys must be listed in the most appropriate places to list surveys, and not listed in inappropriate places.

  Was Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts an inappropriate place? Go ahead and propose a better one. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. We've been through this before. It's not T1, i.e., not divisive. It is a tool. Vote stacking, if it exists, goes both ways. And I see no particular POV pushed here. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It has some useful links => it is useful => keep.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Fang Ali. TheJabberwʘck 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per preceding commentators. --Shawn 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per preceding commentators. —StrangerInParadise 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no valid reason whatsoever to speedy this. I express disapproval at fello administrators unilaterally deleting pages they don't like, especially when previously kept by consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Equivalent to a portal task list.--M@rēino 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's a fairly neutral (certainly not a divisive and inflammatory) template describing the goings on in the userbox part of Wikipedia, and is as justified as for example Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board having a list of relevant topics listed for deletion. It doesn't say "Come and vote keep on these debates!", it says "Here are deletion debates relevant to this project." Many of the people who use the links may indeed vote to delete in most of the listed discussions. With a clear MFD in favor of keeping it, this one should be undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - this provides useful information and says nothing divisive. Metamagician3000 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I really don't think it's divisive. Certainly not inflammatory.--Toffile 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Some have compared this box to the situation with Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I've noticed that, at least with the latter project, when they add a deletion discussion to their list, they post a note indicating so in the discussion. There's a webcomics project that does the same thing. If this template is kept in some form, then I would suggest a similar practice be adopted, for the sake of transparency. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the notes are a WikiProject Deletion Sorting thing; the AWNB just uses their list. —Andux^␅ 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Mailer Diablo 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete By listing active discussions on this subject, it serves the same purpose as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. The correct response to concerns it may be used for vote-stacking is to watch it, or include it yourself, and reply when it changes. Septentrionalis 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Per Sean Black. AnnH ♫ 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak undelete but reluctantly. This is very arguably T1-speediable, but was decided to be not in the previous discussion, and no new information has been brought up, so I'm inclined to apply stare decisis. The template itself seems neutral in wording, and is reporting information of interest to many users, even if it is currently in use mainly by pro-userbox users. Furthermore, since a large fraction of userbox related deletions come either here or at TfD, and a large fraction of TfDs are userboxes, they could simply put these two pages on their watchlists if they really wanted to. That said, GTBacchus is absolutely right that some form of notification would be good. I'm concerned about Sean Black's point, but it isn't obviously egregious at this point enough to empirically support it . JoshuaZ 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find the rather unanimous pattern of 'voting' in the last 24 hours rather peculiar and I wonder if someone can shed light on whether the "word has gone out" about this deletion review. It would be ironic if that was the case, given the comments made earlier about vote stacking and this template. Nhprman 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  You may notice that within 12 hours after nomination the pattern of voting was also rather... one-sided. So, what's your point again? And it's typical for a deletion discussion to go that way: at first people vote kd, and then someone presents a compelling argument to undelete and everyone votes undelete.  Grue  14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  And what was that compelling argument again? That aside, I'll give reasonable doubt to this issue, given your comments and those below, that there truly was a re-think by some posters. Thanks. Nhprman 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Even without regard to the presentation of new arguments, assuming a very naive model of 50% either way, the level of fluctuation here seems well within reasonably expected values. JoshuaZ 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think Grue's right. In fact, I'm changing my vote to undelete and list at TfD. I don't think it's encyclopedic at all, but it should at least have its day on TfD, because it is presented as neutrally as any similar box used by any project (except for some minor editorializing, which should be removed). I'll vote delete when it gets there, but I'm not so bold as to predict snow in April. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And as one of the late voters: there's another reason vote order is non-random. For my part, I looked at this earlier, decided that there was no point in opposing a then unanimous vote; and came back and voted when others had voted to undelete, and my opinion seemed likely to make a difference. Septentrionalis 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• This template exists only to enable vote-stacking by people who'd much rather abuse their userspace privileges than work on furthering the encyclopaedia. I don't see a compelling reason not to keep it deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with a stick. The only purpose of this template is to vote-stack and create apparent consensus where there is none. As such, it should be killed even if this very debate gets vote-stacked to create an illusion of consensus - David Gerard 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: it's a dynamic list of active votes, what else could it be interpreted as other than a call to arms? —Phil | Talk 14:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What a hilarious argument. Do you want to delete these ones as well? I also want to remind "vote-stacking" people that we're not voting here. There is no such thing as "vote-stacking" on Wikipedia.  Grue  17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • All right, call it a 'discussion loading' device if you like. This is a template designed to be put on the pages of userbox supporters to alert them to discussions in order to influence the outcome (can you deny that?), and it also lists RfCs and RfArs on admins they view as hostile. If you look at the wording of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. case, you will note how it only refers to the sanctions against 'anti-userbox admin' MarkSweep, and fails to mention that Guanaco was desysopped and Stranger in Paradise put on probation. This is about as 'loaded' as you can get. --Doc ^ask? 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then it should be changed to be devoid of POV. Isn't it obvious that this template could serve a good purpose? And thus, isn't the right solution to make the necessary changes rather than deleting it? TheJabberwʘck 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • How? No. And again no. --Doc ^ask? 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
          • As a helper for people such as you and myself, who are following the userbox debates. It saves time to have a centralized noticeboard related to these debates. TheJabberwʘck 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted.--Commander Keane 14:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - blatant vote-stacking mechanism, no contribution to the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, vote-stacking attempt. James F. (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this and any other vote-stacking devices. Alphax ^τεχ 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per previous MfD, per pervious comments. I fail to see how an anti-userbox voter could fail to find this template as useful as a pro-userbox voter (no mater how the template is worded) so I'd consider the vote-staking argument moot, since anyone could use this for notification. I have a feeling that if this passes it will open the floodgates on antother userbox kull, but this time more people will simply be kept out of the loop. oh well, when have openness and tranparency ever been an issue on Wikipedia?... Mike McGregor (Can) 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, why Speedy? why not TfD? is it because speedy gets rid of the notification before the (inevitialbe) vote? Mike McGregor (Can) 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Fang Ali. --Dragon695 00:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know why I didn't discuss more deeply on the content before, but the cute little comments after the entries in this template: ("Again!" and "Apparent clone/fork of User UN.") are POV commentaries and these kinds of notations should be deleted if for some reason this template is kept. Also, who is deciding WHICH Tfd's to place here, and which items to highlight? This seems very subjective, and tends to lead me to see this more as an anti-deletionist newspaper of sorts. Nhprman 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is vote-stacking. David | Talk 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't get myself to pick a side on this one. Anyone who's read my Wikibio knows how I feel about the speedy speedies by a handful of admins who seemed to be champing at the bit therefor; however, my first impression of this box was that it unnecessarily promotes an "us against them" mentality, and that impression remains. It should also be noted that when all non-Babel boxen go to userspace—and, they will, when the specifics are worked out—this box becomes moot. Call me neutral. RadioKirk talk to me 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak undelete Whats really wrong with it? Brian | (Talk) 23:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Encourages group action with goals totally tangential to what we do here. -- SCZenz 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and MfD, if it was kept before on MfD, I don't know how it could possibly be a speedy. --AySz88^-^ 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Its purpose is clearly to encourage ballot stuffing. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete if we're to keep any sense of fairness about XfD. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is not about censorship, you can write such paragraph on your user page. It's about having a global template for drop-in. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I strongly dislike the out of process deletions and polariazation in these debates, but schoolwatch is an anomaly. This is a clear vote stacking template and has to go. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

This user is annoyed by admins ignoring the process.

• 22:09, 24 April 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy" (bloody obvious t1)

• Here we go again... No further comments. --Misza13 ^{T C} 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, again! --Misza13 ^{T C} 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Of course it's divisive. It explicity suggests division and divergence. Moreover, it's divisive within itself, as it claims (by its name) to be about policy but cites process in the text. That it also represents the worst sort of passive aggressive martyrdom is almost beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Claiming that one of the reasons something is "divisive" is because it's "divisive within itself", i.e., isn't consistent in what view it is expressing, is rather hilarious pseudologic. Although your first line of argument, "It explicity [sic] suggests division and divergence", is relatively valid (though "explicitly suggests" is almost an oxymoron, and "suggesting division and divergence" is a rather ridiculously over-general interpretation of "divisive"; by that logic, Babelboxes can be T1 speedied because they "suggest divergence" between different languages—and, using your word games, mathematical userboxes aren't acceptable because they "suggest division" :)), "inconsistency" is not a T1 criterion, and mutilating the word "divisive" to try to give it that implication is rather silly indeed. Moreover, it's unnecessary; surely there are much better arguments than both of the above for deleting a template like this! (Though even if there are, its controversial nature and long history suggests that a TfD is preferable here, not a crude speedy, unless this is recreation of deleted content.) -Silence 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Permanent Undelete We've been over this before. Rather than taking offense to this userbox, perhaps the admin could contact a user with this userbox and find out why that user is upset with an admin(s), and try to correct this problem. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Alternatively, the user in question could do that, as there as 800 admins, any one of whom the user could be angry with. Such a course of action would accomplish something. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Such a course of action won't accomplish anything and I know that from autopsy. It usually ends up with the user in question being, at best, plainly ignored, if not called a troll. Misza13 ^{T C} 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  I trust you aren't accusing anyone here of acting in that fashion. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Without digging into the lengthy talk page historys (dating february), I can point you to Doc's comment below, where he basically called all bearers of the template (myself included) "trolls". Tell me, how can I assume good faith after that and attempt further direct dispute resolution with him? Misza13 ^{T C} 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Judging from the comments you left on Doc's talk page, you weren't planning on it before you came here anyway. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's only 'again' because you brought it here. Useless trolling userbox, which does not belong in our template space. Of course it's 'bloody obviously' 'inflammatory and divisive' that's its very purpose. I've already offered that if anyone can't live without this, I will personally post the code to their userpage on request. But this does not, not, not, NOT, belong in the template space of an encyclopedia. Ridiculous. Oh keep deleting. --Doc ^ask? 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• The irony is hilarious. User:Kotepho/User admins ignoring process if you want it. Kotepho 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I can't see how making an attack on the wikipedia community wouldn't be considered 'divisive'. --InShaneee 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Can you point out which part of the community is attacked by the template? Misza13 ^{T C} 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Every admin who does something the user in question doesn't like? Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Not exactly. And your comment affirms me that people keep misunderstanding the meaning of the userbox. It rather strictly condemns admins that behave in an inappropriate way. Is there something wrong with that? Misza13 ^{T C} 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  The userbox is making a vauge attack on the admin community as a whole. If you've got a problem with an individual admin's behavior, a userbox is not the way to solve it. --InShaneee 23:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  First, I don't see how it attacks all admins, second (about contacting admins) refer to the "thread" above. Misza13 ^{T C} 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am....undecided. Upon examining the old TfD debate for this, I found one interesting bit of observation by one User:Blu something or another, he made a point that it is only divisive and inflammatory to the admins it applies to. Am I missing something here? Homestarmy 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ignoring process is absolutely not the same as ignoring policy - in fact, the two are often diametrically opposed. This is therefore simply tendentious. Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - attack template. What's more, admins ignoring process get a lot of good work done around here. Sometimes it bugs me, too, but I'd rather write an encyclopedia than Wikilawyer or complain about how, despite all the wikilawyering noise being made, there are still admins who hold common sense above red tape. Cheers to Kelly Martin for taking one for the team on New Year's by ignoring process and pointing out to everyone just how badly out-of-hand the userboxes had become. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Let me point out to all fellow Userbox Supporters that this Userbox does not help our cause. By creating bullcrap userboes just to attack, it only makes people more apathetic and sends the entire situation down the slippery slope. I say delete because this was obviously made for a certain attack purpose. Otherwise, I support all other userboxes as of right now. Shawn 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, simple T1. If you didn't see this one coming your third eye must be blind :-P Cyde Weys 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Another classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously divisive/inflammatory. Probably also WP:POINT which is not a speedy criterion, but WP:SNOW and all... (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As tony said, classic T1. We'd be ignoring policy to undeleted it, and no one wants that! --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL, Catch-22. Perfect. --Cyde Weys 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nah it's pretty tivial to undelete it within policy (IAR). Doing it within process would be harder. The simplest way would be to list it on TFD and then undelete it if it doesn't get consensus for deletion. Other ways to delete it within process inculde going through a full formal policy debate to kill T1 or if the foundation insists on keeping it voteing for different candidates at the next board election.Geni 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per all the sane people above. Also encourages editors to be disrespectful of administrators, and decreases civility across the project. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Tu quoque. Calling people insane is not civil. Kotepho 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and put a concrete grave on top so it won't resurrect again. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per logic and sanity.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Incivil. If a process didn't go your way there's dispute resolution methods that you can use. But this just takes an aimless shot at a large group of editors...as pointless as it is meanspirited. Rx StrangeLove 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I do get annoyed at admin ignoring process sometimes; but, honestly, this template is divisive -- it is meant to be a salvo in the userbox conflict, for heavens' sake. A fair reading of T1 does support speedying this. Xoloz 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and this is after voting to undelete it the last two times. I tried making this template less anger-inciting by making it indicate the type of admins people liked rather than disliked, but I was reverted. It indicates that people want to use this template as a way of expressing anger more than anything else, and want to use it as an inflammatory rather than positive userbox. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it only divides reasonable users and admins who are detrimental to the project. Do you think "This user is annoyed by vandals" is a divisive userbox? This one falls in the same league.  Grue  06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  So admins are vandals, then? I want to see a list of admins who are described by this box. I want someone to come right out and say who this box describes, and why. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  There is no such list. But the deal is simple anyway. If you ignore the process, then I find you annoying. Is that complicated? I don't think so. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  I ask the question again. Who do you find annoying? Because the minute you take that template and replace "admins" with someone's name, it becomes a personal attack. The fact that you hide behind the phrase is insulting. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Admins who ignore policy are worse than vandals. Unlike vandals they actually have tools to harm Wikipedia. If you want examples, see WP:RFDA for list of former admins who were desysopped by ArbCom for ignoring policy.  Grue  17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, I'm aware of the page. I believe the most recent desysoping was Guanaco...for restoring userboxes. Did you have someone else in mind? Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Guanaco wasn't desysopped for restoring userboxes. He also isn't the most recent admin desysopped. And I didn't have anyone specific in mind.  Grue  19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sure he was. He was also desysopped for revert-warring over userboxes. But let's move on, because you still aren't making any sense. We know what it takes to get desysopped. Obviously these in-process speedies aren't it, else I, Doc glasgow, Mark Sweep, and Kelly Martin would have been hung from a lamp post ages ago. I put the question to you again. Who does this template refer to? Who can it refer to without being a personal attack? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well Mark Sweep was a bit battered by his latest arbcom case and KM had problems with the whole clerk thing. Personaly I don't view people being anoyed at my actions as a personal attack (indeed in many cases I would be suprised if they took any other position. Being blocked is anoying).Geni 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  "We got away with it, so it must be okay"? That's pretty weak line of reasoning. And of course, as Geni pointed out, MarkSweep was punished by ArbCom for deleting userboxes.  Grue  08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  What about the admin who's posting articles deleted by WP:OFFICE over at wikitruth? I was about to get all annoyed about that, before I realized that administrator=annoying is by definition an oxymoron, a literal impossibility. Besides, we already have a userbox that says anything a good Wikipedian would need to say about administrators. In fact, I was going to suggest that this userbox be not only allowed but required: Herostratus 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This user believes that Wikipedia administrators are incapable of error when speaking ex cathedra.

• Keep deleted clearly a T1 --pgk^(talk) 07:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It was voted on a month ago and kept. Now it's been T1ed. Exactly why the box is needed. Crumbsucker 07:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Another classic T1. -- Banez 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• (Changed my vote) and change text to "This user is annoyed by admins who ignore process." (there's a difference in the text, it offends anyone it applies to. If it doesn't apply to you, you needn't be offended). — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  The catch here is that those to whom this template applies are wrongdoers anyway. From the comments above I regretfully admit that people still don't get it and get inflamed when they shouldn't be. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  "Wrongdoers"? Please assume good faith, Misza13. A lot of good gets done by cutting Gordian Knots, and Wikipedia quite intentionally embraces the possibility of bypassing process when common sense dicates. (See Pillar 5.) The point is to write an encyclopedia, not to set up strict rules and follow them. If you think that Wikipedia should be a rule-bound exercise in due process, then make that argument, but don't attack (whether personally or not) those who, in good faith, disagree with you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Poor Wikipedia must be full of Gordian Knots then, if WP:IAR (which is not a policy, btw), the corollary to the fifth pillar, must be invoked so often. And with all due respect, if we don't set up a firm set of rules and follow them, then this project could soon turn into a complete anarchy. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  If we are full of Gordian knots, it is because process-adicts keep tying us up in them. Well, I'll go for Alexander's solution every time. --Doc ^ask? 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Misza13, of course there are Gordian knots everywhere, that's inevitable if you set up a large organization or if you try to write an encyclopedia. We've gone and done both. Wikipedia exists in a state of dynamic tension between WP:PI and WP:IAR (neither of which is policy - your pointing that out above indicates that you're still thinking legalistically). That dynamic tension is the point of having rules of thumb that contradict each other (like "haste makes waste"; but "he who hesitates is lost"). It works. Things get done. If we went all the way to either side, Wikipedia would die, of chaos in one direction, or of paralysis in the other. Our job is to grow gardens of red tape, and then prune the heck out of them by slicing the Gordian knots that inevitably arise. It's actually quite a remarkable and beautiful process. Some people fail to understand this, and want to be comforted by the security of a firm set of rules and guaranteed procedures. I guess we aren't doing a good enough job of communicating how Wikipedia is supposed to work, especially based on comments like CharonX's below, in which that user seems genuinely upset that we're subverting "due process" - which has never been guaranteed on Wikipedia, and would be a terrible idea that would destroy the project. Misza13, you say, "if we don't set up a firm set of rules and follow them, then this project could soon turn into a complete anarchy." First of all - we set up lots of rules, and we follow them in many, many cases. I follow process dozens of times for every one time I bypass it. Secondly, bypassing process when appropriate does not lead the project to "complete anarchy"; in fact, it's necessary to keep the project moving. Admins are allowed, even expected, to exercise their judgement regarding when to bypass process; the habits that emerge in this way eventually get codified as process. Again, it's remarkable, beautiful, organic, and much more functional than a rule-bound bureaucracy.

  Please at least consider that Wikipedia might really be as I've described it here, and that maybe it's ok - even good - for it to be that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  +1 Insightful. Thank you for this essay. I'll keep that in mind. Still, I must also state that I agree with CharonX, meaning that my general impression from this debate is that many previous supporters have grown weary of this war and have withdrawn for the sake of their mental health. I have also, out of frustration, substed all of my boxes. However, I have a brand new idea in my mind. In the following days, I'll try to create and propose a new policy on userboxes which (hopefully!) will gather more support than the previous ones and satisfy all sides. Wish me luck (or don't, whatever)! Misza13 ^{T C} 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, please! --Pjacobi 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1 is not up for debate. If you're actually interested in promoting the following of process, use {{User process}}, which makes exactly the same point without making weaselly attacks on people to whom you deny the right to defend themselves by not saying who they are. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Frank Maguire(abstain in person).Geni 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I would hope that this would inspire sadness, shame or a desire to do better in an admin who reads it, not anger or annoyance. TheJabberwʘck 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  As an admin, I consider myself to be doing a good job when I can discern when I should follow process, and when I should bypass it. This userbox makes me kind of sad that so many people don't understand that Wikipedia works that way, and think that we need to be rule-bound in order to be functional. Kind of like trying to surf while keeping one hand on the beach. An admin would be pretty silly to feel "shame" about bypassing process when appropriate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  All right, I'll accept that. Still, don't you agree that it would be better to ask people who use that userbox why they use it, and to listen to their responses and possibly work towards positive changes, than to delete the userbox and frustrate the ability of these editors to express their feelings? TheJabberwʘck 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe. Maybe that's why I'm expending so much verbiage right now. Still, we're phasing these opinionated userboxes out, and this is one centralized place where this conversation can happen. I don't really buy that anyone's ability to express their feelings is taken away, when they can just subst the darn code onto their page and express the same feeling. The best solution - a long term one - is to more effectively communicate our philosophy to newcomers and prevent anyone getting the impression (a) that opinionated bumper-stickering is somehow part of what goes on here and (b) that Wikipedia makes or should make any attempt to guarantee "due process" or to be entirely rule-driven. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  I guess I don't see the harm of this userbox as a userbox. If it can be subst:ed, why should it matter if it's a template? I do see (minor) harm in the form of annoyance (ugly and hard to modify code) and wasted time (doing the subst:, the lack of centralized updates) in subst:ing.

  I have to disagree with both (a) and (b). The people are what make this place fun for me, and the "bumper-stickering" is a big part of how I learn about other editors. And due process, though of course not legally required, has worked for America and I think will/would work for Wikipedia. I just wrote a lot about that at User talk:Gmaxwell.

  Anyway, regardless, I still vote undelete because TFD seems a much more civil way to go about things. Some templates are obvious CSD candidates, but this one is obviously not. It's got a history and a lot of support. And the TFD process is just better overall. Instead of finding your userpage changed without your knowledge, you see a little link within one of your userboxes and are able to go vote on the use of the template. Also, the template is still extant during voting for usage checks and/or modifications. And the TFD process is in an "innocent until proven guilty" form, whereas this is kind of like the Star Chamber. TheJabberwʘck 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. The "Policy? Due Process? I have power and I use it." attitude of some admins makes me sad. "So what if a Template survived a TfD and was restored by a Deletion Review... We'll just keep on deleting it till the supporters give up. For we have the POWER." I understand that they only do what they think is right. But what use is policy when even those that are supposed to enforce it, ignore it. So... goodbye all. CharonX 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as a userbox expressedly against admin corruption is the most democratic thing i've seen in a while and can only be a good thing. --Shawn 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This could only be seen as divisive if there were a significant party in favor of admins ignoring process, is there? —StrangerInParadise 05:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep deleted - T1 has its use, admins put up with enough crap at times, we don't need an attack userbox -- Tawker 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it's a thinly disguised personal attack. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and change to admins WHO ignore the process. With that change, it would no longer be divisive, because it would imply that it is against the norm for admins to ignore process (which I happen to believe is true -- most admins follow the rules very closely).--M@rēino 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is clearly divisive and unhelpful. It is not like a mere statement of an editor's philosophical beliefs (say) but is a standing contribution to the wars that go on around here. Metamagician3000 14:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  As I said above, you can take it divisively, or not. Certainly some use the template as an attack. But for others it's a way to try and make a positive change. TheJabberwʘck 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm actually tempted to change my vote to undelete on the basis that the community has (some of you seem to be saying) already spoken on this template. Once a decision is made it should be honoured. However, I see this template as exceptional. It is part of the problem we have with the unnecessary wars here. I think this particular template has to go, but I also think that people should generally stop redeleting userboxes that have already been the subject of a vote. Metamagician3000 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not quite an attack, but certainly unhelpful and unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, absolutely definitely divisive. James F. (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  How is it divisive? Clue me in, I don't get it. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, doublespeak. Alphax ^τεχ 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Permanent Undelete. Like Ronald Regan said, "There you go again." Doc you need to find something better to do. --Dragon695 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is amusing. Three TFDs; this is its third DRV. Man, this is a debate that just won't die, will it? Undelete per the consensus of the five previous dicussions. Hbdragon88 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is a case of a few people bringing it up again and again and again until they get the outcome they want. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Definitely divisive - it attacks a section of the Wikipedia community. David | Talk 09:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, those poor oppressed people who don't want to hold themselves to the standards they are supposed to encourage and if necessary enforce. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reword to the more specific "those admins who ignore the process" and recreate in users' spaces. RadioKirk talk to me 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and repeat after me: process is not an end in itself. Now go back to writing an encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 08:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  No, it is a means to an end; but if everyone ignored process we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete If there are admins who abuse their position (which there undoubtedly are), what's so wrong with acknowledging this? It is not an attack, but a statement that not everything here is as wonderful as it could be. romarin[talk to her ] 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and revert wording, because I think the wording was tamer before IIRC. I'd agree the new wording is pretty inflammatory right now towards those who've been accused (who haven't necessarily been proven). --AySz88^-^ 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete' and Enforce the ruling of DRV.--God Ω War 05:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this userbox is not an "attack userbox"; as says nathanrdotcom, if it doesn't concern you, you needn't be offended! Even if I was an admin, I would be annoyed by other admins who ignore process. I also support rewording it to "This user is annoyed by admins who ignore process", maybe fewer admins will feel concerned. IronChris | (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definite permanent Delete This is ridiculous. It is an absolute joke that we're even discussing this. Admins should be shown a certain level of respect. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  Even those who ignore process, i.e., those who violate the very rules and practices they are supposed to encourage? --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete (edit conflict) How can a userbox that encourages following process be a bad thing? I might suggest replacing admins with users though; however, I will agree that admins should be observed more critically than other users as they have quite a bit more power than others, and when they ignore policy, it's quite a bit harder to revert their changes. This would only be an attack, IMO, if it named specific admins or situations. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 09:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  You say you voted for the "Ex cathedra" one. I'd like to inform you that it's not being voted here, as it is not a template. It only flushed to the left because of a bad formatting, which I've fixed. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted; attack userbox -- Karada 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Permanent undelete. While I appreciate admins feeling besieged and am not a big fan of userboxes, I'd like to point out that a) this matter has been voted on at least three times before, all with the same outcome; and b) there is nothing obviously divisive about it at all. Doc Glasgow's unilateral act in fact illustrates the point rather well. --Leifern 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - wait, wait, wait. Could it be this is all a result of ambiguous wording? Just to be clear, my view is that the userbox only applies to the (hopefully small) minority of admins that apply different (and more lenient) standards to their own conduct than to others'. Just to be perfectly clear, it is not - at least in my mind - targeted at the admin community as a whole. It rather makes the opposite point, at least implicitly - that the community as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for the bad behavior of a few. I'm opening to rewording it to make this completely clear, of course. --Leifern 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted No-one likes it when admins ignore process, so the userbox adds no value. If you want to say that a specific admin is ignoring process, there are proper channels for that. And if you believe that large numbers of admins ignore process, then you don't understand process, and you probably don't want to go broadcasting the fact. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Wiki censorship at it's very worst.--TheMadTim 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

*Keep deleted, this is not about censorship, you can write such paragraph on your user page. It's about having a global template for drop-in. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Template:User Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is Un-American.

Template:User Against Americanisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Not Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A good old fashioned 'Speedied during debate at TfD' by Doc Glasgow.[3] I would like to see this restored and relisted at TfD so that consensus can run its course. This paternalist approach is condescending to say the least and shows a compleate lack of confidence in the wikipedia community by admins. In short, deletions like this make consensus on wikipedia a joke. Mike McGregor (Can) 10:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• undelete and relist at TfD per nom Mike McGregor (Can) 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all deleted - they don't help the Project. But undelete first for a period long enough for Cyde to run his Userboxbot. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have lots of confidence in the Wikipedia community. Just not much in the Myspace community. Keep all deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm sorry that you think this makes consensus look like a "joke," but for us old timers these templates make the encyclopedia look like a joke. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• exactaly how long does someone have to be present on Wikipedia before people like you take them seriously? A year? 2 years? since January 2001? This is exactaly the paternalistic BS I'm talking about. you guys keep treating the "Wikepedia community" like it's an old boys club or a fraternal orginiztion or a closed circle that was established long ago, and treating newcomers and dissenters, who maybe don't follow the status quo as a threat. Just because some of us don' t post to the wiki email lists, IRCs or what ever, or run for adminship dosent make us idiots... maybe someone should write a WP:NOTCABAL (or WP:CABALYES as the case may be.)Mike McGregor (Can) 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I'm trying to tell you how us paternalistic cabalist bastards see the situation. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, no obvious encyclopaedic value. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; divisive and, as stated above, no encyclopedic value. -- Karada 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted consensus and precedent clearly indicate that we speedy delete 'anti' userboxes under t1. Can we please stop having a review over all of these useless things? We seem to have some users with a mentality that says every userbox deletion must be reviewed - we don't even do that for articles. Nominations like this are becoming disruptive. --Doc ^ask? 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

please cite this consensus and link to the discussions Mike McGregor (Can) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, see #archives below - and you will see it. --Doc ^ask? 08:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• WP:CSD is right here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. We're here to build an encyclopedia, folks. Garrett^Talk 12:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• kd first two are obvious T1 and the last one is quite useless.  Grue  12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. More or less says "This user hates America" which seems to fall well within T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Let's save TfD for issues which actually require discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• and who decides whats worthy of discussion? Mike McGregor (Can) 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Look up. Look down. Not this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Another classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I find my country often reprehensible these days, but that doesn't make these things any less divisive and inflammatory. They're meant to get a reaction out of viewers. Xoloz 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly unacceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Unfortunately they fall under T1. TheJabberwʘck 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and feed Mike McGregor penguins for bringing this here. --Cyde Weys 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please read our policy on No Penguin Attacks, Cyde. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: So what did these say, anyway? Septentrionalis 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the nom has a substituted version of one of them on his userpage, their text is fairly straightforward. Homestarmy 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

here's the one: moved to top - TheJabberwʘck 01:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Mike McGregor (Can) 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete and relist on TFD These kinds of speedy deletions are deliberatiely provocative, and fall under CSD T1. They do nothing to help the encyclopedia. PLEASE DON'T DELETE TEMPLATES WHILE THEY ARE BEING TFD'd!!! --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oy! Keep deleted.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - You don't get much more T1 than that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Please remember: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neither is Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Wildly provocative boxes that are inappropriate for the purposes of editing an encyclopedia. This is not a social networking site. And how many times do we need to put a stake through the heart of a worthless, divisive Userbox before it dies? - Nhprman 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User vomit

File:Vomit.JPG

This user just vomited all over their computer. Ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This userbox has been repeatedly deleted, and now has been protected from creation. Tony Sidaway says that this is T1. Below are my comments about this action, as posted on the talk page for this userbox:

This has got to be one of the more bizarre deletions I've ever had to witness. Why must this page be protected? This was an admin's reason for deleting this userbox.

1. (Divisive and inflammatory to millions of starving kids worldwide who can't afford FOOD let alone COMPUTERS.)

I'm no admin, but I highly that truly is a serious reason to delete a userbox. And this being "T1" and divisive? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Here's the dictionary terms for "divisive" and "inflammatory."

1. Divisive-"Creating disagreement or disunity."
2. Inflammatory-"Rousing excitement, anger, etc; of or caused by inflammation."

If someone can tell me how a harmless userbox like this fits any of these categories, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

• Recreate in userspace - Template is neither divisive nor inflammatory, but it's also unencyclopedic and doesn't belong in the template namespace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as per GTBacchus Nhprman 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted E.N.C.Y.C.L.O.P.E.D.I.A. --Doc ^ask? 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate as per GTBacchus points. --Shawn 15:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in userspace. This might seem a bit harsh, but if the children can't afford computers, they probably can't see this userbox :/. And I seriously doubt this userbox is really being used with such a malicious intent as to mock starving children. Homestarmy 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• LOL and userfyBJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The author of this piece of juvenilia should perhaps gets himself a blog where he can indulge his tastes to his heart's content. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a joke site. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, and myself. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not inflammatory at all. Larix 20:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • However, "not inflammatory" is not a standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. You certainly wouldn't see this kind of nonsense in an article; why should you see it in a template? Keep in mind that templates were created to make articles better (and are mostly used for that purpose). Templates sure as hell weren't created so they could be used for this. --Cyde Weys 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Content is not the reason for this review. It is instead, rather, the false applications of T1 and divisivesness. Furthermore, if we delete every joke userbox, what else will we have to delete? What is BJAODN doing in Wikipedida namespace?

• Keep deleted More junk. --pgk^(talk) 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, though perhaps we could create a separate wiki for the kindergarten crowd. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL great suggestion. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted You see? I can be civil when it comes to the userbox debate... just because I support most of them doesn't mean there shouldn't be SOME sort of guideline or control. (Just don't touch my dolphin, and we'll be fine.) Coolgamer 23:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate. There are a multitude of other joke userboxes and there is no community consensus that wikipedia should not contain joke userboxes. This is obviously a joke and claiming that it is derogatory to starving children is plain bullshit. Living in the third world I directly witness starving children and it is such acts of sudden ridiculous comapssion that are more derogatory to them. Shall we delete the entire encyclopaedia because its existence is derogatory to the majority of global population who don't have a computer? Admins should stop spending their time deleting stupid but harmless userboxes and instead do something constructive. Loom91 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Disgusting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This template is inflammatory: in extreme cases, content may be inflammatory simply by being completely witless. Xoloz 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I just double checked, and it appears we are indeed still trying to run an encyclopedia here. --InShaneee 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD. If people feel this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then nominate it at "Templates for Deletion" like any other unencyclopedic template; nobody's stopping you! But speedy-deletion is reserved for special cases: divisive and inflammatory userboxes, of which this clearly and indisputably is not one. Until "icky :((" or "fucking stupid" are deletion criteria, there's no policy to justify such a deletion, anymore than there would be to justify deleting a userpage that said this text instead. -Silence 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fucking stupid" is and always has been a deletion criteria. Methinks you are being too much of a process wonk and not enough of a WP:IAR type. IAR is very clear that deletions of such ludicrous templates, while technically not mentioned in policy, is the right thing to do. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Fucking stupid" is (in the abstract sense; a better justification still has to be given) a deletion criterion, not a speedy deletion criterion. Dismissing contrary opinions with labels and accusing anyone who cares about process one or two degrees more than you do of being a "process wonk" is not the most civil behavior. I believe in process in all cases except where process harms the encyclopedia, and it obviously doesn't harm the encyclopedia in this case, as a TfD vote really isn't such a big deal. If Jimbo (or anyone else) had wanted to add a WP:CSD entry for "templates that are gross" or "templates that are puerile", he easily could have done so; he specifically chose not to because it is only "inflammatory" and "polemic" templates that concern him (e.g. "This user hates Jews", "This user wants George W. Bush to die", "This user says 'Fuck anti-abortion psychos'", etc.), and concern most users in general, not silly joke templates like this. WP:IAR is not policy, and must be tempered by common sense and an understanding of the bigger picture: speedy-deleting this insignificant template is not beneficial enough to Wikipedia to justify "ignoring all rules" here, as TfD would work just as well and would have the not-insignificant advantage of not violating Wikipedia policy and process. Also, your last sentence is pure interpretation; stating it as though it were fact (WP:IAR says nothing about templates, about ludicrous content, or about speedy-deletion) is potentially misleading. Although I understand where you're coming for to not want to bother with a TfD for such an inane user template, I don't see Speedy-Deletion as a tool, or WP:IAR as a "wild card" policy to justify whatever whims an admin has on a given day of the week; deleting this through the proper channels will not cause the world to end in a rain of ash and flame, whereas not doing so can do naught but unnecessary further escalate tensions and ill-will among users who do care a little bit about process pages like WP:TfD and policy pages like WP:CSD. -Silence 07:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing the issue head-on and openly, but I have to disagree about the applicability of WP:IAR in this case, considering how controversial the T1 speedy deletions have been. If T1 is to be seen as fair, it must be used only when truly appropriate. It's about trust - the trust that is instilled in admins to apply rules fairly. In this case there is so little disadvantage to moving this debate to TFD that is seems foolish not to do so. TheJabberwʘck 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)struck out 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC). TheJabberwʘck
• BJAODN and keep deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Policy exists to protect the encyclopedia, not infantile bullshit. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Cyde -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is wikipedia, not myspace. Just because we have some editors who are children, it doesn't mean we need to act like children. --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It boggles my mind that anyone would create this idiotic crap, and it boggles me even further that someone would fight tooth-and-nail to ensure it's survival. A complete waste of time and effort. Incidentally, I'm 15 years old myself. I shudder to think that the people who created this and find it amusing, let alone those that think it helps to write an encyclopedia, are my peers, or, even worse, my elders.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete deleted out-of-process. WP:ENC is not a CSD.  Grue  06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Good point. Someone really ought to add that.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It makes me feel sick to look at it. -- Banez 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per JzG. --Pjacobi 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disgusting, juvenile, idiotic, not funny, and a waste of space. So what? Undelete and list at TFD per Grue and Silence. TheJabberwʘck 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Keep deleted, but discourage similar speedy deletions in the future. Although it shouldn't have been speedied in the first place, the userbox now falls under WP:SNOW. TheJabberwʘck 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Something so pointlessly in poor taste could be argued to be imflammatory. —StrangerInParadise 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this userbox has no point whatsoever and is, well gross -- Tawker 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. It was deleted out of process, sure, but what's the point in undeleting it and sending it to TFD, when it will just get deleted again? Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Serves no function to balance potential for polemics.--M@rēino 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This serves no purpose other then to show that somebody has poor sense of humor, and such statement shows rather no connection to encyclopedia building at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Totally without worth. Lowers the tone of the project. Metamagician3000 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. WTF? It's stupid, and it could be a prejudice against anorexics. Kind of irrelevant, really. Just a waste of space.brainybassist 19:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Disgusting, juvenile, and unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD, not T1, where we can go throuhg process and give this disgusting template a quick death. JoshuaZ 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close - the inevitable outcome somes obvious. Even SIP voted keep deleted fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Herostratus 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against the motion (or whatever). Many people above seem to have misinterpreted the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the template be recreated if the speedy deletion was improper, no matter how disgusting or useless it is? Most of the votes act as if this is a TFD. I think more discussion on this issue is needed. TheJabberwʘck 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Changed to support per WP:SNOW. TheJabberwʘck 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wouldn't oppose moving the debate to TfD, but this seems like a good case for the application of WP:SNOW, even if there's a respectable argument that the right process was not followed. Given the concerns, I suggest leaving the debate here but also leaving it open a little longer so there is no doubt about the overwhelming consensus that this box is unwanted. Metamagician3000 06:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've never seen that policy, and I guess it makes sense in this case, now that the horse is out of the barn. Still, I think it would be much better for the userbox to have been TFD'ed in the first place, precisely because of the controversialness of T1. T1 is a pretty divisive policy, and I think it should be followed precisely as stated, in the interest of clarity, openness, fairness, and trust. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there's a wider issue here. You suggested that "a template [should] be recreated if the speedy deletion was improper, no matter how disgusting or useless it is" Of course that would be absurd. We don't play silly games here, if something is disgusting and useless it dies. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't trying to suggest either way, I was just presenting my interpretation of the policy I had seen at that point. WP:SNOW, while not policy, seems reasonable to me, and accordingly I will strike out that comment. However, following process is neither silly nor absurd, though it might not be always correct. I'm surprised you would degrade such a serious issue - with strong feelings on both sides - by calling one view of it silly. There are costs and benefits to both undeleting and keeping deleted, and I don't think it's an obvious judgment as to which would be the better decision. TheJabberwʘck 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:SNOW is not a policy. It is an essay (like Wikipedia:Process is Important :)), and is no more binding than the many other random essays we have on charming colloquialisms that editors so adore, such as Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?, Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, Wikipedia:Wonks, Wikipedia:Grapefruit, Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers, Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose, and, of course, Wikipedia:Flower garden. ("Wikipedia is like a flower garden... Because the bits at the top are very pretty, the stuff at the bottom is mainly dirt and manure, but also contains some good seeds, many people are just visiting, but we have some dedicated gardeners, and there's thorns all over the place. Be careful you don't sting yourself!") Until random editor-written essays suddenly become policy, WP:SNOW does not override WP:CSD or WP:TfD.
      • Also, I agree with the above comments noting that it is much more important in DRVs like this to establish proper policy and process so that future debates (and there will surely be many, as long as users are more interested in out-of-process speedy-deleting random userboxes than helping construct a userbox policy or working on the encyclopedia) will proceed appropriately and smoothly, than for the sake of any of these insignificant little templates. DRV is a review of process, not a replacement (or "second round") for TfD. If the process is blatantly being violated in a real way (in other words, it's not just some trivial semantic issue of someone deleting something with the wrong policy specified when another policy would have covered it, or forgetting to leave a VfD-closing message or something like that, but is actually a violation of currently-existing Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion official policy), then the correct move is to undelete so the template can be discussed and deleted in the ordinary and usual manner for all such templates. If you disagree, propose a new Speedy Deletion Criterion (T2?) for templates related to juvenile humor; simply ignoring policy and process is unhelpful and divisive, and contributes to a slow erosion of civility and fairness in dealing with these ridiculous boxes. -Silence 03:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • You are putting too much emphasis on process wonkery and way too little emphasis on common sense. What does it take to make a new userbox? A minute (or less if you use WikiUbx). And how long should it take to delete an inappropriate userbox? A minute. But instead, with this insistence on TfD wonkery, we are wasting hours of combined time. It's ridiculous. Userboxes are easy to create, provide no benefit to the project (and some harm, in the case of inflammatory ones), and should be easy to delete. I don't understand how some people can keep on insisting that you have to go through a whole deletion vote simply to get rid of an unencyclopedic template. And I can't believe a vomit userbox was brought to DRV, either. --Cyde Weys 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not "process wonkery", it's process. My above comments were not just in reference to this userbox, but to many of the templates that have been speedied recently even though they were marginal "inflammatory and divisive" candidates at best. If your sole concern is saving time, then if anything, you should be arguing for sending most of these userboxes to TfD rather than DRV, since it takes much longer to fight endless DRV battles, and generates a lot more hostility due to the perceived abuses of process when non-inflammatory templates are speedied like this, than a simple TfD discussion. Sometimes, following process is the best thing for the encyclopedia, the thing that makes the most common sense, and the thing that is most consistent with policy and established practices. Policy and process are not "last resorts", they're first resorts. If you feel we should be able to speedy any userbox (as you obviously do), then what you should do is propose that such a criterion be added to WP:CSD, not ignore policy and process altogether using an "ends justify the means" mentality. The collateral damage and strife caused by the impressions of unfairness and disorder which consistently ignoring process and policy generates is not worth the minute or two it takes to nominate something on TfD rather than just speedy it, when it doesn't fall under any CSD. -Silence 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Getting the right outcome is the only important thing. If something needs to die, this should happen. All written policy is just an attempt to make it easier to do that. It should never get in the way of what needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Uh, last I checked, TfD is not "getting in the way" of anything; it's the way that things get deleted when they're templates and need to be, and don't fall under T1. What's next, is AfD getting in the way of our ability to delete marginal articles quickly? Is ArbCom getting in the way of our ability to mete out justice on major decisions quickly? Some silly vomit template is not so destructive and imminently dangerous to Wikipedia's capacity to function properly (I don't expect to see any lawsuits cropping up about it, for one thing :)) that it was urgently necessary to ignore process in this case. I understand why you did it, but that's still slightly too casual of a complete dismissal of policy and process for me to stomach easily for such a trivial, open-and-shut TfD case. -Silence 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but it seems to me that you're taking too narrow a view of "the right outcome" - one that doesn't consider the costs of speedy deletion. TheJabberwʘck 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the "cost" of speedy deletion, but in the case of a revolting bit of trash like this I don't see that we have much choice. This isn't myspace. --Tony Sidaway 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One of the costs here is that this piece of waste has now been on WP longer than it would have been if it had been TfD'd in the first place....Septentrionalis 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It may well have been, but I don't see the problem. Why the hurry? This is a deletion review and it appears from the results so far that the deletion is being overwhelmingly endorsed. --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

        In other words, sometimes you've got to spend some time killing something, if you want it to stay dead. You can't just scatter salt around, you have to plow it in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

        That's actually not what I meant at all. I think whoever deleted it was right to do so, I deleted it again when someone recreated it, but if someone wants a review of the deletion then they're entitled to ask for that, even if (as in this case) the likelihood of undeletion is extremely low. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

        Then I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, we've given it a bit more time. Stick a fork in it someone. Metamagician3000 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, serves no purpose to Wikipedia. James F. (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. deleted out-of-process. --Dragon695 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate in user space as most template-based boxes will eventually go there anyway; however, that recreation should be done by the deleting admin as the justification for its deletion should have been impossible to type with a straight face... RadioKirk talk to me 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silence's arguments. Abusing T1 will only make things worse in the long run. romarin[talk to her ] 02:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony and Kelly. WP:NOT Myspace. Garrett^Talk 09:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per User:Gmaxwell - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, though I'm in reality quite ambivolent about this template and fail to see what all the fuss is about. It's a dumb template (IMO, no offense intended), but apparently some people find it humorous. It's certainly not devisive or inflammatory, though I certainly don't intend to use it myself. If some people think it should be undeleted, then undelete it and let them use it--you don't have to. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per AmiDaniel. Perhaps bad taste, but I don't see T1 and don't see any real reason to not leave it be. --AySz88^-^ 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete and send to TfD if you wish. This is a clear abuse of T1. --Rory096 05:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism

rand	This user strongly supports the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand.

rand	This user strongly opposes all aspects of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy.

• Deleted by Dmcdevit for being "divisive", which is suspicious, given the myriad other such userboxes left untouched. -Objectivist-C 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I suggested Objectivist-C take his dispute of my deletion here, rather than recreate the template (as he did the first time). I deleted both these templates together as a clearcut reading of the CSD. My reasoning was simple: these are divisive templates. As I explained when he asked me about it, there are plenty of templates that don't contribute to the encyclopedia that I'm fine with, but these ones were blatantly factionalizing, so I thought they were harmful. As for similar ones, that may be, but the existence of divisive templates doesn't justify the existence of divisive templates. And, for obvious reasons, I'm not about to go on a deletion spree in what is still a controversial arena. (Two is enough for this month for me.) I'm not sure what aspect of the deletion is in dispute. In any case, I recommend that we keep deleted. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  And I'll repeat my argument that anything in the Beliefs, Political Parties, Regional Politics, or Religion sections is going to be divisive to some extent. Why these two in particular? -Objectivist-C 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep both deleted. Divisive templates, correct application of T1. We can't delete them all divisive userboxes at once, but that's no reason not to keep after them. These two have no more been singled out than the last two divisive templates deleted, nor the next two, nor the two after those, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Still failing to see how they're divisive, unless you expect Wikipedians to forms some sort of homogeneous blob. -Objectivist-C 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  The best, most creative, and most individualistic userpages here use no userboxes. Wikipedians will not ever form a homogeneous blob, but we can establish a culture that this is a place where we set our ideological convictions aside and focus on writing an NPOV encyclopedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. These are just the type that Jimbo mentioned when talking about what it is to be a Wikipedian: "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." Fully justified T1 deletion. Rx StrangeLove 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Where is the T1 policy set out? -Objectivist-C 06:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's basically felt out by community practice and some attempt to record that practice is made at WP:CSD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for both templates. Again, why are we wasting our time on stuff like this? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know, what does compel you to contribute? -Objectivist-C 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• What compels you to contribute?! Your account is only two days old and in that time you've almost exclusively been involved in userboxes, to a degree much more than an actual new user would be. And you seem to know Kelly Martin's history well. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• And you seem to know Kelly Martin's history well.

Not really, have I unintentionally referenced something? -Objectivist-C 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I am beginning to suspect that these userbox deletions are being chosen at random, they seem to have so little with T1. No, this neither divisive nor inflammatory. Let me explain a little further: most people who put up either userbox would welcome seeing either userbox elsewhere just to see the spectrum of belief which is interesting. To assume that it is to gird oneself up for a harmful dispute is unreasonable- and more importantly unproven. More userboxes, not less! StrangerInParadise 09:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "I am beginning to suspect that these userbox deletions are being chosen at random, they seem to have so little with T1." What's that, another assumption of bad faith? It think I showed clearly that this wasn't random, and the many agreements with my deletion demonstrate that, and if you weren't sure, you could have just asked. I'm a patient person with this sort of thing, but, since I'm acquainted with your history, I'm fairly certain casting aspersions was your intention. Please don't. Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You assume bad faith in error, and oblique references to my history are themselves quite uncivil. Although your listing did seem intentional (if ill-advised), my remark on randomness was on the last several userbox deletions including this one, almost all of which are without evidence of any actual divisiveness. It does appear (given the consistently poor relevance to T1) as if they are picked at random. The more likely cause, however, is the confusion of divisive politics in the outside world with actual divisiveness here on Wikipedia, which is a misapplication of T1. When you take that with how many of the keep deleted comments have nothing to do with T1 (e.g. unencyclopedic, useless), early discussion closures, etc, one cannot help but wonder whether this isn't just deletion of userboxes for its own sake. I keep hoping someone will actually consider policy, like whether deleting userboxes rather than listing them for TfD isn't a breach of process. StrangerInParadise 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You can have your own opinions, that's fine, just don't cast aspersions on my good faith. Now calling me "quite uncivil" for saying so is downright silly. I mention your history for one simple reason: I personally wrote the remedy putting you on personal attack parole in your last arbitration case, and included language widening it to include assumptions of bad faith, for exactly this kind of incivility. After extensive discussions with myself on-wiki and on IRC, and with other arbitrators, and warnings from others before the arbitration, and now having been put on parole, damn right I'm irritated that you don't seem give a whit and continue the assumptions of bad faith. I never have and don't plan to take a part in userbox conflicts, and I didn't even engage you on your reasoning. Just stop assuming bad faith. Dmcdevit·t 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, there was no assumption by me of bad faith on your part, though it is clear you have assumed bad faith on my part. Also, I did not call you quite uncivil, I said your references to my history were quite uncivil, which you've just compounded severely by draging the ArbCom process into it (hint: you should have taken it to my talk page). And, yes, you did personally write the ArbCom remedy, and intentionally gave it the widest possible application, and supported it by mischaracterizing my actions, just as you have done here. You are an arbiter, I'm just an editor: if you intend to continue to pursue me like this, there is little I can do about it. BTW, you deleted two userboxes, I explained that this was out of policy: perhaps you should engage me on my reasoning, rather than complaining how you feel slighted that your motives appear to have been questioned. I didn't question your motives, I questioned your judgement: that is what this page is for. —StrangerInParadise 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh please. Now I'm "pursuing you" for responding to your comment disputing my own deletion? And accusing people of deleting templates randomly is not an assumption of bad faith? And now I "mischaracterized" your actions (but somehow 10 arbitrators unanimously agrred to the parole)? And reminding you of that in asking you to stop is uncivil? And I'm assuming bad faith? Your incivility is getting worse, not better. I gladly submit my deletion to community review and will undelete them if that is the consensus; but this page is for disputing deletions, nor deleters. I suggest you quit it (which was the point of my first comment, which you continue to disregard). Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I commented about the seeming randomness of deletions, you took it personally and went after me: it is you who have assumed bad faith and behaved uncivily. Has it occurred to you that you were wrong from the first? —StrangerInParadise 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
            • That last bit is a glaring appeal to semantics. "Random deletions" occur because deleters delete randomly (and there's your assumption of bad faith). When I say comment on the deletion, I mean comment on the merit of it not the motive behind it. In any case, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer. My multiple warnings stand, and I'll enforce them myself if need be. Dmcdevit·t 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I say again, userboxes cannot create divisions. They can only reflect them. The only adults without an opinion on anything are stupid. We should not try to hide these but proclaim them, so that other editors may know our biases. POV must be kept out of the articles but should be revealed on the user page. Doing it with little coloured boxes is as good a way as any. I see no evidence that anybody sporting one of the boxes on their userpage would be unable to work with a person displaying the other. (Most of us) are not clue-less robots. It is harmful to the encyclopedia (because it's based on a lie) to pretend that editors are opinion-less automatons. Perhaps we should abolish userpages and all use a number instead of a user name? Avalon 09:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a social networking site. Using Userboxes to reflect political beliefs, and creating/deleting/undeleting Userbox templates in support of, or against, specific beliefs, leads to disrpution of the main purpose of Wikipedia - to create an encyclopedia. Nhprman 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete as this deletion was CSD T1 and divisive. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. as this deletion was CSD T1 and these are divisive. --Doc ^ask? 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, T1 is policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Ignorance of policy is never an excuse. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Divisive.--Commander Keane 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, indeed. T1 exists for these kind of templates. James F. (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. "Kill them, kill them both! Yees precious!" I feel that T1 applies in this instance. -- Banez 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. That we haven't gotten around to deleting every other divisive template is not a good argument to reverse this quite sensible deletion. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted - And block Objectivist-C for wasting our time. What, I can't call for blocking someone, but you guys can call for desysopping of admins? Hypocritical. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't bite the newbies --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• He's not a newbie. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• If your time is being squandered, it's by your own will. -Objectivist-C 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse both deletions polemic.--MONGO 16:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encyclopedia and they waste our time. --JWSchmidt 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Objectivism causes strong emotions. endorsing or opposing it does likewise. Why should we allow factionalizing bumper stickers? Michael Ralston 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Objectivists and their nonsense They've been an ongoing disruptive element on Wikipedia, and in real life. --Daniel 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't endorse that.  Grue  14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I bet Jimbo has not endorsed wiping after taking a dump either - regardless, it's a good thing to do so. --Daniel 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You've convinced me: these are divisive. Septentrionalis 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And begin deletion of Template:User_Communist immediately. Political Userboxes are self-evidently divisive and lead to "dueling Userboxes" like this. Nhprman 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both Deleted both, unnecessary - cohesion 05:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and change/discuss wording, etc. first, speedy deletion isn't the only way to solve a problem. --AySz88^-^ 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the User Objectivism userbox, it is as valid as the other political/religious userboxes we have been keeping which just have a dry fact. Keep the no objectivism userbox deleted as userboxes which state opposition are divisive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Anyone who can't see why these two are divisive would appear to me not to understand what divisive means - the two of them in juxtapoisition above is all the proof you need, I'd say. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. If you want to use political/religious etc. userboxes, copy-paste the raw code. Cynical 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both. The existence of an opinion is not proof of bias. Just because someone shows their honest opinion on their user page does not mean they are going to violate the NPOV rule. Jimbo's opinion on this subject is well known, yet we don't assume he will be biased. And no proof has been given yet that any divisions will be created by these userboxes just because they show an opinion on their user pages. Slippery slope is a fallacy, you know. -- LGagnon 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good thing nobody's arguing that userboxes are indication that someone's going to violate NPOV. That would be silly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Then what is the problem with divisiveness? If people will have opinions of their own and not violate the NPOV rule because of it (as they already do), then what's the problem? By the way, you were the one who mentioned the NPOV rule originally. -- LGagnon 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• you are one silly dreamer --Shawn 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks (also a fallacy) help no one. -- LGagnon 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is not a free Web host, and is not a free speech zone. So the idea that we should announce ALL of our biases (or any of them) on the User page is foreign to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, frankly. Most of us don't walk around with our biases printed our our T-shirts, yet people seem to be able to discover our biases by our actions and interactions with others. The same is true with edits. They are self-evident and a discovery of motive is not necessary and seems a violation of the concept of Assuming Good Faith. Nhprman 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neither delete nor keep Here's an idea- make a new userbox for Objectivism followers, without the "strongly" bit. That way, they can show what they think. Delete the oppose template- if they believe something else, they can use a userbox for the other view, or not use one at all. That way, people still can express their views, there are no attacks on either side, and most everyone is happy. Sound fair? Coolgamer 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If the content of the userboxes is divisive, then edit them so as to remedy that state of affairs; obviously the philosophical position of objectivism itself is no more divisive or inflammatory than any other philosophy, even if it's unpopular, so there's no reason to single this one out for the firing squad just because it's an easier target than, say, {{user socialism}}. The main reason I don't think Coolgamer's idea is a good one is because I have enough experience with these situations to realize that once something's deleted, it's a bitch to get it undeleted or do anything similar to it no matter what the situation: if we allow this template to be deleted and then try to create a similar template that isn't so divisive or inflammatory but still says "This user supports objectivism", "This user doesn't support objectivism", etc., rest assured: it will be speedy-deleted by an admin who assumes that everyone who voted "keep deleted" here was saying that objectivism itself is divisive, not just that this specific userbox related to objectivism is. Additionally, I find intolerant comments like Daniel's, above, extremely worrisome. At best, this deletion will undoubtedly lead to a double standard; at worst, outright censorship. Worrisome. -Silence 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is why T1 exists. --Gmaxwell 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per Nhprman, Gmaxwell, etc --Pjacobi 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Either Delete both or Undelete both. There cannot be support without opposition. Whether or not these boxes are divisive I am not concerned. Allowing one and deleting the other, however, would certainly be. --horsedreamer 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Philosophy, not personal issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neither delete nor keep per Coolgamer. TheJabberwʘck 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not re-ignite the userbox wars with another action such as this deletion. Metamagician3000 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Reignite? The wars never ended and continue as long as ridiculous, provocative boxes are created to see how far they can insert political conflict into WP, and as long as their creators claim "censorship" when we try to bring a NPOV back to the WP project. Very tiresome. Nhprman 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, re-ignite. The whole thing had died down until today. This is the first time for weeks that I've had to worry about it. Metamagician3000 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - classic T1 -- Tawker 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

This user bickers with their significant other or co-workers about the thermostat setting.

• Unilaterally deleted by User:Kelly Martin with the lame-o excuse that it's not encyclopediadic. Very few userboxes are encyclopediadic, yet we keep most of them. She should be de-admined for her numerous wp:point violations. (unsigned ad hominem argument by Lefty (talk · contribs) --Doc ^ask? 17:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is not an ad hominem argument, Doc glasgow, and you should really reserve your criticism of other user's arguments for your own post, not sneak them into user-identification notes. An ad hominem argument would, for example, say "This userbox should be undeleted because Kelly Martin should be de-adminned" or "This userbox should be undeleted because Kelly Martin is an abusive admin". Lefty instead said "This userbox should be undeleted because very few userboxes are encyclopedic, yet they are not deleted" (and various polls have shown that there's no consensus at all for deleting them on those grounds alone, for the same reason that unencyclopedic userboxes are not deleted), and, as a separate comment (a recommendation rather than an argument), said "Kelly Martin should be de-adminned for her violating WP:POINT". Regardless of whether you consider his suggestion a good one or his reasoning valid, he was no more using an ad hominem argument than a judge is when he gives a convicted person his sentence. The recommended punishment or retaliation for an action is not part of the argument that the action occurred; it is an add-on, based on the assumption (previously argued for) that the action did occur and merits punishment. (However, "the lame-o excuse" comment could certainly be considered uncivil, though since it's insulting the excuse rather than Kelly herself, it's not quite a personal attack.) -Silence 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • • Is it just me, or does the air seem fresher when User:Silence shows up? Agree or disagree with him, when User:Silence is here, you know there's a grown-up in the chat room. Herostratus 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry about forgetting to sign it. Otherwise, as per User:Silence above. Lefty 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as unencyclopedia and per policy Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not. We don't need domestic flaming here. (PS it is not a WP:POINT, a WP:POINT would be to delete all other userboxes as they are also unencyclopedic). --Doc ^ask? 17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deletedPer Doc Glasgow. -- Banez 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Duh. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Neither inflammatory nor divisive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, or delete the 150 random generated userboxes hidden on my userpage Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sceptre, I think it will have to be one at a time. This is probably a start. Banez 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Seems completely irrelevant, the fact that there is other crap out there which hasn't been deleted doesn't seem a good reason to allow more crap to be kept --pgk^(talk) 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment It's not just that there's other crap out there. Much of said crap has already been TfDed and kept. (e.g. Template:User black coffee and Template:User vomit). At this point, userboxes that don't violate T1 need discussion for deletion. Lefty 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry still doesn't work for me, we've kept crap in the past so must keep all future crap. If that's the case we've seriously lost the plot on that little thing of "creating an encyclopaedia" --pgk^(talk) 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Neither divisive nor inflammatory. And "unencyclopedic" is not a CSD. Relist it on TfD - there's where such matters are discussed. But as this is another joke box, it doesn't matter, really. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Honestly, this has gotten so old already. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ridiculous, just ridiculous.  Grue  19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete silly, yet harmless. Homestarmy 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's not useful. Common sense.--Commander Keane 19:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. "Unencyclopedic" isn't a speedy deletion criterion (yet), and neither is "silly" or "pointless". And could someone please claim T1 on this one, I'm in need of a good laugh :P -- grm_wnr Esc 19:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Laugh away, T1 is the only criterion for SD, so they have asserted T1. If it is on this page, someone has asserted T1. StrangerInParadise 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, I worked it out: It's divisive because it's an userbox! Way to go, I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. What? Domestic flaming? It's a joke. Who seriously uses their userpage as an output for mocking their family? I'd like to see that.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Its a joke on a userpage, to quote someone else "duh". Avalon 21:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What's the harm in keeping it? The userbox certainly should not have been speedied, as it is worlds away from satisfying T1. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. "Joke" userboxes (well, all of them are, pretty much, but...) can be manually placed on one's page. It is the use of the template space, and thus the blind sharing around of common elements to distract users from working on the project, that is so terribly bad and damanging about userboxes. James F. (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  We've tried something that would allow substing, but it just can't seem to go through. That's pretty discouraging. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?} 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  THere is nothing to prevent you substing. Just do it. --Doc ^ask? 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Out of process deletion. Template:Test serves no "encyclopedic purpose".Geni 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  ??That template is useful to the project of creating an encyclopeia - this one is not. Clear difference. --Doc ^ask? 23:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  That is not an "encyclopedic purpose". It helps the project. There is a difference. Keeping editors happy aparently helps the project. Aparently creating these boxes keeps some people happy. Can't see the point myself but then I can't really see the point of customised sigs (beyond adding links to usertalk pages). In any case the word encyclopedic does not appear on WP:CSD thus it is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. And don't suggest it should be. Can you imagain the school debate if unencyclopedic had been a CSD criteria?Geni 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  To compare useful templates to this 'myspace' crap is silly. No we don't delete articles on the basis of 'encyclopedic merit' because it is subjective and because we have a deliberate inclusionist bias for articles. But there is no reason why userboxes such as this should enjoy that protection. They are not even arguably encyclopedic, and their deletion is not even arguably a loss to the project. And if 'it keeps someone happy' is now a reason to keep, then I despair; we are myspace. --Doc ^ask? 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  "MySpace crap"? Just because someone wants to express themselves and crack jokes with colors and pictures instead of plain text doesn't mean they're out to treat Wikipedia like MySpace.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  This isn't TFD. The deletion was not within policy. Userboxes may or may not turn wikipedia into myspace (I rather doubt it) however this is the wrong venue for that argument. It has been established the unecyclopedic is not a speedy criteria. Thus the userbox should be undeleted. You would of course then be free to list it on TFD and make whatever arguments you like for it's deletion.Geni 01:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  BJAODN isn't encyclopedic. It serves no use to the project. The userpages themselves aren't useful to the project. Heck, what about those WP:Babel userboxes? Are they "crap" as well? If we can keep those, then by golly, we can keep this one as well.(This is not a vote, by the way) --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Bad comparison. It is useful to the project to know that an editor can translate something from French etc. --Doc ^ask? 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, not a valid encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 23:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted what Cyde said.--Alhutch 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Neither divisive nor inflammatory, and unencyclopedic is not a CSD (Hey, Doc, Cyde, since your comments do not address T1 issues, shouldn't they be discounted?) StrangerInParadise 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete does not meet a CSD. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If this is deleted, why aren't most of the boxes in the Funny section deleted as well?Freddie 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. We'll get to them in due course. James F. (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Juvenile nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play games with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete funny. question: would thermostate bickering constitute a real-world wheel war? ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

*keep deleted waste of time, not useful for writing an encyclopedia and not funny. JoshuaZ 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Undelete and list at TfD While it is stupid, not funny and not useful writing an encyclopedia, it doesn't meet T1. JoshuaZ 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I think that far too many userboxes have been left undeleted that should be, but this isn't one of them. If someone wants to goof off a bit, oh well. There's no plausible way this could be used for "vote" stacking, nor do I know of any acromonious divides this can enhance. Thus, I don't think it qualifies for T1, and shouldn't be deleted. Michael Ralston 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is getting old. This is neither divisive nor inflammatory. What it is, however, is silly and there's no rule whatsoever against silly userboxes. What we do need is more admins with a properly functioning sense of humour and who will follow policy. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete this is neither divisive nor imflamatory Where ^(talk) 23:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I support the undeletion of this userbox because Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that userboxes can only be undeleted if they meet CSD. I read through the CSD, and none of the criteria in it apply to this userbox. It is not patent nonsense; it is not divisive or inflamatory; it is not a "test" userbox; it is not vandalism; etc. Thus, this deletion goes against Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and is therefore illegal. We cannot tolerate policy violations like this, or they will only grow in severity. But I would support this userbox's deletion on a TFD. Where ^(talk) 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. It is funny, but is not useful for writing an encyclopedia. Try pasting the box's code onto your User page (like it is on this page) rather than templatizing it and making it a community issue. Nhprman 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD: Neither inflammatory nor divisive. Septentrionalis 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list at TfD In no conceivable way is this divisive or inflammatory, hence inappropriate T1. Xoloz 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is a T1, it was deleted as 'not encyclopedic'. --Doc ^ask? 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted. The only valid reasons for speedy deleting a userbox are (a)T1, or (b) if it would obviously fail a TfD. As I pointed out above, it is far from obvious that it would fail a TfD, so Kelly Martin must feei it's divisive and inflammatory. Lefty 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Not encyclopedic" is not a WP:CSD. If no CSD is advanced as a justification, then absent an application of WP:SNOW, this template must be subject to typical consensus-building deliberation. As I find the template funny, and I believe humor aids the Wikipedia community, I cannot apply WP:SNOW in good-faith. Hence, my choice. Xoloz 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at TfD This is clearly contentious enough to go to TfD, at least. --AySz88^-^ 06:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Utterly useless but nonetheless a harmless template. Not a T1 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The merely silly should be tolarated on the grounds that the workerbees, contemptible drones as they may be, are nonetheless unfortunately neccessary for the project, at least for the time being. Let them keep their little tchotchkes for now. Herostratus 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Acknowledge clever userbox allegory. I say it's too hot in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjakkalle (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What the... This was not my comment! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Spooooky. :F You've been possessed! -Silence 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- why is this a problem? --T-rex 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and TFD CSD T1 only covers divisive/polemical/inflammatory userboxes. And given the significant support for userboxes, WP:SNOW does not apply. I'm actually interested to hear what policy justification Kelly claims for this deletion - surely all userspace templates (not just boxen) are 'unencyclopedic'! Cynical 07:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete psssha. We talk about being mature and reasonable while arguing over silly little boxes, then we smile on humor to lighten the mood. No need to get rid of this box. It's actually quite funny. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and TfD. Does not meet CSD T1. Process is important. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. This template is neither divisive nor inflammatory, but neither is it encyclopedic. It shouldn't be in the Template namespace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Maybe this could become a userbox for fans of the TV series "The Office"? Either way, I laughed. Which I really needed... what i've been through I can't even begin to tell you... Coolgamer 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, how does a userbox identifying oneself as a fan of a TV series help write the encyclopedia, and second of all, show me where in the inclusion criteria list "it made me laugh" is mentioned as a valid keep reason. --Cyde Weys 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not discussing reasons for keeping.Geni 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then we have a very weird system going on where reasons for not keeping are not the same as reasons for deleting. --Cyde Weys 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • All we are saying here is that this place is for reviewing admin discisions to see if they meet our speedy deletion policy (and afd debates, but there is no afd debate here yet) and that the admin's action did not meet said policy. That's all. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User marriage man-woman

This user believes a marriage consists only of one woman and one man.

• Kept by a valid TFD, then unilaterally speedied by Sean Black. Recommend restoration. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• TfD is irrelevant, the question is it it a valid T1? Is it 'divisive or inflammatory'? You decide. I say yes, keep deleted. Do you think it is not divisive>? --Doc ^ask? 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall result was no consensus to overturn T1. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Quite clearly a T1 deletion, also wasn't unilaterally deleted by Sean Black another editor had tagged it for deletion. --pgk^(talk) 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as Pgk and Doc. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (If I'm allowed to, seeing as how it was my deletion) per my rationale in the deletion summary and on Stifle's talk page.--Sean Black ^(talk) 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1 all the way. James F. (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, this is why we made T1 -- Tawker 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, informs other users of said user's biases.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that a valid reason to overturn a speedy deletion? It's still divisive and inflammatory. There's lots of potential things you could do or say to "inform other people of your biases" that are nevertheless illegal in most jurisdictions. --Cyde Weys 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid T1, as above, below, etc. - divisive template. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Purely out of interest, how does one multilaterally speedy something? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  A unilateral action is one taken by a single person without the support of anyone else. A multilateral action is one taken with the involvement and/or support of other people. Cynical 15:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is basically the proposed new policy that, unlike articles, categories, images and other templates, userboxes are so precious to Wikipedia, and such a loss when deleted, that they should enjoy the special privillage of a unique exemption from speedy deletion. I'm surprised no-one has formally suggested it, it is such a cool idea. --Doc ^ask? 16:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  +1, Insightful --Cyde Weys 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Per Doc glasgow. -- Banez 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Where were all you people when I was getting harangued for voting to delete it in the first place? :] --CBDunkerson 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Divisive. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The deletion is invalid because it is in no way divisive in the sense intended by CSD-T1. StrangerInParadise 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this isn't a vote. You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case. I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it, see below).
• Undelete No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--God Ω War 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  No evidence of divisiveness? Look around. For the record, I'm 'pro-userbox' and disagree with the T1 policy on free-speech grounds... However, the fact is that it is policy and only suppressing some divisive opinions (while keeping others) would be even worse than suppressing them all. This box seems obviously divisive to me, but that may just be because I find it to be bigoted and offensive. --CBDunkerson 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Restore such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. Avalon 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted An expression that the editor is in favor of denying a basic human right to people, including fellow Wikipedians is divisive and inflammatory...a T1 bulls-eye. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive The Ungovernable Force 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - how can this not be divisive? --Constantine Evans 16:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, textbook T1. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore This is absoulte b**shit that a valid opinion is being squashed because a minority feels its rights supercede mine. Total b*llshit and is an indication of why so many good people are leaving Wikipedia. TruthCrusader 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's loss is apparently Free Republic's gain. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion polemic.--MONGO 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play games with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 16:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete discloses POV, thus voluntarally holding editors to NPOV. a good thing. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Delete this one, and any advocating the opposite view, as per T1. If there's an issue bound to be divisive and inflammatory, this is the one. There is no need to fight these battles in an encyclopedia, especially one that is supposedly advocating a NPOV. Biases will be exposed through biased editing, and those edits will be changed. (Note: I hope all who want this one to stay deleted also support the same policy for the one below, advocating the opposite view.) Nhprman 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete while i personally don't subscribe to this belief, I think that pointing out our own POV is effective and it lets editors know our bias. Secondly, by saying that this userbox is merely divisive we insinuate that we are trying to get rid of all divisive displays. However, putting divisive text on one's userpage is allowed. Therefore, the true effort of deleting userboxes is to delete userboxes, not delete divisive statements. --Shawn 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  "...by saying that this userbox is merely divisive we insinuate that we are trying to get rid of all divisive displays." Not true. It would be nice if people chose to make their divisive statements somewhere other than Wikipedia, but all we're saying is that it's not ok to use Wikipedia templates to do it with, largely because of the potential for abuse, as has happened in the past with people using political userboxes to aid with vote-stacking attempts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete a divisive isssue not a divisive userbox --T-rex 14:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted and end this thing once and for all. These boxes have been going on the Speedy - DRV - TfD - Speedy treadmill for ages with no end in sight. The thing is, if userboxes are templatized, we have to regulate their appropriateness; if we have to regulate their appropriateness, unpopular opinions are suppressed or marginalized; this interferes with our ability to write an NPOV encyclopedia (not to mention the waste of time) so it's time for us to stop templatizing advocacy userboxes. You want to make your own box for your userpage with code, that's fine. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for making your argument explicit. The fallecy lies in the major premise: if userboxes are templatized, we have to regulate their appropriateness. No, we don't. If a user page is offensive or disruptive, it doesn't matter whether it's using a template or not. Septentrionalis 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, just look at the evidence. To the best of my knowledge, nobody's ever taken people to task for making statements like "I believe a marriage consists of one woman and one man" on their userpages as plain text (nor would they), and yet this template has been repeatedly deleted as inappropriate, at least partly because people don't like the opinion it expresses. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Cynical 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as it represents a view that some wikipedians hold that could colour their edits. I reiterate my argument that Userboxen allow us to understand eachother better and therefore help us to compromise. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Political. All political should go. Should have been userfied first though. Herostratus 06:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clearly divisive. Just zis Guy you know? 10:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Same Sex Marriage

This user supports the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Recommend restoration with a TFD, perhaps, unilaterally speedied by Mackensen. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall result was no consensus to overturn T1. --Cyde Weys 03:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as above, and to be even-handed. --Doc ^ask? 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as above, again another editor had tagged for deletion so wasn't unilateral. --pgk^(talk) 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as above. I'll point out that there's no method for two editors to delete something–there's no bilateral deletion here. Pgk is quite right that someone else had tagged it first. Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc and Pgk.--Sean Black ^(talk) 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - per above. This is a clear application of T1. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1 all the way. James F. (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, again, this is why we made T1 -- Tawker 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, informs other users of said user's biases.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that a valid reason to overturn a speedy deletion? It's still divisive and inflammatory. There's lots of potential things you could do or say to "inform other people of your biases" that are nevertheless illegal in most jurisdictions. --Cyde Weys 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - valid T1. If there were ever two divisive templates, I think we've found them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the obvious reason. Please stop wasting our time with these obvious losers. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per above. -- Banez 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Not divisive, not inflammatory unless you're homophobic (and even then, it's your problem). Not T1. POV, yes. Not a reason for deletion. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore.StrangerInParadise 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this isn't a vote. You haven't addressed any of the substantive issues as to why you think T1 should be overriden in this case. I'd love to hear why you think this template isn't divisive. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a vote, brevity is not a basis for disenfranchisement (so don't even think about it). I do not need to supply a reason other than I think this should be restored, the implicit reason (on this page) is invalid T1. Since you ask, however: it is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics does not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive. StrangerInParadise 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actualy, it is not a vote. It is a discussion to determine whether this is validly deleted under T1. Any comments that do not address that issue (or call for deletion/undeletion on other grounds) may be discounted.--Doc ^ask? 09:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a dubious notion. By simply saying Restore, I have said that I think this SD to be invalid, and further indicate my likely view on any subsequent RfD. I may have misunderstood Cyde when he said this is not a vote, as I thought he was specifically refering to my entry, not the process. Nevertheless, you now have my answer: the deletion is invalid because it is in no way divisive in the sense intended by CSD-T1. BTW, does this mean that all those anti-userbox comments which don't address the T1 issue are somehow discarded as well, such as when deleters speak of the lack of encyclopedic merits or professional appearances, neither of which are relevant to T1? StrangerInParadise 10:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No evidence has been presented for users taking offense at the sight of this template (besides the anti-userbox party).--God Ω War 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (I repeat myself to humour User:Cyde Such userboxes are not divisive (in that they create divisions) they merely illuminate divisions which already exist. Unless the only people to edit the encyclopaedia are opinion-less robots it is dishonest for us all to pretend not to have a POV. However, the encyclopaedia articles should be kept free of POV and this is facilitated by everyone else knowing what consistitutes a particular editor's biases. Avalon 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid deletion. Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete--Not divisive. The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as per other review --Constantine Evans 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, textbook T1. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as per my reasons for marriage man-woman above. Just because a few over-sensitive cretins get all fussed out doesn't mean the voice of free opinion has to be crushed. TruthCrusader 15:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion polemic.--MONGO 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete discloses POV, thus voluntarilly holding editors to NPOV. a good thing. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete funny. question: would thermostate bickering constitute a real-world wheel war? ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I'm assuming this was a misplaced comment. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• it sure was... I thought I removed it, oh well.Mike McGregor (Can) 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Delete this one, and any advocating the opposite view, as per T1. If there's an issue bound to be divisive, this is the one. There is no need to fight these battles in an encyclopedia, especially one that is supposedly advocating a NPOV. Biases will be exposed through editing, and those edits will be changed. There is no need to give people cause to Assume Bad Faith or bias by "announcing" supposed biases or giviging people reason to question an editor's objectivity. Let article edits stand or fall on their own, not because of the beliefs expressed on a user's User page via these boxes. Nhprman 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Unfortunately this view is still divisive. --CBDunkerson 14:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• undeleteThe arguement that the box is divisive falls through when we note that users can say divisive things on their pages. We're not trying to defeat divisive userboxes, we're trying to defeat userboxes when we support deletions such as this. --Shawn 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete see above... Homosexuals are Gay --T-rex 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and sing a happy song Eternalbeans 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) it is unfortunate that it is divisive, yes, but it is still divisive Eternalbeans 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted and end this thing once and for all. These boxes have been going on the Speedy - DRV - TfD - Speedy treadmill for ages with no end in sight. The thing is, if userboxes are templatized, we have to regulate their appropriateness; if we have to regulate their appropriateness, unpopular opinions are suppressed or marginalized; this interferes with our ability to write an NPOV encyclopedia (not to mention the waste of time) so it's time for us to stop templatizing advocacy userboxes. You want to make your own box for your userpage with code, that's fine. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Cynical 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete valid POV that could affect someones edits. Useful to know biases. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Political. All political should go. Should have been userfied first though. Herostratus 06:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Iraq

Kept deleted, note that De mortius and ROGNNTUDJUU! were confirmed by CheckUser as the same person, so their sockpuppetry was not considered in the deletion debate. --Cyde Weys 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This user supports the resistance against the US-occupation of Iraq but thinks that different means should be chosen.

There was consensus to keep this. It is by no means more inflammatory than any other independence box, singling it out is divisive and inflammatory. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. As I have pointed out to ROGNNTUDJUU! numerous times, the result of the debate was no consensus not keep. ROGNNTUDJUU!, I can no longer assume good faith here. Please stop telling lies. Snottygobble 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• This template isn't even a borderline case; speedy deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion T1. Rhobite 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Since people seem to care about vote counts, it was actually 7 keep and 5 delete. Anonymous opinions are not considered - anyway, why do anons care about userboxes? They don't have user pages. Rhobite 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Anonymous opinions should be considered – anonymous votes however, should be disregarded. Jon Harald Søby 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; per Rhobite, this definitely isn't even close to a borderline case. This is a picture perfect application of Jimbo's T1. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  There was a 9 to 5 vote to keep this template. You cannot just ignore that. And it is just ridiculous to say someone who calls 9 to 5 a consensus is a liar. This is censorship of unwelcome opinions. If you oppose political user boxes, remove all of them. Unless there is a rule to do this, do not pick those you do not like. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  You're picking the wrong person to play hardball with. Guess what, I do want all political userboxes deleted. In fact, I want all userboxes deleted (at least all of them in template space, anyway). And guess what, Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so even if there is a vote, it can be overriden by policy. That's exactly what happened here. And I keep hearing these claims of censorship who think every random snippet of text in a colored box deserves to have its own template. I don't think that word means what you think it means. --Cyde Weys 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  9 to 5 is not consensus anywhere. This incivility is the only reason I regret what I must do here. Septentrionalis 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  That's exactly it, if all political userboxes were deleted, this could go as well and it would not be censorship but a reasonable policy. Singling those out the most influential do not like is censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Even marathons must first start out with a single step. --Cyde Weys 05:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  How do you want to go for a marathon if you are already short of breath after the first box? ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Do you want me to call the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Metaphors? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  If you want political userboxes to be deleted, you can just not single out some, you have to treat all in the same way. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete There is no consensus on the meaning and application of T1. Its use is divisive and inflammatory, and it should not used, except in the most obvious cases. (In fact, that's the problem with it; no speedying should be done in non-obvious cases; and the other criteria are written that way.) This is not obvious, or a majority of a large vote would not have been keep. Since the TfD was no consensus, it can be relisted there. Septentrionalis 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Um, "This is not obvious, or a majority of a large vote would not have been keep." First of all, 14 editors is not a large vote. Secondly, this argument is an example of the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Counter-argument, as phrased by the philosopher Opus: if a million people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Clear T1 for those interested in process. Rx StrangeLove 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - textbook T1. Policy trumps consensus, every time, not that 9-5 is consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Please explain how non-violent resistance against an occupation is divisive if endorsing a party accused of having raged a war of aggression is not? ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  What are you referring to? When have I said that whatever you're talking about isn't divisive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  So agree with me that template:user republican needs to be deleted along with this one? ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, and all other political and religious userboxes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Then please go for it instead of singling out one, which is just censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm neither "going for" nor "singling out" anything. I vote on userboxes that are brought to this page when they seem to be to have been appropriate T1 deletions, as I understand the criterion. That's my level of interest in the matter, and if you examine the history, you'll see that I recommend keeping most ideological userboxes deleted, without prejudice as to what "side" they support. You'll also see that I don't delete them myself; that's for people who care about it more than I do, of which there are several. If somebody T1 speedies {{User republican}} and it ends up here, you let me know, and I'll endorse its deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Another abuse of T1. StrangerInParadise 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - just because other inflammatory userboxes haven't gotten here yet doesn't mean that policy should be ignored. We can't list all of them at one time. --Constantine Evans 07:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, or re-create in userspace. There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Respect the community's wishes. Everyking 13:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's kind of a nonsense phrase right there. "Respect the community's wishes"? Well guess what, on this one the community's wish does seem to be " keep deleted", so should we mark you down as keep deleted also? The point of this is to determine the community's wishes; appealing to them as if they already exist is meaningless. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  There already had been a decision about this. Majority was to keep. Accept it. De mortuis... 21:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Respect the encyclopaedia and its wish not to be MySpace. Obvious T1. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can the encyclopedia itself have a wish, independent of what the community that writes it thinks? Everyking 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would think that everyone who comes to a site called Wikipedia expects to find an encyclopaedia, so until the community thinks we should change our name, this stuff has no place. If they want an Internet battleground, Fark.com is that way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. You've got to be joking. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There already had been a decision about this. If you do not agree, you need to take it here, default is keep. I see the point of those who say userboxes need to be userfied, but then it should apply to all of them, not just those certain admins do not agree with. I would also like to point out my concern that this user was picked by certain admins who even deleted stuff from his user space. Do not make fools of yourself. De mortuis... 14:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Per Tony Sidaway, meets T1 better than any other box I've ever seen. Banez 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion We have many, many service members who contribute to WP. Having a sanctioned template (by being in the templatespace) that endorses those wo want to kill them, while tacking on a little 'different means' to assuage personal guilt is the definition of divisive. -M^ask 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Civil disobedience does not kill anyone. The war of aggression killed tens of thousands. Wikipedia by no way has to attach more importance to a certain group of people just because as a matter of coincidence they are present here. That just comes down to bias. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  I really think you're on the wrong website. This is not about whether the Iraq war was right or wrong or whether the Iraqis should blow up the Americans or just throw rocks, this is about writing an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  You cannot say this opinion is on the wrong site while endorsing a party that is accused of having raged a war of aggression is ok. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted AKMask seems to have it about right in my opinion, this doesn't seem to have much to do with politics, in politics you just argue alot, in Iraq people fight and die, there's a very large difference. Yea one could debate that the politics started it, but each side to such a debate would have its own strengths i'd think, and "resistance" in this case pretty much refers immedietly to "suicide bombings" when in reference Iraq or other middle eastern conflicts. That's kinda mean, and asking it to become "civil disobedience" doesn't exactly whitewash it really. Homestarmy 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  You intentionally misrepresent facts. There is no attempt to whitewash, there is a suggestion to find means that can and in the past have led to a constructive non-violent resolution of conflicts. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete If some political userboxes are allowed to stay (and some are even undeleted) then virtually all should be allowed to stay. This isn't any more divisive than other political userboxes. The Ungovernable Force 19:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you accept the deletion of all political userboxes? If not, why use this argument? I certainly think that Wikipedia would be immeasurably improved if all political statements were removed from template space and placed on user pages where they belong. --Tony Sidaway 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Wikipedia's quality would be affected in the least one way or the other. You can't tell from looking at someone's user page whether their user boxes are in template space or user space. Now it may well be that Wikipedia would be immeasurably improved if we simply did away with user space altogether, but that's a different question. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - T1 was never given a formal policy vote, it is an invalid and harmful policy.--God Ω War 21:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • T1 was put in place by Jimbo. This is his site, he can decide policy outside of the normal process. T1 is quite valid. -M^ask 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Jimbo for sure does not want to censor certain opinions. If you want to abolish political user boxes altogether you have to find a consensus for it, and Jimbo himself cannot make a consensus happen. De mortuis... 00:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  Jimbo's word is indeed law here, like it or not. However, consider the message at the top of WP:CSD: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." That suggests that policy is based on consensus and common agreement, not on mandates from on high; it is disingenuous to leave that message on WP:CSD if some aspects of that policy have been forced into an otherwise uncontroversial document that cause a huge deal of unrest and controversy throughout the community (not so much because of the criterion itself as because of its vagueness and generality). -Silence 01:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong. He reverted a page back to someone else's version and may or may not have said please dicuss this. As far as I know he never directly came out and said "I, Jimbo Wales, decree this".--God Ω War 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  I dispute the idea that Jimbo putting something in place automatically makes it valid. I think the validity of a policy can only be determined by the community. You're confusing the practical reality of power with what is actually correct. I agree with God of War that it is an invalid and harmful policy, and the community should simply ignore or override it. Everyking 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. The raw code is on this page, so anyone who wants to use this userbox can copy-paste that. Cynical 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete declairing beliefs, bias, POV, etc, keeps editors honest by making them more accoutable to NPOV (i.e. they can be called on they're bias if it permiates they're edits, since it's out in the open). thats a good thing for the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If this isn't T1, I'm not sure what is. JDoorjam Talk 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this crap deleted (and delete the users who keep recreating it). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I interpret that as "ban users who recreate a userbox that has significant majority support". And that is distressing. Everyking 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you expect with the current national political climate? Seems like totalitarianism is seeping into wikipedia as well. The Ungovernable Force 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • For goodness sake, doesn't WP:CIVIL mean anything to you guys??? Rx StrangeLove 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Who do you mean? Kelly? Everyking 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
          • What makes you think I mean anyone in particular? But while we're talking about it I don't see a "significant majority" supporting this userbox. If anything it's just the opposite. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I didn't see myself as having said anything uncivil—I just made a logical interpretation of Kelly's comment, and said that it distressed me. So I was just wondering about that. Anyway, vote was 9 to 5, I call that a "significant majority". Everyking 05:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, it's not even a consensus, much less a significant majority. And considering whats happening here I'd say it was a pretty good call. As far as civil goes, part of being civil is assuming good faith. You took a joke, maybe a little too curt but still a joke and turned it into something she didn't say and didn't mean. And propped your comment up with something that isn't even true. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
                • 9 to 5 isn't a significant majority? Even if it was only 6 to 5, that's still a majority—normally we keep things if even a significant minority want them kept, much less a majority. With a keep majority of any degree, there shouldn't even be anything to talk about—it's case closed. And no, I don't believe Kelly was joking, but I would be happy if she was. But even if it was a joke, she shouldn't be so insensitive. Everyking 06:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
                • (edit conflicted message) She didn't appear to be joking to me. Assume good faith can only go so far. And btw, consensus needs more support than "significant majority". There wasn't consensus, but 9 to 5 seems like a significant majority to me (almost 2/3). The Ungovernable Force 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • c'mon guys...do you really think she was serious? Really? Anyway....we've gone on too long here, if you want we can continue it on my talk page or something....Rx StrangeLove 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, obviously.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--Doc ^ask? 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Note also that De mortuis... and ROGNNTUDJUU! have been confirmed as the same user. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Divisive? I have never seen an edit where one user berated another for the userboxes he put on his page. It simply doesn't happen.--God Ω War 18:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antiparty

NO!	This user believes that all political parties are corrupt and/or powerless and are best avoided..

Speedy deleted by User:MarkSweep on February 17, 2006 (just realized this, sorry about the late date). No reason given for deletion. If we have userboxes for people to show their support for political parties, there should be a userbox to show a lack of faith in political parties as an instrument of change. Undelete.--The Ungovernable Force 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, appropriate T1 speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: What about other political party userboxes? The Ungovernable Force 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, they're not much good either. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Why are we wasting time on these? Kelly Martin (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per nom. Mike McGregor (Can) 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't think this template is in any way inflammatory or divisive, but I'm afraid if I vote "undelete" I'll be permablocked for trolling. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Even if this is undeleted and kept on TFD, it will just be deleted again anyway as a T1, and there has been enough warring over such templates now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please undelete now Why are admins wasting their time getting rid of userboxes if they're not going to go away? --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's the same thing as any other political party box. Nothing wrong.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, although I don't really like it, under the "who cares" principle. Ashibaka tock 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per anything deleted out-of-process. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• KD agree, T1. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-04-04)
• Keep deleted. I agree with Tony Sidaway on this one. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Since when did truisms become divisive? A certain group of people need to find something better to do with their time than this never ending war on userboxen.--God Ω War 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Calling a group of people corrupt is an attack and thus inflammatory, easily falls under T1. Rx StrangeLove 06:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Not divisive, (a little) humorous, even if intended seriously. Some admins have too little to do. Avalon 07:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion because I have too little to do. Oh, also it's a textbook T1. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. This should never have been speedied, and it should not be RfD'd either. It is harmless. StrangerInParadise 08:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, but... since templates are (presumably) going away anyway, recreate in the user's space and, once there, leave it alone as harmless. In fact, as another of those out-of-process speedies in direct contrast to what Jimbo actually said, it should be recreated by MarkSweep. RadioKirk talk to me 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid T1 speedy. People who like their parties (eg. Democratic me) are likely to be inflamed by this. Xoloz 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - That it was deleted over a month ago and nobody even noticed until now tells me all that I need to know about this. Templates and categories are for encyclopedia-related content only. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete everything speedied out of process. Larix 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:
  Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
  Misza13 ^{T C} 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Translation please. The Ungovernable Force 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  There is no translation. Lorem ipsum is basically a meaningless string of Latin words thrown together. I have no idea why Misza13 thought posting nonsense was relevant to this discussion. --Cyde Weys 22:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  An editorial comment, perhaps? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I was just suggesting that lorem ipsum makes nearly as much sense as all the discussions herein. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  My guess exactly ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete not divisive. The Psycho 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No more devisive than any political userbox. Not Speedy material. We have pages that are more devisive than this. ughh... -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - all political userboxes are inflammatory. Just because they aren't all listed at once doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted. Comparisons to other userboxes is not a part of T1, as far as I know. --Constantine Evans 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Some political userboxes have been undeleted though, so clearly there is a lack of consistency with the application of T1. The Ungovernable Force 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't consistent. That is no reason not to take action in an individual case. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  If anything, Wikipedia should be consistent. If we allow userboxes that have enough people to vote for them and delete ones that don't we are only allowing majority POV's on wikipedia. Either allow all userboxes or none of them.--God Ω War 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, or re-create in user space. There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 12:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Use the raw code if you're that attached to it. Cynical 10:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Is it just me, or are the contested userboxes getting less and less borderline? There was a time when some of these seemed possibly non-divisive. JDoorjam Talk 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, obviously.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. And if we're going to be process wonks about this, I'd point out that DRV is only supposed to determine whether this was a valid speedy. Any votes which don't address this point shouldn't--according to the blessed policy--be considered. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted certainly a t1. --Doc ^ask? 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User review

This user has a [http://wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review] account, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser={{{1}}} {{{2}}}]

Previously undeleted after this DRV debate and kept unanimously after this TFD debate. It was speedied again by Kelly Martin, and restored by me. Mackensen has now speedy deleted it again. Since I have no interest in wheel-warring over this, I am bringing it back to DRV for further discussion if needed. The last deletions were clearly out of process. Speedy undelete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, linkspam - linking to a hotbed of neo-nazis and trolls. Utterly unhelpful. --Doc ^ask? 12:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  I resent the implication that I am either a neo-Nazi or a troll, particularly as I am neither. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Of course not. You merely linked to a notorious anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying site, and stated I am of the opinion that many claims and "fact" about the holocaust have been exaggerated or flat-out falsified. Oh, and referred to me as "Jewjg". But certainly not a neo-Nazi. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  You are free to read my statements in whichever way you choose. I am going to interpret yours as trolling and a violation of WP:NPA... I cannot read it in any other way. As I have said further down on this page, I called you "Jewjg" not as a slur, but because I despise you. Why would it come as a surprise that I do, particularly seeing the way you are trolling me here? --BIu Aardvark 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it would come as a surprise to me because we've hardly ever interacted, to the best of my recollection. But I do appreciate your clearing that up; you didn't call me "Jewjg" as a "slur", but because "you despise me". Do you call everyone you "despise" a "Jew"? Just curious. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  In fairness, Blu Aardvark is currently blocked and cannot respond to these serious points. I would rirect the reader to his talkpage where he has offered a fuller reply, and is able to discuss. --Doc ^ask? 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  According to This, The most popular URL in the Wikipedia IRC Channel was http://www.jewsdidwtc.com . So who are the real neo-Nazis? . The Psycho 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  That's a GNAA thing, as you know, because you've posted about it elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, GNAA and high ranking Wikipedia admins are good friends! Why do you think Gay Nigger Association of America survived 9 consecutive votes for deletion attempts while this little harmless userbox is being deleted!? Because high ranking Wikipedians are racist against black people. The Psycho 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Has no conceivable purpose toward our goal of writing an encyclopedia, advertises a forum filled with trolls and dedicated to attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Inherently divisive. Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring "I am a troll". There is no reason whatsoever why Wikipedia needs this template. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. For the last time, speedy deletions are by definition in-process. The only matter that can be up for dispute is whether this fit the speedy criteria. First of all, Wikipedia Review, as a hotbed of trolls and the brainchild of a banned neo-Nazi, is divisive to many Wikipedians. This fits T1. Beyond that, this template serves as a link farm for a forum which has little notability outside the Wikipedia community, and even then many sysops have never heard of it (to say nothing of regular users). Finally, there is no encyclopedia utility in this template. It does not refer to anything on the encyclopedia. It does not aid in the creation of articles. It does not advertise a needed skill (as the Babel templates). In short and in summation, if this is undeleted than our slouch towards mySpace will progress and we'll be powerless to stop it. Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Ha, "for the last time." Yeah, right. So long as there is speedeletion of anything there will be weary administrators explaining that speedy deletions are inherently in process. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  divisive to many Wikipedians yet many sysops have never heard of it (to say nothing of regular users). Not really that devisive. The wikipedia review idea is harldy new. I think it dates back to Sollog although he added is own unique style (heh). The only legit way to remove something restored by VRV is is XFD or WP:CP so the claim that speedy delete is legit in this case is open to question.Geni 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  "speedy deletions are by definition in-process". I disagree most strongly with that sentiment. Speedy deletions are only valid if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion or if the Wikimedia board, Jimbo Wales, or his delegates decree them. The consensus determined this was not a T1 candidate, and since it does not appear to fit any other CSD, this is not a valid in-process speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Oh please. I really wanted to ignore this discussion but this comment just made me vote restore. Does not fit T1, is actually quite useful informative, and the only divise thing about it is the endless deletions and discussions thereof. And with every speedy being in-process... Umm, no. Unless you're trying to confuse process fetishists, I can't see how this statement makes sense whatsoever. Or would it be in-process if I started deleting random pages because I don't like them? Only a valid speedy is in-process, and since there are multiple people disagreeing if it was valid makes its validity doubtful at best. I'd file this one under WP:IAR (and there's very good reasons for invoking that non-rule at times, whether this is one of those times is what we are discussing here), nothing else. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• undelete Wikipedia is nothing without consensus. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - let's go make an encyclopaedia. Proto||type 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Doc made a comment on WP:ANI that "new contributers would be welcome"; I would like to get a feel for what is going on but I can't see the disputed template or get any context about what the problem is, since its already been deleted. It looks like the only way someone can participate in DRV (as opposed to TfD or AfD) is if they already know what is going on. Thatcher131 15:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  OK, here is the box. But you need to know that wikipedia review is an anti-wikipedia site, with regular posts from users banned by the community, neo-nazis, and trolls (and a few others). The question is, is having a template on our servers to make it easier to link to this assisting this encyclopedia? --Doc ^ask? 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Doc. These guys have lost all credibility because of the close association between some of them and various Neo-Nazi and anti-semite groups. Their kind of trash don't need free advertising on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This is a link to a site whose sole purpose is to abuse and carry out personal attacks on editors here. The contributors show nothing but bad faith and a desire to disrupt. For the most part the users are not in good standing here and there's no reason to give them space to continue their abuse. Furthermore, this is nothing more than link spam...it doesn't add to an article and has no value in the creation of an encyclopedia. It is not our purpose to promote external websites, and in fact doing that is against policy and further grounds for deletion. This is a valid deletion. Rx StrangeLove 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: why should we provide free advertisement for people who want to rip us apart from within? —Phil | Talk 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD. This is clearly not a clear-cut-enough case for a speedy deletion; if it is deleted at all, it should be done so by consensus, not by using force to override (repeated) consensus, as is being done here. We have identical templates for numerous other noteworthy websites, like deviantART and LiveJournal, and none of those have been proposed for deletion or speedy-deleted; singling out this one just demonstrates Wikipedia's bias. Being tolerant of dissent, and not characterizing an entire community of editors as "neo-nazis" or "trolls" just because some of their views are unpopular or one of their members has a twisted ideology, is key to Wikipedia's neutrality and openness. There's nothing divisive or inflammatory about the template itself, which means it cannot possibly fit T1; it's only "divisive or inflammatory" if you happen to already feel "divided" or "inflamed" by the website it links to, which is a matter of your own personal views and inclination, not of anything the template states or implies. -Silence 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this argument. Are you in favor of this template or not? It can be settled here. Requiring that it be undeleted and then shipped over to TfD to deal with just creates more work for more people. --Cyde Weys 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Undeleting and relisting on TfD is always process wonking; there is never any legitimate purpose for doing that. Make any argument you might have here, or drop it. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's already been relisted on TfD; the result was a unanimous keep. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Things change over time. This time it looks like there's a lot more people for deletion. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Poor Wikipedia admins, always getting fursecuted by the "ill-informed" masses! We know so much better than them about what's good for the community, but they overturn our decisions anyway. Good thing we can fight back by deleting the templates they voted to keep without any respect for process. High fives all around. Ashibaka tock 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the phrase "High fives all around" made the the above comment gold.Mike McGregor (Can) 10:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Wikipedia Review is inflammatory not because of its criticism of Wikipedia, but because the community behind Wikipedia Review is inflammatory. I'd also like to add that TfD debates about inflammatory userboxes are notoriously unreliable; most people against them have better things to do than dicking around with userboxes. Call it T1, call it IAR, call it whatever you want. The userbox is offensive, and was deleted properly. Ral315 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The arguments above have convinced me that this isn't a template that all can be comfortable with. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete out of process deletion, consider bringing RfC against people who delete it against the will of community. And that neo-nazi stuff? What the hell were you smoking? MSK seems to hate nazis with passion.  Grue  17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, no one's talking about MSK. Wikipedia Review was founded by Alex Lindt, noted Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier, who not incidentally was banned from Wikipedia. Also, please don't blank an on-going discussion. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Alex Linder is banned from Wikipedia Review, get your facts straight for once. The discussion is not ongoing, it concluded a long time ago and it's pretty much estabilished that the template should be kept. I will block anyone who redeletes it for wheel warring and disruption.  Grue  17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, he is now–after blocking people who outed him. Note where I said founded. Semantics appear a lost cause here. Moreover, you seem to be aware of his existence, so what's up with pooh-poohing the accusation further up the thread? A little Verwirrungspolitik, or just simple inconsistency? Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Wikipedia Review who aren't banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • CDRome may be an anti-semite, but that is unconfirmed. Igor may also be, and the evidence for that is even stronger than that of CDRome, but again, it's unconfirmed. There are no anti-semites who at present are active on Wikipedia Review, unless you are implicating that I am one, which I resent strongly. As for Alex Linder, he has never posted to Wikipedia Review... Igor Alexander and Alex Linder are two different people. Igor Alexander and User:Amalekite are likely the same person, however. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • CRome is confirmed as the Disruptive Apartheid editor, a notorious anti-Semite. Igor is confirmed as User:Amalekite a neo-Nazi Stormfront member. These issues are not in debate or question. And, of course, Wikipedia Review also has at least one Holocaust denying moderator who referred to me as "Jewjg"; I believe you know him quite well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Confirmed by whom? Yes, it's highly probable that Igor is User:Amalekite, just as it is highly probable that CDRome is your Disruptive Apartheid editor, but nobody can confirm either as fact. The evidence is exceptionally strong that they are, and I don't dispute that, but nobody has absolutely confirmed it, and the users in question have never stated that that is who they are. As for me, I have not in any way denied the holocaust. I believe in open-minded evaluation of all things, even politically incorrect subjects. According to the limitted research that I had done, and the limits of my knowledge, I was able to acknowledge that things may have occured differently than is claimed. As new evidence is pointed out to me, I adjust my conclusions appropriately, and I have done so. As for referring to you as "Jewjg", I only did so because I despise you, you fucking ass. (WP:CIV! WP:NPA! Read the statement above mine and reprimand the admin-troll). I don't have anything against Jews, or any other race for that matter. I do have something against you individually, but can you honestly blame me? --21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Here's one quote from Blu Aardvark, expressing what seems to be support for User:Amalekite, the neo-Nazi who founded Wikipedia Review: "I read that stormfront thread, and it was very educational. Set aside the initial knee-jerk reactions a person often has when confronting Neo-nazis, and evaluate the evidence open-mindedly, and you can see that he had a rather excellent point, which he expressed in a rather civil manner (most of the time, anyway - he did use the term "kike", but he later explained that was because he simply wanted to excercise the right to use the word ..." Yes indeed, Amalekite's only error was to use the word "kike." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Screw you, SlimVandal. Of course I support Amalekite... he was banned from Wikipedia in violation of the blocking policy, but from what I have read, both on- and off- site, he was not at all acting in bad faith in his editting of Wikipedia, and may have had a lot to contribute. I don't agree with his politics - I despise them - but I recognize that he has the right to hold those politics. It's called "Freedom of expression". --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Jay quotes you above as having said: "I am of the opinion that many claims and 'fact' about the holocaust have been exaggerated or flat-out falsified," after linking to a notorious Holocaust-denial site and calling him "Jewjg." Forgive me for not realizing that you despise Amalekite's politics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  In fairness, Blu Aardvark is currently blocked and cannot respond to these serious points. I would rirect the reader to his talkpage where he has offered a fuller reply, and is able to discuss. --Doc ^ask? 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Grue, I can't believe you just undeleted the template and blanked this discussion. A lot of us are admins too, and if we all did the same thing you just did we'd be wheel-warring over whether the template should be deleted or not. Obviously that's unacceptable, and that's why discussion takes place here. You can't just close down the discussion and enforce the result however you want it, because that implies that you are somehow "more equal" than the rest of us, and you aren't. --Cyde Weys 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It was not me who deleted this template without prior discussion. I'm just enforcing Wikipedia policy.  Grue  17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia also has a speedy deletion policy that includes patent nonsense pages and divisive templates like these. --Cyde Weys 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Speedy deletion cannot override consensus to keep. "This user has an account on Wikipedia Review" If this is offensive for you, I don't think you can handle such stuff like autofellatio. You know, Wikipedia is a dangerous place. Don't click that "Random article" link, who knows where you might land...  Grue  17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • • There is a consenus to keep delete developing here, and your 'speedy undelete' has just overriden that consensus. That looks like an abuse of admin powers to me, and your blankng of this debate looks like contempt for the community and for consensus. --Doc ^ask? 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Obviously self-blowjobs and neo-Nazism are on the same plane. Excuse me while I set your strawman on fire. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Just where does it talk about neo-nazism? You are the one violating Godwin's law here. Consequently, you lose.  Grue  17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The box doesn't talk about neo-nazism, no, but the fact that the forum in question was founded by a neo-nazi is well-known, and a major reason why a number of us are rather irate about this. One cannot Godwin if there are actual neo-Nazis involved, and I'm surprised that you're trying to pull that one (especially after the auto-fellatio moral panic gambit; that seems to be favored around here). Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Never having expressed an opinion on userboxes before, my first thought is none of them make the encyclopedia better. Most are neutral in that respect and some are potentially divisive. Mostly it seems like an excercise in user vanity. But that's a discussion for another place, I suppose. Regarding this particular debate my opinion is Undelete. First because the deletion short-circuited 2 debates that resulted in undeletion and keep, and I find the argument that speedy deletion is always "in process" to be peculiar to say the least. Second, undelete because the userbox is not divisive or inflammatory as I interpret the phrase. It is sufficiently far away from racial and ethnic slurs, for example, to not meet those more obvious criteria. If there were no userboxes and instead some users put on their user pages some plain text announcing that they had disagreements with wikipedia and there was a discussion at a linked forum, would we go around censoring their user pages? If some people on the forum have views that do not in any way comport with civilized society do we condemn all the users through guilt be association? The case for and against "Review" is more complex and as it has already passed TfD it does not seem like a speedy candidate. Thatcher131 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think we would censor this statement if it was on people's userpages, but you don't seem to understand that what is up for deletion here is a template, not something on someone's userpage, and is inappropriate alongside the rest of the encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And you just forgot that it's not for deletion here, but for undeletion. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Unless I am much mistaken about userboxes in general, a userbox template is just a tool to make it convenient for multiple users to add the same bit of information to their user page. How exactly is it bad to have a template that says "I participate in an anti-wikipedia forum" but acceptable to state it manually? Thatcher131 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • "Userbox templates" are not a separate thing; they are still in the template namespace, you realize. So they have to adhere to the same rules of being encyclopedic like all of the other templates. Being on a userpage is entirely different than being in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • So basically this is about a technicality. Users can link to web sites critical of wikipedia but not by using a template because of where the wikimedia software requires templates to reside. That's a bit like a dictatorship saying we allow our citizens complete freedom of speech on the internet, but private ownership of computers is illegal. Is this debate really about the use of the template namespace? And can it be that if someone posted a bit of html code on their user page to allow other users to create a userbox without a template that no one would object? Thatcher131 18:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, it really is about template and category space. They should have the same rules on being encyclopedic that main article space does, because they primarily designed and used for encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • So ban them all. Otherwise, no special reason to single this one out for deletion, much less speedy after it survived a TfD. Thatcher131 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Even a marathon starts by taking a single step. --Cyde Weys 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Your argument that something must be encyclopedic just because it is in the templatespace is misleading and faulty; certainly something that harms the encyclopedia shouldn't be tolerated in templacespace, but that doesn't mean it has to hold to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that specifically apply to articles and reader-facing templates. Deleting userboxes on grounds so semantic and trivial as the fact that they begin with "Template:", which is purely a matter of organizational convenience (to make it immediately obvious that they're templates, not userpages or whatnot), or as trivial as the fact that they're not subst'd or copy-pasted, which is again just a matter of convenience and makes no substantial difference, would be like deleting Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines and all other Wikipedia-space categories, or Category:Wikipedians by interest and all other User-space categories, just because they begin with "Category:" like article-space categories (but even worse, since unlike those two classes of categories, this class of templates does make it obvious that the templates are userpage-specific through the "user" note). If a category is specifically designed to only be used in userspace, it is a userspace category and does not need to be held to the same standards as article-space categories; likewise, if a category is specifically designed to only be used in Wikipedia:-space, and only Wikipedia-namespace pages are kept in it, it does not need to be encyclopedic, NPOV, referenced, or anything of the sort (though unlike userspace-specific categories and templates, it should preferably be directly related to editorial tasks, though there are plenty of exceptions, like the "joke" policy pages). So, like usercategories and wikipediacategories, usertemplates (and, more specifically, "userboxes") should be held to essentially the same standards as userpage-imbedded code, with the caveat that it should preferably be something that would be of use to a significant number of users (since if only 1 or 2 people are going to use the template, it's probably more efficient to simply use the raw code).
• Your campaign against userboxes, which are at worst a harmless fad, though well-intentioned, is misguided and disruptive. You should be patient and wait for a consistent policy on userboxes, then help implement it, rather than doing what you are doing and simply blindly voting "delete" on 100% on every userbox that is ever nominated for deletion, regardless of the reasoning or the situation with other, similar boxes, on the vain assumption that your personal views on userboxes, unsupported by any policy or guideline, are the ideal way to deal with every usertemplate. Your arbitrary mass-deletions are only furthering tensions and causing more infighting and factionalism, whereas things had actually calmed down quite a bit before the speedy-deletions started up once again. What's so bad about leaving things more or less be until there's a policy to implement? T1 clearly isn't relevant to this case or appropriate to draw on here, since it requires a lot of interpolation and reaching to find anything divisive or inflammatory about simply stating one's account on a webforum, regardless of the forum's origins or nature. So there's nothing in Wikipedia's policy or guidelines that condones speedy-deleting this, especially after two discussions and votes established a consensus for keeping the template; only non-speedy deleting it, through the proper channels (Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion), may be acceptable. -Silence 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD if you wish. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. You can't ban a userbox based on your personal opinions about the site it links to. You may dislike the community, but personal taste is no reason to censor something.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is about the template. If they want the raw HTML on their page no one, least of all me, is going to stop them. This about the template. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge that dogged out of process behaviour (it's beeen debated and kept twice) will be ultimately rewarded. That's bad for the encyclopedia. Avalon 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and do not relist on TFD. This has already been speedied legitimately, restored after discussion, and kept after a valid TFD. There is no reason to repeat this, and the deletion was not a valid speedy. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Personally, I think that Wikipedia is great and that most of the criticisms are quite over the edge. HOWEVER this does not mean that I agree with actions that supress the opinions of people that hold a different view AND violate wikipedia guidelines or policies. If the majority says "delete this template", then delete it, but if the majority says "keep this template" then it must be kept. If you really want to get this template deleted then start another Articles for Deletion or even Request for Meditation / Request for Arbitration process - simply speedydeleting the template is, in my eyes, an abuse of power. CharonX 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As Kelly said, having this on your user page is equivalent to saying "I'm a troll." The forum consists largely of neo-Nazis and other banned users making serious personal attacks against Wikipedians, in some instances libellous. We shouldn't give it a platform. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm usually one for a pretty high bar of "is this inflammatory?" when it comes to deleting userboxes. This is inflammatory. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Raul654 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete People contest the speedy, it was listed on TFD with strong consensus to keep two weeks ago also. Give it a month before relisting it. I also find the flagrant disregard for process troubling. While WP:NOT a bureaucracy we do try to stick by consensus. TFD and DRV had consensus. Speedy deleting it because you disagree with that consensus is asinine. Also, chill out with the wheel warring. kotepho 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: at this point this discussion must be considered invalid, due to off-site politicking in relation to it. The decision to keep or delete this template should be made according to first principles, not according to a pitched voting battle. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, because informing people who might not otherwise have noticed your abusive actions is a Bad Thing. There is no "vote-stacking" going on... most of the regular contributors on WR either are not active on Wikipedia, or will probably vote to delete it anyway. Any obvious sockpuppets can be picked out with no trouble whatsoever. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Serves no encyclopedic purpose; it can only assist inflammatory trolling. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and get Martin and Grue and whoever else cares about this idiocy to settle this with duelling banjos at dawn, because if two polls haven't solved this nonsense yet a third won't. So it's obviously time to try something that makes a bit more sense. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no substantial purpose but trolling. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. WR is a childish forum, with sub-Usenet "discussions", and I can't see why links to it should appear anywhere in Wikipedia. I agree with those who think that sticking this template on one's page is equivalent to saying "look at me everyone, I'm an idiot with a chip on my shoulder", but I don't see that as a reason to allow people to do it. I'd add that, to those who don't know what it is, the box makes it look as though the User has some special status within Wikipedia when they don't (well "special" in the "I'm Ralph, I'm special" sense, I suppose). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. I wonder at the many ways in which people try to disenfranchise Wikipedians. Are people creating new accounts here just to weigh in? (Hint:this page has been protected all along). Perhaps they are existing members gathering off-site because they can no longer gather on-site. If an invite like "These debates are often a little, well ... unrepresentative, so new contributers would be welcome" may be posted on WP:AN/I, may it also be posted in the Category talk:User review? or Template talk:User review? or why not on an off-site page? IRC #wikipedia is, after all, an off-site channel- is that OK, or do we discount those voters as well? When did assemblages of Wikipedians become so odious that they had to be stamped out at all costs? Why should an assemblage of Wikipedians have to justify- repeatedly to whichever admin happens along (again)- that they gather and interact? StrangerInParadise 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, if the disruptive nature of this userbox wasn't evident in the nature of the site it links to, this DRV and the furor surrounding it is evidence enough. InkSplotch^(talk) 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inflammatory and divisive. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and work on articles. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this #$%@ delted this template is just dumb, if someone really wants to announce their Review status, have 'em subst the box. Jeez. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  They can't subst the box on their pages if it's deleted. There's nothing to subst. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of unencyclopedic crap. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. per above. Gflores^Talk 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and speedy delete any variations anyone attempts. Troll badge. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Absolutely disgusting, all of this. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't think this userbox per se is in any way inflammatory or divisive (whether Wikipedia Review is is a different question). The arguments about neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are pure strawmen. Volkswagen was developed by Nazis, does that make you a Nazi for driving one? Wagner was an anti-Semite, does that make you an anti-Semite for listening to Tristan and Isolde? Of course not, and neither does having a Wikipedia Review account make that person a troll, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite. On the other hand, Jimbo has made it clear that he will not tolerate criticism of Wikipedia on user pages (which is what this userbox amounts to), and since this is his website, that's his prerogative. So torn between saying "Keep because Wikipedia policy does not prohibit it" and "Delete because Jimbo's feelings do not allow it", I'm unable to vote at all. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Speaking of straw men, no one has said that having a WR account makes you a troll, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite. What has been said is that it was founded by a neo-Nazi, and continued for several months to attract people with the same views. Efforts were recently made to clean it up, and were partly successful, but those views nevertheless continue to be expressed, and some have been quoted above. That aside, the forum is full of defamatory material and unpleasant personal attacks, which is reason enough not to offer it a platform. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, they did. Doc Glasgow wrote at the top of this discussion "linking to a hotbed of neo-nazis and trolls". Mackensen called it "a hotbed of trolls". Kelly Martin wrote "advertises a forum filled with trolls" and especially "Putting this userbox on your page is akin to declaring 'I am a troll'." But the point is, whether WR is divisive and defamatory is utterly beside the point. The question is whether the userbox under discussion itself is inflammatory and divisive, and I just don't see that it is. The statement it makes isn't even an opinion, it's just a neutral statement of fact. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no question it's full of trolls, but they're not being called trolls because they have a WR account. The user box is inflammatory because most of the posts on the forum are personal attacks, some of them very serious. The box is basically saying: "I know I'm not allowed to make personal attacks against Wikipedians here, but I'm a member of a website that does allow it. Here's a link." There's no reason on earth we should give that mindset publicity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete this really should take place on TfD, not here. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Speedy Undelete Out-of-process. Obvious sympathy for any template deleted by MarkSweep. Let's use a little common sense, people. Not all users of that site are "neo-Nazis, anti-Semetic, trolls", etc. Does that make me one just because I am a member? Think. - natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 09:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I actually have a Wikipedia Review account, but consensus is that anything other than 'project boxes' (e.g. admin status, babel, location, wikiproject membership etc.) should be deleted, and replaced with the 'raw code'. This is not a 'project box' therefore it gets deleted, regardless of how valid or otherwise Wikipedia Review is. Cynical 10:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted --Constantine Evans 10:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Obvious Undelete Completely out of process deletion by group of administrators who have no respect for the community whatsoever (see the link, Kelly Martin, MarkSweep and Mackensen are the main troublemakers here along with those egging them on from the sidelines).
• Lets look at the facts here:
  1. Template deleted by MarkSweep after removing it from many users' pages. Reason given for deletion is "orphan" - he in fact made it an orphan, justifying it's deletion (in fact even then, there is no policy to delete "orphaned" templates). http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Special:Log/delete?user=MarkSweep&page=&limit=100&offset=303 shows that he deletes a lot. Note the link isn't even the first page, there's many hundreds of deletions by him, but he seems very opposed to userboxes mainly.
  2. After the majority voted to undelete PREVIOUSLY ALREADY here on Deletion Review, the template was then:
  3. Listed on TfD by a neutral party to gain additional consensus for keeping. The result to keep was unanimous.
  4. Template restored as it passed both DrV and TfD with community consensus.
  5. Deleted by Kelly Martin completely unjustifiedably, out of process, no policy cited only "we don't need this".
  6. Kelly Martin's activities reported on the Incidents subsection of the Administrators' Noticeboard as abusive activity. No action taken against the former arbitrator.
  7. Template restored again.
  8. Mackensen this time deletes, again totally ignoring everyone except the small group of administrators pressurizing for this template to be deleted.
  9. Template restored by Grue, who is then blocked by NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), someone who has engaged in userbox deletions on a mass scale with Kelly Martin previously.
  10. MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) then deletes the template yet again, totally ignoring the previous DrV and TfD's here and here.
• This shouldn't even be here. It has already passed both DrV and TfD. The admins who are ignoring both community consenus and process should be desysopped immediately. Is this an April Fool's Day joke or are some people just out of control with too much power than they should be trusted with gone to their head?
• This template is the same as any other website userbox at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing. There's nothing that could be considered controversial in the actual template even, all it is a link to a users' account on a different website than Wikipedia. The problem here is that some administrators seem to just not want anyone to know about the existence of the site because of some of the activities revealed there. Bob, just Bob 14:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Stop process wonking. If the deletion is endorsed here, then it is endorsed. Wikilawyering be damned. --Doc ^ask? 14:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no "wikilawyering" going on. Anyone looking at the facts can see what's going on. This has already been through DrV and TfD in a very short space of time it has then been totally ignored and deleted anyway, only endorsed by a small group of administrators. This whole situation is ridiculous. Bob, just Bob 14:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Flamebait -1 Cyde Weys 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Fred Bauder 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The arguments presented seem to be:
  • Wikipedia Review is a nasty place; which is no reason to delete unless we are going to sanction editors who belong to it.
  • it has an anti-WP POV. By the arguments of WP:NPOV, we should welcome this, not harass it. Septentrionalis 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TfD. Out of process, see ArbCom case regarding MarkSweep's deletions. --Rory096 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted -- Kelly Martain has a reputation for deleting too much for no reason, but this is at the very least link spam and should be deleted --T-rex 01:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete It's not much different from linking to one's own MySpace or LJ account, and it's obvious that previous discussions have already kept the template. --AySz88^-^ 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Everyone here should be fearing for the future of wikipedia if the oligarchs can ignore consensus and do whatever they want to.--God Ω War 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I use this (I! a trusted admin). I go there to try to talk some sense into them. Not that I do not approve of any of the personal attacks made by anyone in connection with this deletion review, that goes for everyone. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. And restrict the deleting admins for 3RR (admin), if it's plausible they're working together. As for being divisive, even if the site is as you describe, some of the members could be trolling that site. Linkspam is not grounds for WP:CSD, although perhaps it should be. (And I thought that Kelly's RfC was terminated because she was no longer a Sysop. If she's back, it should be reopened. Of course, I could be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Apparent misunderstanding. She's still an admin. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete. POV of linked site is no reason to delete. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. per Kelly and Fred. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy undelete - deletion of this was ridiculous. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:38 UTC (2006-04-04)
• Keep deleted. If we had a userbox that said "User likes to troll Wikipedia" or "User denies the Holocaust", there would be little debate here; and the posters to Wikipedia Review are either trolls or neo-Nazis or are foolishly encouraging the former two. My chief problem with the box is that a prime concern of the trolls is to abuse particular editors and carrying the box on your userpage can be interpreted as endorsing this abuse -- certainly, I would interpret it this way. While I do not think anyone should be punished on-wiki for their off-wiki abuse or their views, I do think that creating a faction that implicitly says it's okay to defame editors is a bad idea. Grace Note 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. My personal feelings on the review forum are mixed. I find a lot of anti-Wikipedia thinking there that I find very obnoxious, but at the same time it is a great place for discussion and criticism of the sort of abusiveness that is almost constant here. And this neo-Nazi stuff seems absurd. The board was started by MSK, as I understand it, who has an icon of some Swastika-labeled weeds being pulled up with the caption "Pull 'em up before they take root." The board is actually run by neo-Nazis but has a vociferous anti-neo-Nazi in front to deceive us? This stretches the very limits of plausibility, in my opinion. Nor do I really think the question matters, anyway; who cares if they're neo-Nazis? Why does that even matter? Do we officially discriminate against neo-Nazis now? Politically I am at the other end of the spectrum from them, but I still believe it would be wrong to discriminate against them on the basis of their political beliefs. Everyking 13:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Gah... so torn... I dont like the place, and anyone who goes there is a dumbass, but it's not divisive, so I have to go with Undelete -M^ask 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have seen no objection to this template, besides a blantently ad hominem attack on the users of Wikipedia Review. Until I see one, my vote is going to have to be Undelete. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list as TFD if desired.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Copyright Nazi

Template:User Copyright Nazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was deleted on March 16 by MarkSweep. Reason was our old friend: "T1 CSD." If someone can share with us the contents of this userbox, it would be appreciated.

• Keep deleted comparisons of anything less than genocide to Nazis are extremely offensive, and are thus divisive and inflamatory. Where ^(talk) 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, for goodness' sake get off your horse. I call my cleaning lady the "Cleaning Nazi". Remember the "Soup Nazi"? It's just part of the idiom. Would it be OK to change it to "Copyright Robespierrist"? Or is that wound still too recent? "Copyright Inquisitionist"? How far back do we have to go here? Herostratus 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How about a little politeness and sensitivity? Just because we can behave like this doesn't mean we should. I know a lot of people would be extremely offended by this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, sorry, I had assumed that it said something like "This user is a copyright Nazi" - a way to poke fun at oneself. Now that I know what it said, I would not have written that. You can't call other people Nazis, I agree. Herostratus 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Where. Some things are just in "Don't go there" territory. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- What were the contents of this userbox, was it something about supporting copyright status for Nazi materials or saying that one is a "Nazi" about copyright? Homestarmy 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  It was rather like "This user opposes copyright Nazis" or something. Basically a stronger version of {{User copyright}}, IIRC. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  "This user hates Copyright Nazis" to be exact.Geni 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:CSD T1 Cynical 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Doc ^ask? 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since I know what it said now heh Homestarmy 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion inappropriate. -M^ask 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Sorry, I had assumed it said something like "This user is a Copyright Nazi". Now that I know what it says then yes, it had to go. Perhaps the user can get away with "This user opposes Copyright Robespierrists" after all, though. Herostratus 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate use of the word "Nazi". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Using "Nazi" in this context (as in almost all others which don't deal with the WW2 period) is derogatory and offensive. I won't miss this template. CharonX 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. AnnH ♫ 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Consensus is that anything other than 'project boxes' (e.g. admin status, wikiproject membership etc.) should be deleted, and replaced with the 'raw code'. This is not a 'project box' therefore it gets deleted, end of story. Cynical 10:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Turns out I already voted on this one. See above. Cynical 10:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Cynical, can you drop me a line on my talk and point me in the direction of this consensus you mentioned above? thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  No, of course he can't, because no such consensus exists. There is no consensus on anything at all regarding userboxes. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think there is a fairly good consensus that this one should not exist.Geni 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I meant about userboxes in general, not specific userboxes like this one. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF

MarkSweep arbitararily deleted a parody userbox that was in my userspace.

A subst of the userbox shows the contents as:

ABF	This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.

Deletion log shows:
18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

If you check the userbox, it was (and is) linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody).

"Don't" (assume bad faith) is not a reason. A logical reason why you don't agree with it (posted on my talk page) is more acceptable. I cannot support such out-of-process deletions of people's hard work.

I restored it, then tagged it for deletion (because by restoring it, I might not be following due process). — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious undelete. Don't quite know where to begin....StrangerInParadise 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: begin with what is useful to an encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete well the userbox isn't in the article space, is it? I also found the parody policy to be very funny, sometimes laughter is useful.... Homestarmy 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Humour has its uses, even in an encyclopaedia. Why not use that villain picture (that's on WP:ABF itself) in the box to emphasise its humourous nature? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that's an idea... — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Harmless parody. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Painfully obvious undelete. Whether it's parody is irrelevant, really (I have a couple [grin]); it earns my vote because it's in the user's space and is not clearly divisive—the criteria, after all... RadioKirk talk to me 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Why is this here? My user page gets vandalized all the time (Squidward). I just revert it. Are we supposed to be coming to deletion review for userpage vandalism now? Herostratus 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, wait it was deleted, not blanked. That must mean somebody's hacked into an admin account? Good Lord, isn't that serious? Couldn't they go on an image deletion spree? Is the account blocked now, did you post to WP:ANI? I'm sure the real editor would want that done more than anyone. How did this happen? Yeeesh. Herostratus 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Im pretty sure MarkSweep is an admin. Homestarmy 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, MarkSweep is an admin. He seems to delete and subst any userbox he doesn't like whenever he feels like it. There's currently a Request for Arbitration (RfAr) against him and another admin regarding this very subject. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, OK, it was Mark Sweep. I didn't see that, I should have looked. I figured it was a regular admin who's account had been hacked. Sorry, nevermind. Undelete of course. Herostratus 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Please try to be more civil. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Right, sorry. Really, if I'd noticed that it was Mark Sweep I wouldn't have said anything. That would have been unkind, because he's... well, you know. I know he can't help it. I would never on purpose pick on somone who is... well, like him. So, sorry. Herostratus 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue there is no excuse for this sort of incivility. Please comment on the issues and not the person. Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete . It's like that one poem-thingy, "we will fight them in the sea, we will fight them on the land" etc... "We will delete them in the mainspace, we will delete them in the userspace," well, the Userspace is for personal work and stuffs, there is no reason to delete boxen there -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read argumentum ad hominem. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken, FYI, It wasn't meant as a personal attack (although I realise it could look that way). Edited. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not attacking MarkSweep as a person (I don't know him, how can I attack someone I don't know?); however I am attacking his methods. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      
      • If I can say this without sounding like a seven year old, I wasn't talking to you. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it could be interpreted as a parody, so it is not a clear-cut enough case for it to be speedy-worthy. However, I would support its deletion in a TFD, since it could also be interpreted as being serious (unless something was added, like a villain picture that someone suggested, to make it obvious that it was a parody). Where ^(talk) 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean this? I admit I'd prefer it over the old too.

This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.

— natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objections over that. Where ^(talk) 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. Unfortunately we can use use public-domain and GDFL-licensed images in userboxes... Herostratus

I know that's accurate in template-space, but has that been established for user-space userboxes? RadioKirk talk to me 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% certain that it would apply to userspace too. Basically, you can only freely use images that are public domain or GDFL, except to illustrate an article that bears directly on the image. Too bad but there it is. Herostratus 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the villain picture was made for the Villain article by User:J.J., and is GFDL. It can be used in a user template in my understanding of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcoyc (talk • contribs) 02:55 05 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, it's at least funny Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (it's funny) and desysop MarkSweep (who's unfunny). Misza13 ^{T C} 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'da add more to Misza13's comment, but that would violate WP:NPA. I will say though, that said admin has caused me to find this userbox useful. Sad. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 22:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inflammatory, linked from outside userspace, and no possible use that I can see that wouldn't tend to encourage the assumption of bad faith. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible use = joke. Shared humor promotes good-faith, love, and fellowship. Xoloz 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not "inflammatory" in the slighest. Read the definition of parody again and read what link the userbox links to. WP:ABF is a parody of WP:AGF and that's what was linked to. A sense of humour is required. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 18:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Cute little thing, no harm done. Xoloz 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Silly but harmless joke, and was in userspace, not project space. AnnH ♫ 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, of course. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete links to an EXTREMELY USEFUL evaluation of WP:AGF - Assume Good Faith is a fairly wooly, 'lets all be friends' sort of policy, WP:ABF although not policy illustrates some of the conduct that is likely to be in violation of WP:AGF, therefore the box should be kept. Consensus is that userboxes related to the project should be kept as templates - an explanation of WP policy is CLEARLY useful to the project, therefore this should be undeleted. Cynical 10:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete wikipedians need to learn how to be funny --T-rex 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete because (1) way too many people around here taking themselves way too seriously, and (2) just because we're working on an encyclopedia doesn't mean that we can't have/it shouldn't be fun. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Replace with a more obviously parodic version, and keep in the userspace. --Constantine Evans 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is clear that WP:ABF is a parody. It was created as such. We all know this. A userbox with a link to said parody is obviously also a parody. Do I need to spell it out to people in big neon letters? Please don't be ridiculous. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and sigh per above. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 21:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• This page is not a template, and in no way meets general speedy deletion criteria. Undelete, candidate for speedy undeletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I was hoping this anal mentality would just go away.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template: User evol-X

This userbox was speedied by NicholasTurnbull, on the grounds of "Criterion T1 - divisive/inflammatory". This userbox was intended to be a spoof of the evolution/creationism userboxes—it's a joke, not an attack.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Stupid and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't belong in template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted useless at best, inflammatory and trollish at worst --Doc ^ask? 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, but impressed with the uniformity. I'm fairly certain that I remember this userbox. Maybe I don't, nevertheless, it is annoying that I do not have it here for reference. If someone would like me to change my vote, please provide a copy for my reference to explain why. StrangerInParadise 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Undelete and TfD At this point, the burden of proof is on those speedying userboxes. The text might well convince me that this was justified, but it isn't here. Septentrionalis 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's really not funny; but this is the sort of judgment call which ought to be TfD'd. If it were TfD'd, my vote would probably be Conditional Delete; a broadly smiling Stephen Jay Gould picture might give a different impression. (Darwin was a Victorian, with long-exposure photography; there may well be no picture of him smiling.) Septentrionalis 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete until someone can tell me what its contents were. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Weak delete as possibly inflammatory and really dumb, although it's not really taking any side on the issue. I don't really see it as "trolling," but I do agree it should be kept out of template space. P.S. Had I abstained, I would have never found out what the userbox said. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Would it not be better to abstain if you don't know? FWIW, the box was a picture of Darwin and a (copyright violating) picture Henry Morris with the text This user wants to see a staunch evolutionist and a fundamental creationist locked in a room together with a pistol taped to the ceiling. If that's not trolling, what is? --Doc ^ask? 08:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Why is it not a point of process that a subst of the userbox in question be listed before deleting it? StrangerInParadise 11:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  By whom, where? We don't list speedy deletions. So why should one subst it before deleton, and where? They only get listed here if someone later believes that the item should be restored. Userboxes should not be treated differently from any other deletion.--Doc ^ask? 12:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should have a separate log; this discussion might be less acrimonious if these deletions weren't speedies. Septentrionalis 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per the expanded T1: "Divisive, inflammatory, and worst of all not funny". --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wanting to make jokes about evolution and creationism is one thing, but when you bring pistols and locked rooms into the picture, that's a bit harsh. Plus if that picture's really a copyright violation, I dunno what to tell ya. Homestarmy 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam. It being the last which is the clincher... Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Egging people on to shoot each other is beyond ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  However it may be less painful than a protracted edit war.Geni 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, and I'd oppose deleting it if someone decided to speedy it again after a consensus to undelete here. In this case however, I believe this is a valid T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  What has that got to do with edit waring? Joke man ok not very funny but still.Geni 09:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I would prefer an edit war over bloodshed. Alright, I see there are policies against edit warring and no policies against shooting eachother... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. If you want to joke around about faith, do it off-wiki or keep it strictly on your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  This template is strictly for userpages.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as a template "strictly for userpages". All templates are templates. If it's strictly for userspace then it would be in userspace. --Cyde Weys 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  You mean like the Babelboxes? Yep, finding those on articles all over the place. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Stop being thick-headed. You know exactly what I mean. There's nothing separating encyclopedic templates from silly templates. And yes, I actually have seen userboxes used to vandalize articles. --Cyde Weys 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  Please re-read WP:NPA. If userboxes are found in articles, remove them. That doesn't mean they aren't intended for use solely in user space. (That's why they all have the word User in them.) Angr (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  It's not a personal attack. It's a satire. Can't anyone laugh at themselves on Wikipedia? We build all these userboxes so that we can convince ourselves that each view is so strong and important, but each person sees the world differently. This userbox pays homage to people who troll and attack on userpages in order to try and completely destroy the other opinion ad absurdum, to the point where it becomes funny at how seriously they percieve themselves.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  When I said "Please re-read WP:NPA" I was referring to Cyde Weys calling me "thick-headed", not to the userbox itself. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  The question it seems to me is whether the "seriousness" you refer to will revert to murder. With guns. Taped to cealings. The copyrighted picture thing would also warrent grounds for deletion on its own as well if I understand policy correctly. Homestarmy 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  It practically does revert to murder when you look at some of the talkpages. BTW, I was not aware of the copyright policy on userboxes and images, I apologize for that. But we're not removing the userbox on the grounds of copyvio—after all, the images could easily be removed without having to delete the userbox.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  I dunno, i've never heard of a person's typing jumping out of the screen and shooting people with photonic bullets that killed people.... Homestarmy 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  That's because it's not possible. The ludicrosity (if that's a word) of the userbox's message was meant to convey a joke.

  P.S. Ever heard of Jason Gastrich?--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because of the copyrighted picture, if it turns out that there is no copyright issue then undelete --T-rex 02:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  You don't speedy a userbox because of image copyvio, that's not the issue here.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  I am given the opinon that copyrighted pics are not allowed on userspace, but if that's not an issue then undelete

  No, they aren't allowed, but you don't delete the whole userbox if there's a copy issue, you just remove the image. If undeleted, I'd remove the copyvio pictures.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - attacking both sides of an issue is still an attack. Wishing for people killing each other isn't a particularly clever "satire", and seems to fall easily under "divisive and inflammatory". -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Based on the nomination my vote is undelete, but based on Doc's description of contents my vote is keep deleted.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox insurgent

File:MaskedIcon.jpg

This user is part of a pro-userbox insurgency and will oppose the sysops who delete out of process. FREE THE USERBOX!

Reason for deletion was "Enough" by MarkSweep. Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. The page is also protected.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete Per nom, created in good humor.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; "in good humor" is not a valid reason for something in template space to exist. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• This was deleted six weeks ago, and no-one seems to have missed it. It is clearly inflammetory, and whatever one makes of T1, this cleary fits that description. Keep deleted. --Doc ^ask? 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD as disused. it divides only from those admins, if any (no-one in this discussion), who do routinely delete out of process, who should be separated from their buttons. Therefore not speediable. Septentrionalis 19:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, trying hard but this is a bad-faith vote, and should be ignored. The deletion is in process (t1) you just don't not like the process and so you engage in personal attacks.--Doc ^ask? 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userbox revolution

This user doesn't like the phrase "userbox war", but instead prefers "The Glorious Userbox Revolution!

Reason for deletion was "Will not be telivised" by MarkSweep. Dosen't seem like a valid reason to me. Reason given seems glib and trollish.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete per nomMike McGregor (Can)
• Keep Deleted - Trolling template. No reason in the world it should stick around. --Cyde Weys 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep deleted. Bad faith nomination, this obviously is divisive and inflammetory trolling, and it has been gone for 6 weeks without complaint. Even if people objected to mass deleting of boxes, this was clearly in process as a textbook t1. --Doc ^ask? 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD as unused Deletion appears to be in bad faith. Septentrionalis 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User feminist

Template:User feminist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is a feminist.

The user NicholasTurnbull speedily deleted the template Template:User feminist on the grounds: (Speedy deletion T1 - divisive in respect that feminism, or any other discrimination on the basis of gender, is unacceptable on Wikipedia and has no place here.) I don't believe that this template meets CSD T1. I believe that taking feminism to be "discrimination on the basis of gender" is itself POV, and hence the judgment that the template meets CSD T1 is itself a violation of WP:NPOV. Catamorphism 07:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've recently restored this template (along with the other feminist ones) after deciding that it was indeed an improper speedy on my part, so to an extent the debate is a fait accomplis now. Thanks for your time discussing this. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious undelete. Feminism is a legitimate area of interest for a contributor to an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted - yes you can legitimately descvribe yourself as a feminist, but political bumperstickers are divisive. --Doc ^ask? 08:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Not a clearly divisive template, and there's no policy against POV-expressing userboxes, just against inflammatory ones. If users think this template should be deleted, nominate it at TfD so it can be discussed; T1 speedy-deletion is only appropriate for clear-cut cases, as demonstrated effectively in past userbox debates on this page. -Silence 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete. This is an abuse of T1. NicholasTurnbull's apparently total lack of comprehension of what it means to be a feminist demonstrates why T1 is far too dangerous a tool in the hands of a lone admin, however well-intentioned. Admin Doc glasgow's notion that political bumperstickers are divisive only underscores it further. StrangerInParadise 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per nom and Doc. And ignore the rantings of the troll/vote-stacker. --Cyde Weys 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, Cyde, I thought you promised to stay away from the userboxes in your admin nom... you know this stuff is like crack to you... whoever you're talking about, try to remain civil plz, thx. Herostratus 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion/Keep Deleted The original reson for UBX deletions was they foster discontent. 'User is from Idaho' does not foster resentment from someone with 'User is from Wyoming', but I imagine the feminist one would. From both non-feminists and people from Wyoming. -M^ask 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, a userbox supporting gender equality is not divisive enough to meet the CSD Where ^(talk) 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Valid editing perspective. If someone wants to announce a Feminist leaning,t helps the community understand their perspective. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 22:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Neither divisive or inflammatory. Improper speedy. Septentrionalis 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Does not foster discontent, illuminates the editor's perspective. Avalon 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Has the wikiworld gone crazy or what? How is this divisive? Feminism is pretty common and doesn't upset too many people except maybe Pat Robertson (and who really cares about him anyway?). Anyways, pointing out a feminist leaning helps with NPOV by helping identify user's background and biases. The Ungovernable Force 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no consensus has been reached on userboxes yet. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete That is the obviously correct choice. PS, I created this userbox too, so please excuse the bias. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 12:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aaargh!!! This is divisive? ::Runs off to the nearest bookstore to buy an NPOV dictionary and finally check the meaning of the "accursed word":: Misza13 ^{T C} 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Take it to TFD for discussion if you like, but a speedy? "Feminism" as a political position means that men and women are equal and deserve equal rights. Now it's possible to find that position divisive and inflammatory, though I have no sympathy with the mindset that does, but how on earth can it be "discrimination on the basis of gender"? Bishonen talk 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC).
• Keep Undeleted. If *self-identification* as a feminist is enough to divide and enrage, then self-identification as gay must be much worse. And as long as we're gleefully sliding down that slippery slope, admitting to your own gender inherently divides you from 50% of other contributors. We should all be androgynous creatures without experience... And the fact that you say you are from California makes me angry and confused, too. I, being from Ohio, am inherently opposed to Californians, and as such I demand that any reference to aforementioned state be stricken from userpages domain-wide. (While I admit there is a touch of hyperbole in my comment, I think the point needs to be made) Joey 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, once the big one hits, everything east of the Sierras will fall into the Atlantic, and that conflict will go away. =) StrangerInParadise 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- the box is informative, does not require any response, and may well mediate issues on POV. is also not compulsory. Simon Cursitor 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted. Simple factoid, hardly polemical. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User AmE-0

This request was accidentally listed on Requests to unprotect, I think this is a more apprpriate places for it.

Seeing as Template:User-AmE-0 survived a vote for deletion, and is in essence the same as Template:User AmE-0 was, could we get it back into the consistent position in line with Template:User en-gb-0, Template:User CaE-0 and Template:User SoE-0? (Apologies if this is not the correct place to list this) Ian3055 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I'm throwing in 2 cents, this box was deleted by User:MarkSweep with no apparent deletion discussion, I think that alone should merit a page restoration. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"

• undelete or restore or do what ever needs to be done to make this exist again... If the consensus was keep, the consensus was keep. just because little Napoleon Sweep has admin powers, doesn't justify his actions. He stoped acting in good faith a long time ago when it became apparent that his deletions were incredibly contraversial. His continuation smacks of WP:POINT Mike McGregor (Can) 18:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Another userbox casualty. And a friendly tip to MarkSweep to please do not delete obvious consensus-reached userboxes; whether or not you like the content. Moe ε 20:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And an equally friendly tip to you: If you want to change speedy deletion policy, take it to WT:CSD. This is not the place. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't want to change policy on userboxes. I'm saying your deletion did not meet the criteria for deletion listed on WP:CSD. Moe ε 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Seems like a fine enough userbox to me. Homestarmy 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion / keep deleted. Properly speedy tagged and deleted polemical, condescending, unencyclopedic template. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. MiraLuka 18:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. - TheKeith 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. Ibn Abihi 10:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clear-cut T1 case.  Grue  10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can any T1 case really be "clear-cut"? Ibn Abihi 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Mike McGregor Cynical 12:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; condescention of other cultures is clearly inflamatory Where ^{(talk) (Clarify T1)} 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete come on, get over it Brian | (Talk) 04:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete pending development of a widely-agreed policy on userboxes. Metamagician3000 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Who really got offended by this? I laughed when I saw the equivalent one about the UK (being British) - why can nobody laugh at themselves? --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all above, get over it. Stifle 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, obviously. Larix 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User marriage man-woman

Was speedy deleted by Physchim62 per the reason T1. Again, I don't see how this was divisive either. Any TFD elections were all in favor of it's inclusion. Moe ε 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This userbox was put up on TfD on February 16 as part of a block of userboxes for deletion; only three people voted on it before it was speedy kept with the others, and all three voted "keep". It was subsequently speedily deleted and then put on DRV along with Template:User same sex marriage (I'm unsure of the proper capitalization?). By my count, User marriage man-woman received 14 keep deleted votes and 12 13 (counted again) undelete votes, while User same sex marriage received 13 of each keep deleted votes and 14 undelete votes (one user voted differentially for the two). The same sex marriage box can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Sexuality#same_sex_marriage_userbox. I don't know of any place where the marriage man-woman box was subst'd, but the box had a male and female symbol on the left and read, "This user believes a marriage consists of one man and one woman." - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And pray tell, how is believing that a marriage consisting of a man and women divisive?

To reword my previous opening statement, I do NOT care what the content of the userbox is/was/or ever will be. I am posting these on Deletion review to hopefully reverse the decisions made abusively by admins to mass delete userboxes, which includes this entry. Consensus was not made on these userboxes before and that can be settled later on WP:TFD. In short, I brought this here to undo the actions of the admin who deleted it rather than the content, which is disputed. Moe ε 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - This template and the one below should be judged the same.--God Ω War 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete T1 is too ambiguious... Please stop using it except in cut and dry cases until there is a consensus about the scope of this! Mike McGregor (Can) 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. MiraLuka 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:UBX. Doesn't the lack of interest in these DRVs tell you something? Allow me to quote from 'The Simpsons': 'Face it Dad, piggy ain't coming back' Cynical 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Has this not been DRVd before? David | Talk 22:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia; recreate it as something other than a template, if you like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again, be fair. Whichever way the consensus goes for the queerrights userbox, I vote we do the same for this one. If we delete this one, but keep boxes advocating for gay rights, what does that say about our ability to write neutrally on topics related to homosexuality? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• As you surely agree after the past userbox-deleting fiasco on this matter, the only way to "be fair" is to either delete all of these templates, or undelete templates that have been out-of-process speedy-deleted in the past. Since I find it highly unlikely that that's going to happen, it looks like the only realistic option is to delete both this and all the other LGBT-politics- and LGBT-support-related templates. Users unfamiliar with this matter can see Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Sexuality#anti-gay.3F, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_25 and the deletion review. Wikipedia's editors have decreed that it's uncivil to disagree with the majority on controversial issues; until that is overturned, the sort of intellectually open, neutral, and tolerant atmosphere that people want will never exist on this website. So, these sorts of userboxes will have to wait until people are mature enough to tolerate ("tolerate" meaning "permit the self-expression of", not "don't criticize") both sides of each issue. Only tolerating people you agree with just won't cut it. -Silence 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again, to be fair, one is in favor of human rights and one is against it, so ... --Cyde Weys 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• But see, simply to define this as a human rights issue assumes a POV. People who believe that marriage should be limited to one person of each gender do not characterize this view as one restricting human rights because they tend to believe that human rights are derived from God and God is against same-sex marriage. Also, I should point out that many people who are opposed to same-sex marriage do not consider themselves "anti-gay" because they believe that they ought to act with love towards homosexuals but still oppose same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons (tradition, the belief that having parents of both genders is the ideal situation for children, moral concern, slippery-slope arguments, etc). I am absolutely appalled that we feel it's okay to user Wikipedia as a soapbox in this matter, deleting only those userboxes which express POVs we dislike and writing articles like Criticisms of sexual behavior, to persuade rather than inform. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I voted Undelete on the queer rights one and have the same vote here. The Ungovernable Force 08:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with God of War - this template should be judged the same as the one before it. next one following (Template:User queerrights). I say Keep deleted to both. Johntex\^talk 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm gay, I think that marrige should absolutely not be restricted to between a man and a woman, but I also believe that only someone whoose position is weak needs to suppress opposing viewpoints, I believe in the fair exchange of ideas, even ideas that I might not agree with or ideas that I find wholly disgusting. AdamJacobMuller 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with its sentiments, but undelete it per GUÐSÞEGN - Metamagician3000 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care anymore. This whole thing is sooooo February. Herostratus 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, that's the best response I heard yet. :-D Moe ε 01:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• In the interests of protecting free speech, keep deleted and re-create content on individual user's pages where it shall be safe from the depredations of us rogue admins. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, because every Wikipedian should have the right to express their opinions on controversal topics on their own user page in the form of a userbox. Ibn Abihi 10:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this is a notable opinion, knowledge of which on the part of other editors would lead to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all of the above Cynical 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User queerrights

Was speedy deleted per T1. I don't see how a userbox that says that they support gay/queer rights is divisive. It was tagged by a anon IP address whose only edits were tagging userboxes. That fact was disregarded and the template was eventually speedied by Physchim62. Undelete per it's not divisive and it was never orphaned. Moe ε 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To reword my previous opening statement, I do NOT care what the content of the userbox is/was/or ever will be. I am posting these on Deletion review to hopefully reverse the decisions made abusively by admins to mass delete userboxes, which includes this entry. Consensus was not made on these userboxes before and that can be settled later on WP:TFD. In short, I brought this here to undo the actions of the admin who deleted it rather than the content, which is disputed. Moe ε 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this. Feel free to list it on TFD if it annoys you, but do not speedily delete this again. —Guanaco 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete The God of War is not queer but still supports your right to be queer.--God Ω War 20:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and open an RfC against the idiot responsible for the deletion. This messing has gone on long enough. Some admins seem to think they are infallible. They aren't, just arrogant and POV-pushing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't use personal attacks Jtdril. Although an RFC is in progress about the userboxes and Physchim62 is already listed as one of the admins that went and deleted some userboxes. Moe ε 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Time for a conspiracy theory. I wonder if the IP who tagged it is a sockpuppet of an admin who then speedies userboxes? This is isn't an attack against Physchim62, but I just couldn't help but notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)
• Undelete Stupid template, but if people want to use it so what? Gerard Foley 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I might support a policy that excludes such userbox templates, but until such a time as there is a widely-accepted policy to that, effect with adequate protections, deletions of userboxes like this one are premature, unnecessary, and provocative. Metamagician3000 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 03:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hate to go against popular opinion, but I have to say keep deleted unless we're going to start allowing userboxes expressing other points of view on this topic. I support the POV this userbox expresses, but honestly, people - if you don't think that asserting support for gay rights is divisive, you must not watch the news much. If we want to prohibit templates like Template:User marriage man-woman, this one has got to go, too, as do many others on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality. I wonder how many of the people who voted "undelete" above would want to bring User marriage man-woman back... - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The point is for the userboxes to be undeleted because of the previous wrong-doings by admins, by that I mean mass-deleting userboxes, that brought about the RFC. If Template:User marriage man-woman was deleted upon consensus from the community, then that was rightfully deleted. But if it was included in the mass deletion of userboxes from before, it should be undeleted too. I would prefer things to be deleted by consensus at WP:TFD, rather than delete them because of personal beliefs. Moe ε 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Don't need somewhere in the template namespace. If people want to express this view, they can make their own userbox. David | Talk 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia; recreate it as something other than a template, if you like. I'd like to add that it would be a shame if we undelete this and keep (Template:User marriage man-woman) deleted just because this one expresses a more popular POV (among those voting). -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Queer is a perjorative term, despite efforts to 'take it back'. Call it Gay Rights, and I wouldn't have a problem. But just make your own if it matters that much, yeesh. Proto||type 12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um, your logic is that "queer" is offensive to you, ergo you will not permit people to self-identify by it, whereas "gay" is inoffensive to you (even though if anything "gay" is a vastly more common pejorative and insulting word in modern English than "queer"; schoolchildren will gladly label anything they dislike "gay", but you'll comparatively rarely hear them use a word like "queer" the same), so you will force people to self-identify by it? Bizarre. I could see the logic of making your vote "Keep and move" just in order to keep things consistent with the gay rights articles, but (1) to vote for deletion based on a simple and trivial (and based on personal taste, not absolutes) terminological issue (thus forcing everyone who uses this template to do the hard work of creating and tracking down the new template, even though a simple page-move would do the job), and (2) to vote based on the assumption that "queer" is universally pejorative and "gay" is universally neutral, seems rather backwards and.. well, queer. :/ -Silence 12:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as it was speedied when it shouldn't have been. JSIN 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not divisive, shouldn't have been speedied. The Ungovernable Force 08:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - divisive, does not help in any way in our efforts to build an encyclopedia. Johntex\^talk 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Obviously, there's nothing wrong with this userbox unless the admins deleting have a political agenda. Bob, just Bob 09:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as it is neither divisive nor inflammatory (see queer). Ibn Abihi 11:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this is a notable opinion, knowledge of which on the part of other editors would lead to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per FearEireann Cynical 12:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User review

User:MarkSweep has went around substing this template before speedily deleting this as orphaned. Even if he was following the new policy, which hasn't been made official yet, a time of 4 weeks is supposed to elapse before these are deleted. Subst and delete is still deletion. This userbox does not state a POV only that a user has an account on a certain website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God of War (talk • contribs)

• Undelete per nominator. "Orphaned" is not a speedy delete criterion, for the reason that any admin can do just what MarkSweep did. I don't object to this template being deleted through process (might even vote delete myself; it isn't a particularly notable forum outside of the context of Wikimedia.), but this out-of-process nonsense is getting ridiculous. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This template should be Speedy restored - Was deleted with no valid reason - template was deliberately removed from many pages by MarkSweep so he could then use "Orphaned" deletion excuse - See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of policy to justify template deletion and Template talk:User review

The actual template, for those who want to see what they are voting on, as the edit history has been completely destroyed and the page replaced:

This user has a Wikipedia Review account, {{{2}}}

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Im pretty sure it's not just this template. MarkSweep is running all over wikipedia substing templates and then speedying them as orphans. Someone please stop him.--God Ω War 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do not resuscitate. It's an unused orphan, and there was an edit war going on. Too much fuss about nothing. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's only unused because you made it unused. There was a minor edit conflict going on, (I adhere to the 1RR, so if there was any further conflict after my statement, I am unaware of it), but edit conflicts don't justify deletion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? Everybody who wanted to use the template text is still using it, because I subst:ed it everywhere. It was a little used template, not encyclopedic, a troll magnet, and the center of an ongoing edit war. Deleting it solved all of those problems in one, uhm, swell poof. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside whether the above accusations are true, if this template is a troll magnet then why did you subst it instead of deleting it outright? Ashibaka tock 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy double-bind, Batman. Not substing it is wrong, and substing it is wrong too? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was your choice to delete it, not mine. Well, this DRV vote will figure it out one way or the other. Ashibaka tock 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

EC: I find it hard to believe that you did this in a good-faith effort to solve an edit conflict, especially in light of your other actions with templates (which you are still performing, last I checked). As I've said, you've been attempting to rape process and policy for months now. In the last two months, you have single-handedly managed to violate nearly every policy on Wikipedia, ranging from WP:CIV to WP:DEL to WP:ADMIN. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a chill pill. Ashibaka tock 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You're calling someone on WP:CIVIL after that comment? Rx StrangeLove 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User contributions for MarkSweep

1. 02:04, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (subst alt) (top) [rollback]
2. 02:03, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (substing)
3. 02:02, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Army1987 (substing) (top) [rollback]
4. 02:00, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:VdSV9 (substing) (top) [rollback]
5. 02:00, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Lord Snoeckx (substing) (top) [rollback]
6. 01:57, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Moriane (substing) (top) [rollback]
7. 01:57, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Corvenik (substing) (top) [rollback]
8. 01:57, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Tanyiliang (substing) (top) [rollback]
9. 01:56, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Crashnburn1988 (substing) (top) [rollback]
10. 01:56, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Lilyha (substing) (top) [rollback]
11. 01:55, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Infil00p (substing) (top) [rollback]
12. 01:54, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Template:User ITV1 (rm red link) (top) [rollback]
13. 01:54, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:R4000/Userboxes (substing) (top) [rollback]
14. 01:53, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Travlr23 (substing) (top) [rollback]
15. 01:53, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Vargher (substing) (top) [rollback]
16. 01:52, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:DinoMo (substing) (top) [rollback]
17. 01:52, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User:FurciferRNB (rsc) (top) [rollback]
18. 01:51, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:FurciferRNB (substing)
19. 01:51, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Sumthingweird (rsc) (top) [rollback]
20. 01:50, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Sumthingweird (substing)
21. 01:50, 2 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Arny (substing) (top) [rollback]

While there might be a valid reason for your actions here, so I won't vote one way or the other yet, saying "it was an unused orphan so I deleted it" is quite dishonest. Ashibaka tock 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a rather elegant solution for a silly problem involving a template that wasn't widely used in the first place. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not being helpful. I think I understand why you deleted this-- you were taking sides in an edit war, and you wanted to make sure the box was being displayed the "right way" so you subst'ed all instances and deleted it to end the edit war in your favor-- but you have neither apologized for your misstatement above nor provided some sort of rationale for this besides it being "silly". I might even be wrong with my hypothesis, but there's no way to know because you haven't explained yourself. Ashibaka tock 07:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a little good faith? You can check for yourself that I wasn't involved in any way in that edit war. Besides, deleting it is really the ultimate form of not taking sides. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were involved in the edit war itself. I said you were taking sides. And the method I described above is a way of taking sides. Once again, feel free to prove me wrong. Ashibaka tock 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument makes even less sense than a "wrong version" complaint after a page protection. In this case, everyone who wanted to use the template text is still using it. The text is not protected or restricted in any way, shape or form. Whoever has it on their userpage can modify it any way they like (within very broad limits). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an attempt to circumenvent policy and process. You've been trying to delete templates that you personally disagree with for ages. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep has excalated to deleting Categori3es he disagrees with, like Category:Neopagan Wikipedians & Category:Wiccan Wikipedians, which would seem to point toward a lack of good faith. Alex Law 23:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete seems to be in line with the unofficial userbox policy, and it actually has some relation to Wikipedia unlike these livejournal or DeviantArt userboxes.  Grue  07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this article was NOT about a religion, it was NOT about a political party, it WAS a template related to Wikipedia, and it is NOT anywhere near a T1 speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I see nothing wrong with this userbox template, and it seems that it wasn't orphaned before the user stepped in. Therefore, claiming it was an orphaned template is wrong. MiraLuka 08:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It's trying to advertise a highly inflammatory, libelous website, and is therefore divisive. Mark came up with a good compromise. Let it be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore - Was deleted with no valid reason - template was deliberately removed from many pages by MarkSweep so he could then use "Orphaned" deletion excuse - See http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_policy_to_justify_template_deletion --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Just write it on your userpages, kids. No reason for Wikipedia to think having a trolls' club in template space is actually a good idea. Grace Note 09:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The only troll I see there is this one. Seriously, it's an open website for criticism of Wikimedia services, both positive and negative. There are some problems still to work out with it, but we're not a "troll's club", which is probably why you feel so unwelcome there. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. There is currently no Wikipedia policy against the use of userboxes which link to a website that not everyone is in love with, so there is no justification for speedying this; WP:NOT might be a reason to put up for WP:TfD, but is not, in itself, a justification for speedying, especially once that speedy's been disputed. Also, arbitrarily picking this site while not deleting userboxes with equally inflammatory or libellous (but significantly less potentially valuable) sites linked to, like Uncyclopedia, is just asking for trouble. Wait until a Userbox policy is in plate, then implement it. Arbitrary rogue action against userboxes will only incite even more controversy and strife and disunity, and thus directly harms the Wikipedia project. As such, MarkSweep's recent actions have been very poorly-timed and unhelpful in resolving this conflict, though I see no reason to believe he did any of it in bad faith; please avoid lobbying accusations of trying to sneakily support one side of an edit-war unless there is evidence that this actually happened. It seems more likely that if he was trying to push for any "version" of the template, it was for the version that isn't a template at all, based on his history of intense intolerance for userboxes and usercategories of all kinds. Let's tone it down, undelete this silly userbox, and resume discussing how best to handle all of them, not an arbitrary few. -Silence 09:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted If you want it, keep it in your userspace. No need for such a hateful thing in template space. We need not be straight jacketed by policy when faced with this sort of thing. That concept was even part of a policy somewhere. Rx StrangeLove 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG and SPEEDY undelete - deleted out-of-process under false guise. Harmless. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:23 UTC (2006-03-03)

• keep deleted. Enough already. El_C 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you mean "undelete"? Because I don't understand what "enough already" refers to.  Grue  12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever. El_C 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted like El C said.--Alhutch 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and give MarkSweep a medal for coming up with this solution. David | Talk 13:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Any userbox that does not directly contribute to building Wikipedia should be non-transclused. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 14:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete JSIN 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'd be happy to support a policy narrow enough not to allow this as a template. But there was no need to undelete it in advance of developing such a policy. Action was unnecessary and provocative. Metamagician3000 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Moe ε 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If people feel that this needs to be deleted, it should be discussed on TFD. "unused" is not a CSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where (talk • contribs)
• Undelete. Not even POV, it states a basic fact. Gerard Foley 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Agree with Gerard. Delibately removing images and substing templates and then announcing that they are ophaned and so much be deleted is a gross abuse of procedure. This fad, and the fad of deleting innocuous templates unilaterally without even a vote had to stop. It is proving far more divisive than supposedly divisive templates. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as 1)process used for deletion was kind of questionable -- the same process (subst all, then delete as orphan) could be used on any userbox, including the language ones, so I'm not sure that that's a good precedent, and 2) While I understand the need to clear out religious, political, and obnoxious userboxes, I haven't gotten a clear sense that userboxes that address internal Wiki issues in a non-inflammatory manner are speediable. 3) What's wrong with Wikipedia Review? I look at it sometimes myself. Isn't it sort of a third-party adjunct to Wikipedia? It's not that great but sometimes they have something of interest. Herostratus 01:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mperry 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. And why has the file not been restored and this poll closed by now? Reading this http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Restoring_the_page_.28for_admins.29 and taking into account that this was listed on the March 2 and its now March 13 ... This place is either very unorganized or the people in charge are deliberately ignoring the decision of the voters. --Bob, just Bob 10:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and wait until we have a consensus policy before engaging in more deletions of boxes in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Immortal

This page has been restored per consensus, potentially deleted out of process as T1 This restoral does not endorse or condone the content of this page, nor does it make it ineligable for a deletion discussion -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This only says that the user is immortal. User:UninvitedCompany deleted this as a T1. I don't even understand how this could be even seen as divisive. This is one of the few userboxes on my page that I don't have subst because I thought it wouldn't be controversial. It is only a statement of fact. I created this because as a Greek God, I am Immortal. Please Undelete.--God Ω War 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per my reasons given above.--God Ω War 04:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is meant to be serious, rather than (or in addition to) humor, perhaps it should be added to the "religion userboxes" debate? :) Seems more efficient to group them all together (especially since some of the religion userboxes are also meant to be partly humorous, like the two still-deleted Flying Spaghetti Monsterism templates) than to start up a whole new debate. And it doesn't seem that different from, say, "This user is God" ({{user God}}), which was recently undeleted (and subsequently redeleted) as well. -Silence 10:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. However the box is interpreted - as a joke or whatever - there was no need to delete it. Metamagician3000 11:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. Moe ε 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive Where ^(talk) 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I use(d) it to express believe in immortality, but not in the religious sense. Bayerischermann 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note that a large number of the deleted boxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion did not express strictly "religious" views either. The page encompassed all types of spiritual, supernatural, paranormal, etc. beliefs and interests, including "this user believes in luck", "this user believes in a human soul", "this user doesn't believe in Santa Claus", "this user is interested in the Tarot", and also all the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Zodiac boxes (though we had so many of them that they were moved to a separate page for organizational purposes, which as a result caused User:Improv to spare them in his mass-deletion of boxes on that page, even while he deleted "this user is interested in the Tarot", etc. If the boxes are undeleted, this one will probably be added to the religion-userboxes page, now that I know it's not just a joke. (It can also, of course, be kept in its original location, as one of the "age" userboxes.) -Silence 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Why are you trying to turn it into a religous userbox. When I created this, the AGE userbox list didn't have one that described me, the God of War, so I created one. It is a statement of fact, nothing more.--God Ω War 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• UndeleteDanielDemaret 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stupid template, but if people want to use it so what? Gerard Foley 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The merely silly should probably be left alone for morale purposes. Herostratus 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 03:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Uninvited Company has been deleting a lot of userboxes s/he finds personally offensive out of process and against current policy. Sophy's Duckling 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per this deletion being fucking ridiculous. (WP:NOT censored.) Rogue 9 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• RESTORED SEE TOP OF SECTION -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion

These were deleted without consensus and are not inflammatory. —Guanaco 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It doesn't even seem that all of them were deleted. Why leave some and not others? And these: {{user religion psychological}} {{user religion anthropological}} {{user religion aesthetic}} {{user religion metaphysical}}, even more than the others, should be restored. They show interest in the study of religion, they don't express a view. MiraLuka 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. They don't need to be in templates. You can say whatever you want on your user page (subject to the standard rules on user page content) without transcluding userbox templates. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the most part. Speedy any that were missed, restore the ones that do not express partisanship on religion. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete — few of them is speediable under CSD:T1, the userboxes are stating facts, no purpouse to be divisive or inflamatory _→AzaToth 04:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all and reprimand the admins responsible for this blatant abuse of T1. These are not "polemical and inflammatory", unless you attempt to stretch those words far beyond their original meaning. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blu Aardvark, could you try to keep things civil? --Improv 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, although there's far too much incivility in general in these userbox debates, I don't see a single thing uncivil about Blu Aardvark's above comment. He's being perfectly reasonable in the course he's endorsing; you just disagree with his assessment, which is also reasonable. Explain, Improv, why your deletion of all religion-related userboxes (even ones like "This user is interested in religion for sociological or historical reasons") falls under the speedy-deletion criteron T1: "Polemical and inflammatory" (i.e. designed to offend and provoke others). If you can persuasively explain your reasoning (as you attempted to do below, on Template:User atheist), Blu Aardvark may actually change his vote; but if you merely accuse him of incivility, you'll only escalate the conflict and possibly offend him, which surely isn't your intent. -Silence 06:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think his 2¢ is incivil, but rather that his suggestion to reprimand people people is. It would be just as incivil if I suggested that anyone who wants undeletion deserves a reprimand. I have already explained at great length on my userpage my position on the matter, for the interested. I'm just suggesting that regardless of the content of the discussion, we remain civil to each other. --Improv 06:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it's uncivil for him to ask for the relevant parties to be reprimanded if he genuinely believes that they have abused their administrator privileges, which one could certainly argue they have. He's simply endorsing a specific course of action; it's not like he said "string 'em up" or called them "vandals", as some of the users below did (and I criticized them for doing so); he simply feels that this mass-deletion is over-the-line and neither in keeping with the spirit nor the letter of the law (and it's certainly indisputable that your actions were not in keeping with the letter of the law; only the spirit is currently under real discussion). If he wants to tone down his comments, that might not be a bad idea, since demanding that someone you're discussing a matter with be reprimanded for his actions can potentially be counter-productive to an open exchange of ideas and can lead to similarly negative reactions (like your own). But he's not being incivil just because he's asking that certain admins be reprimanded. In general, incivility is the way you say something more than what you say. Few ideas are inherently uncivil, but almost any idea can be expressed in an uncivil way (e.g., "reprimand the admins responsible for being dictatorial assholes" rather than simply "reprimand the admins responsible for this blatant abuse of T1"). -Silence 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Edit Conflict I understand your concern, but may I point out that there is a difference between deleting a single template as T1, and deciding to delete an entire category of userboxes under that criteria? One template causes conflict, sure. But systematically deleting userboxes leads to conflicts like these. Such actions invite lynch mobs and disruption, and in light of the numerous escalated conflicts that have occured, indicate severely poor judgement. I do not necessarily believe that these admins should be desysopped, but they should at least be warned or otherwise reprimanded, so that this type of disruption does not continue to occur. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I support Blu Aardvark here. Whoever did this abused their powers. That was an uncivil, or at least deeply unfriendly, act. Pointing it out and saying that they deserve some sort of reprimand is a statement of opinion. It's one that I more or less agree with. I don't want anything terrible to happen to whoever it was, but someone should make clear that it was, at the least, unnecessarily provocative. Metamagician3000 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Divisive, T1, etc. --Improv 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all because there is currently no speedy-deletion criterion that encompasses any of the userboxes on this page that were speedy-deleted (with one exception: the "This user has studied Christianity and doesn't like it" or something like that), which isn't listed on the page currently. leave that one deleted, it is clearly T1). Even if you personally believe that all userboxes (or all that express POVs) should be done away with, that view is not currently supported by Wikipedia policy and cannot be sustained. If, after a userbox policy is finally implemented (there are several currently under vote), it is decided that userboxes that express POVs should be done away with, but userboxes that express user interests are fine, then the correct course of action is to replace these userboxes with interest-based userboxes (and leave the interest-based ones that are already there alone: why in God's name was "This user is interested in the Tarot" deleted?! how is that polemical or inflammatory?!) for each topic where that is feasible. Thus, move {{user religion interest}} to {{user religion}} and have it still say "This user is interested in religion"; change {{user spiritual}} to {{user spirituality}} and have it say "This user is interested in spirituality" (which is currently a popular WikiPortal!), not "This user is spiritual". Do the same for all the rest: move {{user christian}} to {{user christianity}} and have it say "This user is interested in Christianity", not "This user is Christian". Divide users by their interests, and thus by their areas of expertise, by what articles they tend to or would be willing to edit, etc., thus instantly making the userboxes relevant and useful towards Wikipedia by making them tools for contacting editors who work on (or could work on) articles together, not tools for factionalizing based on POV. That seems like the only real compromise there could be between users who want to be able to identify their association with Paganism or Atheism or Shinto or whatever using systematized userboxes, and users who want to ban all userboxes expressing a POV: you don't need a certain POV to be interested or involved in any topic (I'm not religious but am enormously involved and interested in religion-based articles, for example), so this would eliminate all possible negative sideaffects of dividing users by religion, while preserving the positive, community-growing aspects of userboxes. -Silence 06:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - People should be able to express that, and I don't think it should offend anyone. --Arny 10:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. If you want to declare your religion in a box on your userpage, make your own. David | Talk 12:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted except the study versions. Rich Farmbrough 13:14 27 February 2006 (UTC).
• Undelete, current policy does not justify the speedy deletions. I would say to send to TfD, but they already survived there by overwhelming consensus, so there would be little point. Rogue 9 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and recreate. Sorry if you think this is uncivil, but deleting the entire category is vandalism and provocative. given the debates that have been going on for weeks, I can't assume that improv didn't know this was a contentious issue so I cannot assume good faith without rolling my eyes. This mass deleition looks like it was ment as a WP:POINT and to impose an admin's will to me, especally while a policy is being developed. I think improv should be RfCd or RfAd. There, I said it.Mike McGregor (Can) 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. At least where religious faiths are concerned, users who want labels on their user pages proclaiming that they hold to a religious belief are making a declaration of interest and/or expertise in matters concerning that faith. I cannot share a belief that such labels are "divisive or inflammatory" per se, which seems to be the assumption. Moreover, the trend seems to be not only to delete the templates, but also to make them protected deleted pages, which hides the history and the sometimes rather arcane code that used to be in them from users who are not admins, and prevents ordinary editors from even viewing what used to be there to include in their pages without transcluding it. If you are going to delete the templates, you could at least do the users the courtesy of preserving their source material for those who want to keep it without transclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• It works like this. If they delete it and do not impose protection, there is the danger of redlinked template showing up on people's userpages, and consequently, the possibilty that more people may go to DRV, see the discussion, and argue for the template's undeletion. By protecting it deleted (with the notice in <noinclude> tags), it simply transcludes blank, and the deletion isn't as obvious. Now, why would an admin not want their deletion to be obvious? Hmm... --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. I can tell you exactly why the deletion notice was put in the noinclude: so that it wouldn't wreck all of the other userboxes on people's pages and cause them to complain. It has nothing to do with trying to carry out secret midnight deletions. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Even by the new policy, these are acceptable. For instance a jewish wikipedian would have more knowledge that would help him work on the Judaism articles. Religion in itself is not inflammatory. Immediate undelete.--God of War 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Stop this madness! Undelete all obviously, hold on (i.e. stop further deletions) and wait for a solution. Then inform users of a new policy, help them with subst:ing and finally delete. Is it that difficult? Oh, and one more thing I came up with recently. An exception from every speedy template: "Administrators, remember to check if anything links here..." Need I say more? Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all These are vital and were deleted by Improv out of bias. --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. And God of War, these are NOT allowed according to the policy poll; please re-read it again. --Cyde Weys 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • • Look again cyde, It says that usrboxes relating to the wikipedia project will be kept. Users that have a certain religion are more qualified to edit articles about their religion. So this userbox is actually useful to the project.--God Ω War 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

      I don't think that's necessarily true, God of War. There are lots of believers who aren't very knowledgable, and lots of very knowledgable non-believers, about any particular religion. The experts find their articles without userboxen. Religion userboxes are very useful for finding those who value their group identification and who might be willing to help you stack a vote if you appeal to their religious feelings rather than their reason. It happens; it shoud stop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Undelete for the love of the unoffensive deity of your choice, should you care to choose one at all. Coolgamer 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It is sad that a few admins are allowing zeal to get in the way of a sensible debate. Either Wikipedia supports this form of expression, in which case templates are legitimate, or it doesn't, in which case they're not. The current schizophrenia needs to be resolved before action is taken. Recent events are not condoned by CSD:T1. Andy 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why is Wikipedia not allowing memebers to support their affiliation on thier own pages? There is nothing offensive in relgion. In fact memebers of the same relgion can easily identify each other and start and work on projects relaitng to the specific religion. Please keep it undeleted.Bless sins 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all. This is a suboptimal situation and may be an attempt to thwart consensus. Stifle 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete whats wrong with saying what your religion is? Imagine you were writing an article about say, the Mar Thoma Christians and you'd forgotten the name of some important religious concept that was on the tip of your tongue - its quick to go and ask someone with a Mar Thoma userbox. And in the case of POV pushing, it produces a stalemate - no one side is at an advantage by knowing which users have similar pov, wheras presently it is quite plausible for one side to have this unjust advantage. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Homestarmy 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all Bkwillwm 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all without delay    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hermeneus (user/talk) 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all Their deletion was an outrageous abuse of power. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all All userboxes are divisive. I mean, maybe we should delete all the time zone boxes because they divide the GMTers from the GMT+1ers. Or how about those Citizen of the World boxes? What about the people who aren't Citizens of the World? I understand that some of the userboxes need to be deleted, but we don't need to single out the religious userboxes simply because they state opinions that others may not hold. joturner 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all as I fail to see how a simple statement about an individual's beliefs is "divisive and inflammatory" (the wording in CSD T1.) And, if such statements are "divisive and inflammatory" for some reason that I am not grokking, why does the format (template containing cute little box vs. hard-coded cute little box vs. prose) affect its acceptability? -- AJR | Talk 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all, not divisive or inflammatory. JSIN 11:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all speedily. Deletion was not necessary. If any such boxes are to be deleted in the future it should only be if there is, by that time, a policy in place that has general acceptance and appropriate protections. That is not yet the case. Metamagician3000 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No need for them. Useless, irritating.--Jyril 17:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't see why religion is that big an issue. I say if you don't like the userbox, don't look at it. Moe ε 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD I don't think these userboxes should be around, but it is out of process for them to be speedily deleted. We should undelete them and list on TFD to let the community decide. Administrators should not be able to decide for the community. Where ^(talk) 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and wait for the result of the poll on the userbox policy ChaTo 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and scream ABUSE, send them to TFD if you dont like them or wait for the policy. Discordance 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I fail to see the problem with them. Gerard Foley 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's absurd that there are no userboxes for what is, for many Wikipedians, the central focus of their lives. To assert that mentioning religion is "divisive and inflammatory" is an example of another religion - the religion of tolerance - at its absolute worst. Waitak 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete after due consideration, SqueakBox 14:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - TheKeith 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete All, They should not have been deleted in the first place Brian | (Talk) 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete because why not just let people say what they believe in? People can still be divisive about choice of religion without having userboxes, and the userbox doesn't change that. Keep in mind that this is a free encyclopædia.--Methegreat 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Be fair. Either delete all the "This user is a (insert religion here)" templates, or keep them all. I do not care which - just do not, as is the current situation, keep templates like "This user is a Christian" and delete templates like "This user is a pagan." I don't care any more whether these userboxes are kept or deleted as long as they are not deleted selectively to enforce someone's POV, which is what I see happening here and with the sexuality userboxes. (Oh, and Template:User religion interest and its ilk should be an obvious keep, but you knew that.) - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If any moderator has a problem, he or she should put the template up for a deletion debate. Sophy's Duckling 11:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all The userboxes promote honesty at the Wikipedia. The truth is that people have biases and perspectives to which they are attached. Self-describing these biases makes the Wikipedia more credible. I agree the Admins involved should be reprimanded for the actions they have already taken, the manner in which they were taken, and the lack of respect for discussion surrounding the action at the time it was taken. ManVhv 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as soon as - And, It should be supported about Christian(protestant, chatollic Buddhist and Islam AS SOON AS. - Ellif 04:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• 39 to undelete, 7 to keep deleted. These userboxes are coming back. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that I have listed Template:User satanist for TFD however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy, again

Why was this deleted? According to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 19/Userboxes#Template:User admins ignoring policy, the result of the deletion debate was "Keep". Anybody know? (And should I post this to AN/I instead?) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete. I brought this to to TFD to get it deleted but failed. It was then speedied and brought to DRV, where at least a majority voted to undelete it. It was then brought to TFD a second time and again, no consensus to delete it emerged. I personally would like to see this rather polemic template gone, but I think it is better to let it stay than give users an excuse to use it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per nom and Sjakkalle. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• More of the same, restore. To delete this as "by a banned user" is too much of a stretch. - brenneman^{T}{L} 13:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, how does an attack template help us to build an encyclopedia? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you consider this template an attack on yourself, you'd better resign for the good of Wikipedia. We don't need admins ignoring policy.  Grue  09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What part of WP:IAR were these users having trouble understanding? Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are admins ignoring WP:IAR. I think the part "use common sense, and don't be a dick" is violated the most often.  Grue  22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mechanisms exist to deal with abuse of admin rights. Last war over userboxes resulted in Radiant leaving the project. This userbox is invitation for self-escalating wars. Pavel Vozenilek 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per previous and ongoing TfDs. —Andux^␅ 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Pavel. pretty clearly divisive.
• Keep Undeleted if it's divisive, we just need to desysop some admins.  Grue  12:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. David | Talk 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No transclusable divisive boxes. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. It'd bother me if it named specific admins, but I think it's ok to express annoyance about admins who don't follow the rules they have been appointed to uphold. This is entirely in keeping with WP's aspiractions. --Leifern 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - DRV has ruled this undeleted - TFD was inconclusive. Regardless of the merits of this template the only way to delete should have been through a second TFD nomination.--God Ω War 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly unacceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per User:Leifern Avalon 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, acceptable. JSIN 11:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This was deleted against consensus. Personally, I don't think this is the sort of thing that a future policy should allow in template space, but deleting it in the absence of a well-accepted policy is premature and provocative. Metamagician3000 12:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, isn't there some policy regulating how often can an article/template be put up for XfD? If there isn't, shouldn't there be one? Without it, it's highly disruptive. Misza13 ^{T C E} 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not divisive. Moe ε 18:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stupid template, but if people want to use it so what? Gerard Foley 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What's the problem with this one. Seems not to be a T1. Bring it up to TfD, or, if you want, propose a policy that prohibits use of templates to reflect positions on internal Wiki matters.Herostratus 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mperry 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete There should be a moratorium on T1 until an agreement on just what the hell it means.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• This template was speedy undeleted by Geni as it was the subject of two previous TFDs ending with "keep" or "no consensus" and a DRV which ended with "undelete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User flag Estonia

In Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions, Template:User flag Australia was one of several listed userbox templates decided to be kept. Since User flag Estonia is the almost the same thing, it should be undeleted as well. Bayerischermann 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above. --Thorri 11:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted If you want this on your user page, use {{Userbox}}. I don't see how this contributes to building Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How is this different from Template:User flag Australia? Bayerischermann 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• undelete and (please) hold off on new nominations and creations until the policy has been decided. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. A compromise policy appears very close to being worked out and all of this subjective deletion activity just makes matters harder to cleanup. --StuffOfInterest 18:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, because I dare say that admins wield a mop, rather the a sceptre! Babajobu 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Outward directed advocacy. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Donald Albury. David | Talk 12:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. Rogue 9 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone! Coolgamer 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like it got restored, anyway. Bayerischermann 05:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Unionist

Currently listed here http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_14#Template:User_Irish_Republican . Result should be keep. But was deleted. helohe (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Perhaps you've heard of the IRA? this is very definitely capable of being divisive, and could be used for POV-pushing. Just because the votes on userboxes are inherently skewed by the fact that those most likely to see them are those with a vested interest in the userbox shouldn't result in consistant bad decisions. Michael Ralston 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. This has already survived TFD. I'd undelete it myself, but I'm afraid to "wheel war". —Guanaco 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as inappropriate use of the Template: namespace. If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace, not in templatespace. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Good grief! A Unionist supports Unionism or more specifically the Union of Ireland/Northern Ireland with the British crown; not bloody unions. At least know what is is you want to delete before saying it should be deleted! Jooler 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Guanaco. The Ungovernable Force 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per User:Guanaco -- Avalon 02:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Wikipedia. Proto||type 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and sanction deleter for Vandalism. a consensus to keep is a consensus to keep.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'd also kindly ask users to stop referring to admins as vandals. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By Michael Ralston: "Perhaps you've heard of the IRA?" Please explain what this has to do with the IRA.
    • My point is simply this: People feel strongly enough about closely-related topics to bomb things. We have no need to be able to advocate for a position. Michael Ralston 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I still don't follow you. My question was: What has the IRA got to do with the subject we are discussing? --Mal 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By Cyde Weys: "If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace". lol! I propose you edu'macate yerself mate! The userbox Unionist was not anything to do with trade Unionism, but a political Unionist ideology in the UK. --Mal 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consensus was reached. --Mal 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RfC deleter. This is getting crazy. A consensus was reached. It is pure arrogance to overrule a community decision in that way. The template is about support for a political party. That is perfectly valid template. And no, Cyde, it has nothing to do with unions. Please learn what the template is about before criticising it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's probably inappropriate to speedy something that already survived TfD, even if the justification is supposed to be from Jimbo's T1. To apply Jimbo's word, one needs Jimbo clarification that he wants it to override consensus. --AySz88^-^ 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, consensus to keep at TfD, on what grounds was it speedy deleted? "WP:NOT a place where admins get to do whatever the hell they want for no good reason." Admins hold a mop, not a sceptre. Babajobu 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Appropriate. Mops are better than scepters for cleaning up crud. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete- *Due to the stress of the deletion of userboxes, this user is incapable of forming coherent thoughts.* Coolgamer 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is no reason to overule community consensus to delete a userbox that is hardly objectionable, especially when 1) these actions are known to cause conflict, and 2) an attempt to hammer out a concrete policy on userboxes is being worked on. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Irish_Republican

Currently listed here http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_14#Template:User_Irish_Republican. With consensus keep. But somebody deleted it and set the result of the discussion to delete. helohe (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Look at the Unionist box. It seems clear that both should have the same fate, whatever that might be. Michael Ralston 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. This has already survived TFD. I'd undelete it myself, but I'm afraid to "wheel war". —Guanaco 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as inappropriate use of the Template: namespace. If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace, not in templatespace. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Again this has nothing to do with unions. How can you say something should be deleted when you don't even know what it is is! Jooler 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per User:Guanaco -- Avalon 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Wikipedia. Proto||type 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per the consensus reached on TFD. Stifle 13:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per consensus reached. and sanction deleter for Vandalism. Also, please list all the reason's your TfDing somthing on the first nomination, rather then nominating the box again and again for diffrent reasons until it slips through. (stop gaming the system)Mike McGregor (Can) 13:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consensus was reached. --Mal 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for Michael Ralston: The equivalent for Unionist is Nationalist not Republican. --Mal 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Unlike the template above, which is clearly defined (ie, about a party with a clear definition, agenda and policies), Irish republican is a POV concept that is used to push electoral agendas by saying "I'm a true republican. You are not". That oversteps the line between a statement of clearly defined allegiance and self-proclaimed advocacy of a claim to be the true holder of a name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually you have a kind of point. Although I should note that "Unionist" isn't necessarily about a single political party. However, your point about POV regarding this userbox does make logical sense to me. I'd like to note that I can't see any reasons for opposing the undeletion of the 'User Irish Nationalist' userbox which I think also existed until recently. It was never proposed for deletion however. In fact, if I knew what exactly it was called, I'd propose it for undeletion here. --Mal 08:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let us agree that admins hold a mop, not a sceptre, and that this should not have been speedy deleted by a common mop-holder. Babajobu 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete- Coolgamer 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Abuse of official template namespace. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why cant they have some pride?! --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User relirespect

Content was "This user repects other people's religions and realises that not all people wish to follow the same path." Deemed as a T1 candidate, "divisive and inflammatory", by the deleting admin. Not sure I agree with that assessment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep If this is inflammatory and devisive, then I'm Martha Stewart. --D-Day ^{Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody!} 13:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this is exactly the opposite of T1. Stifle 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Gross misapplication of T1, whch in and of itself needs to be rewritten into objective terms. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is not deleteable as T1. helohe (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete, hold all your actions (i.e. both creation and deletion) and instead of wasting your precious time on DRV's/TfD's start working on a solution (or write an encyclopedia instead - it's not done the last time I've checked). Hint: there is a solution being worked out - why don't you join? Misza13 ^(Talk) 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and stop using T1 until there's a consensus of just what the hell falls under it. T1 is being used WAY TOO BROADLY and INDESCRIMINATLY by a few admins on a rampage. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete that is the very polar opposite of divisive and inflammatory. We either need to beat the administrators who are doing this anti-userbox jihad with boards with rusty nails in them, or they need to stop doing this shit. It's really ticking me off. Janizary 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - The opposite of this, "This user doesn't respect other religions and thinks that their own is the one true path," would surely be considered divisive, so this is too. And believe it or not there are lots of people who don't respect other religions and thus this template would be divisive. And since this is a statement of POV it sure as hell shouldn't be in Template: anyway. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I also request that all babelboxes be speedied as well as divisive (categorising people by their lingual skills is just plain sick!), inflammatory (example: {{user en-4}} clearly inflames me as I can't speak english that well) and polemical (inspires discussions whether a certain level should be required to be allowed to contribute). Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea... thats just bad logic clyde, just because a non-existant userbox thats the opposite of this would be considered divisive (by you) dosen't make this one a canidate for speedy-dee. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Clearly not T1 canidate. Sanction deleter for intentional misuse of T1, this is just trolling.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted - If someone had the opposite box, people would be angry. Those willing to make this sort of statement do in fact have a POV on a topic that could concievably be used to organize opposition. Babelboxes are an entirely different case, because they serve a clear purpose for the encyclopedia - these sorts of userboxes do not. Michael Ralston 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Wikipedia. Proto||type 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, CSD T1 couldn't possibly apply less to this userbox. Admins hold a mop, not a scepter, let's not be wikiMamluks! Babajobu 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - HAHAHA! Boy, that was a good one, you almost got me! Nice April Fool's gag... *checks date*... Wait a second... Coolgamer 22:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per D-Day. This is in no way divisive or inflammatory. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Undelete - this is not T1. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:42 UTC (2006-02-25)
• Undelete This is not divisive or inflammitory. --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:user fsm

This user believes in the Noodly Appendage of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

2006-02-21 00:41, Improv deleted a set of Flying Spaghetti Monster templates, much like all of his other actions with userboxes, it was without reason nor with any discussion. This is most egregious and I find that this is insulting that someone would completely overstep the processes by which all users are supposed to have templates removed simply because they have an opinion that what others have done is wrong. Despite what people like Improv think, these actions are not helping the Wikipedia, but rather causing increased conflict where if they would simply behave properly there would be none. These kinds of acts of disrespect and self-superiour "tidying" will only breed a greater hatred for the people who are supposed to be top tier members of the community. I call for it's undeletion. Janizary 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This is an invalid usage of the Template: namespace for something of silly and nonencyclopedic value. Additionally, this template is divisive and easily qualifies under T1. You'd be surprised how many fundies can't take the joke and perceive it as a direct attack upon their religion. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, but you say pretty much the same thing about every userbox. Does my opinion not count? Is completely discounting my beliefs any better? I take insult in the implecating of some imaginary father figure sitting on a cloud watching me masterbate and shaking his head, I take it as a direct attack on common sense and my beliefs. Does that mean that noone is allowed to say "I'm a christian" on their userpage? If that's so, you may as well begin working on removing the userpage functionality. If people are that intolerant, then they should learn to lighten the hell up. Also, have you considered making a template for your "nonencyclopedic value" and "divisive" schtick, it'd make voting against all the userboxes easier. Janizary 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• If we could say that about all userboxes then all userboxes could be deleted and I would be very happy. If only that were the solution everyone could agree on :-P Cyde Weys 05:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Personally, I find the FSM amusing ... but I can easily see how it could be divisive and used in order to stack votes and/or organize POV pushing on, eg, religious topics. I'd say it qualifies under T1. Michael Ralston 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that everyone who's voted Keep or Undelete so far (save for Janizary) has a message in their talk page FROM Janizary, specifically relating to this discussion. I'd hope any admin paying attention to this takes that into account. Michael Ralston 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have a message from him and I say undelete. Not divisive, inflammatory or polemical. If you want to stop vote stacking, edit it so there is no category it links to, if you want to get it out of template space, put a tag on it (and all useboxes) saying that in "x" days they will all be deleted, giving people a chance to subset. The Ungovernable Force 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG KEEP - It should be CRIME to simply delete a userbox that a person disagress with personally. I know about the stupid reasons for deleting the userboxs. They are bogus. If someone wants to spam users of certain beliefs, they can look at categories or the history of edits of a particular article. Userboxes should NOT be blamed for this crap. How does someone with such poor judgement even attain admin status? What he did is akin to Nazi book-burning. There are literally a TON of userboxes that display a fun aspect of people personalities' and deleteing this one is just the same as deleting one that says "I like cheerios". But it isn't cheerios. It's creationism VS. evolution and I do not take this debate lightly. I remain very Pro-Evolution and I am proud to say that every edit and article to Wikipedia is very NPOV. I simply put a userbox on my USER page stating that I think creationism is wrong. and Improv doesn't like that so the fuckwad deleted it! Allowing this to occur is a CRIME against free-thinkers. I am totally on board with Janizary in thinking that this is WRONG and that WAY too much time has been wasted arguing about something truly trivial that only USERS will ever see! If I get chastised for making remarks about other users, so be it. If policy here is to allow administrators to delete things they disagree with then show me the door. Say goodbye to all my edits and articles to come. Undelete the fsm template and GO BACK TO WRITING FUCKING ARTICLES!!! MiracleMat 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • May I point out that Improv holds a stance /far/ more in agreement with the FSM than in opposition to it? His reason for deleting it was because it was a POV-related template, and he is and has been working on removing those. It's not merely that specific template - it's all like it. As for writing articles ... may I point out that by complaining about this, you're not actually doing so either? Michael Ralston 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On a semi-unrelated note, I think anyone using such hyperbole kind of disqualifies what they have to say. It should be a crime?! C'mon, that's ridiculous. I'm used to seeing various religious people play the persecution card, but it is very unbecoming coming from a fellow "free-thinker". Please understand, all of the real religion userboxes are gone and this had to go with it. --Cyde Weys 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've always felt that userboxes created a (small) sense of community for people like myself, who contribute when possible, but aren't as active as some(most). As far as being offensive goes, if we did delete everything that was offensive, Wikipedia would be significantly smaller, and significantly less popular. It'd mean that articles on just about every religion would be deleted, as well as articles on history and biographies. Userboxes may be of a different class than articles, but because they are only displayed on userpages, I see no reason why any userbox should be deleted. They're kind of like trading cards... just something different you can do.
  
  On a related note, I think at the least speedy deletion should only be limited to userboxes that are beyond a reasonable doubt intentionally divisive, malicious, or otherwise harmful.James Brooks 08:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing is, we really don't need "something else you can do" on Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Our sole goal here is to build an encyclopedia. You shouldn't be bothered with playing with "trading cards" or whatever. If you want to mess around with little colored boxes I'm sure you can get some webspace somewhere where you can do it. --Cyde Weys 09:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Deleting userboxes is getting a new sport for some admins here. C'mon have you notting better to do? There are many articles that have to be improoved. helohe (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This contains two fallacies. Number one, you are trying to decide for other people what would be a good expenditure of their time, which is unacceptable. Two, you are being hypocritical about what you consider a waste of time ... so actually doing something and deleting a template is a waste of time, but complaining about it isn't? --Cyde Weys 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to use my time on this, as deleting the boxes messes up my user page. Btw.: I think userboxes are a perfect way to get people together with common interests. eg. If i would like to find someone wo helps to extend the FSM article I could click on the Fws userbox category to get some people. helohe (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete What's the BFD? Fsiler 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe the fact that editors seem to be attempting to create a false consensus by using these boxes as a method of finding people who agree with them? That's a bit of a problem, seeing as how that harms the encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per sanity. And the fact that the box is divisive. Proto||type 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - It was deleted illegitimately! Deleting them is kind of irrational since we can always make userboxes of our own. Having them as templates only brings this community closer. Heck, I think I'll go make myself a new FSM userbox right away after posting this! --Thorri 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Dalbury. Stifle 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Saying something is "unhelpful" does not make it "divisive" or "polemic" which are the reasons given for T1, which as I keep saying needs to be rewritten to be objective. --StuffOfInterest 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I fail how an example used to demonstrate the weakness of pseudoscience can possibly be "divisive" or "polemic". It's like banning a userbox that says "This user believes in a round earth", or "this user doesn't believe in heliocentrism". Rob 13:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Put junk on your userpage if you want, don't make templates. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per above arguments. Mike McGregor (Can) 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This should have gone through a deletion review and was not worthy in any way of a speedy. Making this userbox a speedy delete is an abuse of the speedy delete system. Put it up for regular deletion if you think that it deserves to be deleted. I might vote for delete in a regular VfD, but speedy is inappropriate. Harvestdancer 17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This speedy deletion is offensive to followers of the Pastafari path. --Daniel 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I am proud of being a Flying Spaghetti Monsteran and want to show it in my user page. --NorkNork 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Harvestdancer. SushiGeek 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete With Wikipedia, you are entitled to have an opinion. However, you should not let this opinion leak through into your writing. If any FSM believer's beliefs caused articles to be POV, I would understand your reasoning, but, as far as I know, this has not been the case. Just because someone disagrees with something doesn't make it wrong. La Pizza11 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete of course. not divisive, not polemic. this would probably be avoided if the template lived in user space. ... aa:talk 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Undelete as above have said - we either have open userboxes, or we get rid of them. We don't pick and choose. As for many voters having a message in their Talk page.... that's because he wants it undeleted, and it's the only way I knew this was even here. Not very fair with the speedy delete. -- RevRagnarok 01:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are some very scary implications here. I just checked and Janizary has been recruiting "keep" votes on this DRV. How has he been doing it? ... by using the Whatlinkshere on FSM userbox template, naturally. Anyone else find it really ironic that some people are claiming no one ever uses templates for recruitments while at the same time we see templates blatantly being used to recruit votes regarding the template? This discussion has now been tainted by one of the very features of userboxes that make such a strong case for their deletion. To the closing admin: you know what to do. --Cyde Weys 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think most of us have realized that that's exactly what Janizary's point was. It wasn't even slightly subtle. But that's not the real problem. This discussion has been tainted from the very beginning by the inherent cowardice and dishonesty of this act of mass speedy deletion, and of CSD T1 itself. And quite frankly, this issue is an excellent example of why recruiting votes can be a good thing. Microtonal 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do you know what an alternative to my very specific, targetted notifications would have been? I could have gone to every user page that links to the FSM page and put that same message on there. It has a similar usage but would have been me bothering random people that have no reason to be in this discussion. I went to the specific users that should have been aware of the attempt to delete the template, which is what should happen when you're going around trying to delete a template used in a user's page, only those users that used that template. I did not notify the users of the other two FSM templates. Cyde, you are simply a paranoid reactionary that for some reason cannot stand the idea of people sharing their interests with one another on a site where people improve the articles which they are interested in. Janizary 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should look into the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia for an idea why this sort of behaviour is a problem, Janizary. It's not just "reactionaries" who have a problem with the idea of being able to manufacture "consensus" by canvassing among those very likely to have a specific point of view, and thus producing a non-representative sample of wikipedians to express their opinion. (I'd also like to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.) Michael Ralston 06:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Janizary provides a very good example of why userboxes and user categories need to be deleted. --Carnildo 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can we please keep this to reviewing the deletion instead of attacking the everyone on the Undelete side just because one person is abusing the userbox? --AySz88^-^ 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to the comment Several of the people proposing it stay deleted are pointing to Janizary's actions not to attack those in favor of undeletion (indeed, I haven't seen anything I'd consider an actual attack on those other than Janizary voting that way), but because they're an example of why these sorts of userboxes are a threat to wikipedia. Michael Ralston 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• I say undelete simply because it was deleted out of process. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Xen0phile 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, then Userfy, this was speedy deleted as T1. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hermeneus (user/talk) 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Damn striaght undelete, and remove the administrative position from the people that are doing this. Nate 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, and smacks Donald Albury a bit to stop his record from skipping. My word, if you're always going to vote for a deletion, at least mix your words around or say something different for each issue! Coolgamer 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - There should definitely be room for sillinesses on Wikipedian userpages, and also, by deleting it, Wikipedia has invoked the wrath of His Noodly Appendage, so beware!--Methegreat 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1. There IS room for silliness on userpages - the argument that deletion of userboxes is tantamount to a suppression of expression or individuality is incredibly disingenuous; the best, most creative and expressive uesrpages here don't use boxen. Can you honestly not find a way to be silly without using a userbox? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete unless stating in any way that a user is a christian is completely banned as well. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - -Ril-, that seems like a rather willful misunderstanding of what's going on. Nobody's suggesting that you can't say you're into Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. You just can't use a Wikipedia template to do it. So, your comparison is utterly meaningless, and I have a hard time believing you mean it, if you take few seconds to think about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  There are people stating that you can't use a Wikipedia template to do it, but may I point out that, as of yet, there is no official policy, guideline, or consensus regarding the use of userbox templates? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, but do you really need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, apparently you're not very good at cloudwatching GTBacchus, since very few people share your opinion. Janizary 03:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I really do not see how this qualifies as T1 (with the exception, of course, of "This user does not really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but agrees that it is more likely than Creationism", which is a T1.) --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is humor, not divisive --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This isn't an insult on anyone, it is a simple joke, and there wasn't any reason for it to be deleted. I agree with Janizary, and I believe that things like this should just be removed because one person didn't agree with it. Change1211 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is currently no Wikipedia policy against stupid, banal jokes lacking any subtlety or artisanship. Whether or not this userbox ultimately deserves to exist, the speedy-deletion is clearly not in-line with Wikipedia policy, and even if it were, is disputed; a TfD, at the very least, is merited. -Silence 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Catholic Evangelical

This user is a catholic and evangelical Christian.

• 2006-02-20 18:11:50 Improv deleted Template:User Catholic Evangelical without warning or any discussion at all. He protected the page from editing, so I can't even retrieve the code to paste onto my userpage directly. No reason was given. From his userpage perhaps it is because he is a self-described "very liberal" "Communist" "Trotskyite" "atheist". I don't know. If it were because he cared about the Wikipedia community, then he would have at least attempted to discuss the issue, and preferably nominated it for deletion. Such unilateralism is EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE. My motive behind creating and using the userbox was to identify with both catholic and evangelical ideas and groups. It was an effort to build bridges thwarted by a knee-jerk reactionary.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence: Userboxes concerning personal beliefs of users were kept by overwhelming consensus (5 January 2006). Keep 185, Delete 28 - See Archive: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions
It seems as if this userbox and others like it have already found a community consensus to keep them. I wonder why the admins thwarting community consensus are being allowed to maintain their offensive.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Until T1 can be adequately defined to make usage objective rather than subjective it should not be used due to the massive disruption being caused. --StuffOfInterest 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Rouge admins are only killing Wikipedia. Cut it out now. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note -- you might mean "rogue". --Improv 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all above. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per all above.Mike McGregor (Can) 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per all above, if things are going to deleted, reasons need to be supplied - nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - pointless template that doesn't help in the building of the encyclopedia. Also, it encourages factionalism. The religion userboxes are all gone for good, period, per Jimbo's stance on this issue. None of them are coming back. Ever. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't bet on that. Ultimately, it is the community that drives this encyclopedia, not Jimbo, not the admins, and not you. And T1 is possibly the most divisive and disruptive thing to happen to the community in the history of Wikipedia. Undelete. Rogue 9 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom MiraLuka 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Simple statement of the user's affiliation. --cesarb 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This template is a waste of resources, particularly time that should be spent editing. --JWSchmidt 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I see no reason why this template should remain deleted although my judgement is impaired by the fact I can't view the template. Cedars 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• The template said "This user is a catholic and evangelical Christian", with a blue background and a free-use picture of the planet earth. -Silence 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Silence. I am going to abstain now after much thought I realize I really don't know how many people would use this template if it was restored. Cedars 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all undeletes above. --Aaron 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - It would assist vote stacking and POV warring with regards to, eg, abortion-related articles. Thus, it hinders the encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. I think you'll find that this is not because of a bias issue -- I deleted all other religious userboxen at the same time, as per Jimbo's mandate. It is inappropriate to nominate it for deletion, because it is now a candidate for speedy deletion, and does not require going through the long deletion process. I am also telling you that unless T1 is lifted, I will delete this again if undeleted, regardless of how this discussion goes, so you are just wasting your time. --Improv 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• You confuse a mandate with an opinion, what Jimbo has given is his opinion. Jimbo does not own Wikipedia, nor does he rule it. Consensus rules here. Janizary 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually where Jimbo disagrees with consensus, his view takes precedence, seemeta:Foundation Issues Cynical 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. As a user who edits articles relating to Christian belief and history on a regular basis, I find the ability to search for users that are practicing members of various faiths generally helpful. On the other hand, I understand that one thing that started the userbox ruckus was apparently an attempt to use userboxes and user categories to swarm and otherwhelm other articles and impose the POV of a particular faith. This was a mistake of judgment on the part of some editors. CSD:T1 is still an overreaction; its apparent endorsement of unilateral action does more harm than any userbox ever could. I still see nothing polemical or inflammatory about this userbox. Smerdis of Tlön 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete These kinds of userboxes help people find others which share the same interests, that is a good thing, not a bad one. The best way to get an article improved is to get several people with the same interest involved in improving it. If you don't have these kinds of templates, it makes getting people involved much more difficult. Janizary 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Being able to find users with similar interests is a bad thing; the only reason I can think you would need to do this is for vote-stuffing. Even if it's not used for that, it certainly encourages factionalism and divisiveness. --Cyde Weys 06:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't think being able to find people with the same interests helps? You're kidding me right? If I had not gone and nabbed User:NicM from #openbsd on Freenode, the OpenBSD article likely would be not even half as good as it is now. Had I not had the ability to find a user that shares my interest in OpenBSD, the article very likely wouldn't be a featured one right now. Janizary 06:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • But if they're already on wikipedia, why do you have to get them? Userboxes have, in at least one past instance, been used to recruit people in order to engage in "ballot stuffing" - which harms community consensus, and is rather divisive. Michael Ralston 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Much like a knife can be used to cut a man's throat, it can also be used to cut a man's meal. That the knife can be used in an unpleasent manner does not negate the usefulness of the knife in positive instances. Janizary 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • But if you're just looking for someone to help edit an article, there's plenty of other ways to find them - indeed, it's best for wikipedia if you can bring more people in from outside. The only reason someone wouldn't want to do that one is if new users would be at some sort of a "disadvantage" - or if, as seems unlikely, the don't know anyone outside of wikipedia. (If the latter is the case for anyone, I'd suggest they have more important concerns than userboxes. ;) Also, my apologies if my wording of this is poor. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to engage in ballot stuffing, but the fact is that others do, and there are better ways of finding someone to help - especially if, as has been proposed, userboxes be allowed as long as they only indicate an interest on a topic, and not any sort of position, thus making it much harder to POV push via userbox.) Michael Ralston 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
            • You are mistaken if you belive that people want to join in this chaos. People who actually want to do anything here are few and far between, even those people who know a great deal about OpenBSD don't want to be bothered with the site because of all the bureaucratic nonsense and the constant bikesheding of every little detail. The neutrality rules alone make most people cringe. Finding anyone who knows anything and is willing to wade knee deep into this nonsense is hard. NicM was a saint for letting me drag him into this. Janizary 07:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd like to point for a moment that I'd been editing for months before even starting to involve myself in the processes. Simple good-faith edits usually go a long way towards improving things, whereas seeking out people to further inflame a discussion, for instance, doesn't. Michael Ralston 07:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that's a relevant example. You're talking about finding someone on IRC, not through userboxes. --Cyde Weys 06:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're dealing with a Catholic article, finding a Catholic user on wikipedia is good. I'd just look through the Religous users categories until I found some interested in improving the article. This drive to improve the OpenBSD article happened prior to the existance of the Category:OpenBSD users. Had it been around, I would not have needed to go into IRC to get help, it would have been just a click away. Janizary 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I just don't understand why you're still trying to argue this thing. The writing is chiseled into the granite wall. Jimbo came out very clearly and unequivocally against belief userbox templates. They're not coming back, period. And what makes you think this specific one is going to pass DRV and the other numerous religious userboxes are going to stay deleted? Ain't going to happen. Either they all stay deleted or they all come back; anything inbetween isn't fair and is going to lead itself to even more divisiveness and factionalism ("What?! You restored the Catholic userbox but not the Quaker userbox?!!! OMG!!"). And the odds of all of them coming back are precisely 0%. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
            • And you don't seem to understand that Jimbo is not a god here, his word is not law. The Wikipedia Foundation is the controlling body, Jimbo is not the only member. If your beloved Jimbo came out against acronyms, would you go through the entire site expanding them? I am just against spending all my time dinking with the voting process, I don't want any of the userboxes deleted. They help people come together, and it's people like yourself that are causing the divisive rends in the cloth of this community by acting as you do. Mark and Improv are causing more trouble than just leaving these boxes alone would ever have sparked. Janizary 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete These userboxes are useful for many reasons, not the least that they can serve as an early warning device and helpful aid for seeking out bias. Noirdame 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, divisive, and utterly worthless as regards to building an encyclopaedia. Also, you don't need a userbox to put a user page into a category. Learn how Wikipedia actually works before throwing hissy fits about 'freedom of speech' and various over hysterical overreactions. And if you want a box so much, subst it. Jesus. Proto||type 10:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as divisive and inflammatory. Stifle 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. i don't think it's divisive or inflammatory. however, it is a religious userbox, which is kind of astray of the things we've been trying to cement into policy. I'd be in favor of a keep if it was changed to "this user is interested in catholic and evangelical christanity". ... aa:talk 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, how is a simple statement of religious identity "inflammatory or divisive"? Admins hold a mop, not a sceptre. Let's not be wikiMamluks. Babajobu 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - *Whacks head with keyboard* EVEERYONE has OPINIONS! There is no problem with displaying them! It's not like we're forcing people to say what religion they are... it's just...they... you can't... *breaks down and cries* Coolgamer 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Even if it is an oxymoron. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - and somehow... somehow... get over the idea that ANYONE is telling ANYONE that they can't display their opinions, beliefs and affiliations on their userpages. Personal expression is NOT at stake here. Userboxes are. The best, most beautful, and most expressive user pages at Wikipedia don't use boxen. Find a way to tell the world that you're a... Catholic Evangelical (whatever that means), or whatever you are, without using a category linked template to do it! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I might not like Catholicism much, but at least give people the source codes somewhere for these type of userboxes, sometimes being able to declare to the world your intentions in fun little boxes is a very useful thing. Homestarmy 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User userboxes not harmful

This user believes that displaying the userboxes does not divide the Wikipedia community but rather emphasises its diversity.

• 2006-02-21 01:30:29 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User userboxes not harmful" (unused, CSD T1)

To read the rationale for its creation, see the template's talk page. Misza13 ^(Talk) 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and desysop MarkSweep. Need I say more? Okay, let's go. Inflammatory: where's the attack? Divisive: quite the contrary - it's supposed to unite and help the community (again, see it's talk page). Polemical: laughable. So, we've dealt with CSD T1. As for "unused", the userbox is very sorry for not being widely used just one day after creation - perhaps it'll get wider audience now (the code is substed above). And BTW: "unused" is not a CSD. Misza13 ^(Talk) 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Based on misapplication of T1, which in and of itself needs to be better fleshed out to build objectivity into application. --StuffOfInterest 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Speedy Undelete Another speedied userbox? What's next? Speedy BJAODN? Speedy User Pages entirely? To the overzealous admins, enough with the attacks against Wikipedia's once strong foundation. This is an outrage! --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete as per Misza13's comments and sanction deleter.Mike McGregor (Can) 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and de-sysop all rogue admins.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Guðsþegn's reasons. - nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - pointless template that doesn't help in the building of the encyclopedia. Also, it encourages userbox factionalism. --Cyde Weys 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As of pointless, please do take a look at it's talk page to see the rationale and why is it supposed to help relieve Wikipedia from the userbox stress. As of factionalism (note: no such word exists neither here nor on Wiktionary), please be more elaborate. This template does not encourage anything. Misza13 ^(Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete as above MiraLuka 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it qualifies under CSD T1? Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion encourages factions, useless for encyclopedia building, sad that anyone thinks the best way to expess diversity is with bumper stickers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my above reply to Cyde. Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, which part? First you reply to Cyde's claim that it's pointless, by referring to a page where you explain that it was created to make a point. Specifically: you're trying to dialogue via userboxes, by creating a userbox in response to a specific message, in order to send an opposing message, and illustrate it at the same time? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, you definitely haven't changed my mind that way.

Anyway, you go on to claim that this userbox does not encourage anything, and cannot therefore be divisive. I don't even know where to start with that. You're clearly aware of the current controversy over userboxes. Yet you don't find waving a flag for one side to encourage anything? You create a userbox for no reason other than to say something defiant in the midst of a very public dispute, and you don't think that's divisive? As in, encouraging a polarization of the community? I'm kind of stunned. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per others. SushiGeek 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per others. helohe (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If you want to play with useless templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Aids self-expression, does no harm and I have no problem with correctly placed userboxes. Cedars 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Misza13. This clearly does not meet T1. --Aaron 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the entire userbox situation is right now causing factionalization and interfering with building an encyclopedia. Thus, it is divisive, and meets the T1 criteria. Michael Ralston 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, there was no "userbox situation" until rogue admins and self-appointed honchos made it their business to delete userboxes en masse, then ignore every consensus to overturn their petty actions. Then they had to nerve to blame the situation on userboxes! This is the exact sort of circular logic that has become a hallmark of the userbox deletionists.

Of course, the userbox deletionists always had such an easy solution within their reach: if they didn't like userboxes so much, they could always just not put them on their page. But such elegant solutions to the problem are seemingly above and beyond the call of duty for the rogue admins and their honchos, who seem compelled to make themselves appear useful. I suspect they're not going to rest until the only argument we're allowed to make is whether the Wiki-bureaucracy should come in an Orwellian or Kafkaesque flavor. --Daniel 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that Jimbo has said he doesn't like these userboxes? And they've been used for vote stacking and POV-pushing already - That is, in fact, what prompted the entire thing. It's not just that people have some sort of objection to the entire concept of expressing things on user-pages. If it were, you wouldn't see people like Tony who have been deleting some of these userboxes ALSO suggest ways to resolve the entire situation that should, if the point of the userboxes is primarily to express viewpoints, be acceptable. Michael Ralston 05:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any argument more lame than "Jimbo don't like it, ergo I have to destroy it?" I take it that if this is the way things go around here, that were Jimbo to just decide today that he doesn't like wiping his ass, the rest of us would be forced to wear diapers? This interpretation of Wikipedia-as-personality cult isn't just "unencyclopedic" it's becoming quite anti-encyclopedic. --Daniel 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Care to address the three sentences that made up the majority of my response now? I mean, okay - you don't think Jimbo declared it to be policy. That may be so, but it doesn't address the other concerns I raised. Michael Ralston 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete-I really don't see the harm here.Fsiler 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is a very polite approach to viewing the Wikipedia community and the use of userboxes; agreeing to disagree. It is unfortunate that it has been rushed for deletion before voting has even completed, because it only argues more strongly the userbox's point. Noirdame 09:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It doesn't matter whether or not it causes harm. It's stupid, worthless and pointless. Proto||type 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no valid reason for deletion. It's certainly not a speedy candidate, but relist it on TFD. Stifle 13:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted no need to factionize. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. MarkSweep should know better. This is poking fingers into the eyes of the people on the other side of the fence. However, the userbox is clearly intended to polarize its viewers. That's called "polemic". And as such, I don't see a need for it. Try "this user creates userboxes" or "this user is helping form userbox policy." ... aa:talk 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --> Comment (i "voted" already....) I can't assume good faith on this T1. I think the deleter needs a cooldown. Also, I beleve T1 was ment for much more sever cases of divisivness, inflammitory...ness(?) and polematary (New Word?), then this template acheives. I think this deletion has more to do with ongoing WP:POINT Mike McGregor (Can) 13:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously polemical. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not harmful Funky Monkey 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Desysop the person responsible --Thorri 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, a pretty harmless little statement on the user's position on a particular issue. CSD T1 simply not revelevant. Admins wield a mop, not a sceptre. Babajobu 16:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Desysop whoever pulled this one. Coolgamer 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Guðsþegn. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG UNDELETE and remove admin privledges from the guy who did this. MiracleMat 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Whetever happened to assume good faith? I find this constant calling for de-sysopping or banning of someone because the poster disagrees with something the target did to be very uncivil and verging on personal attacks. I think Wikipedia is being damaged by the increasing strident tone of these discussions. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 14:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and desysop Mark Sweep. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Let them have their beleifs --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Harmess, no point to in deleting it, agree with Misza13, desysop MarkSweep Change1211 08:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Libertarian US

Since I can argue political affiliation deletions as a generality and get no action therefrom, I propose undeletion of this template. More specifically, I propose to replace the late template with User:RadioKirk/Template:User Libertarian US.

• Undelete per self-nom. RadioKirk talk to me 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom.--M@rēino 23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• UndeleteNoirdame 10:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Until a published, agreed upon (or dictated by Jimbo), consistent, objective policy is present this deletion effort is disruptive and counterproductive. --StuffOfInterest 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as inappropriate use of the Template: namespace. If you want to announce your support of unions, do so in userspace, not in templatespace. All political party userboxes are gone for good, there's no way just this one is going to be undeleted. --Cyde Weys 00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Wikipedia. Proto||type 09:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Picking and choosing userboxes to speedy delete randomly and then bringing them to DRV to be over-turned is taking up way too much time and is disruptive to the wikipedia community. We should all agree on a universal userbox policy and then follow that policy.--God of War 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pro concealed carry

As with many other userboxes this template has been through a TFD round and has been kept. As with many other userboxes this template was then speedy deleted with the criterion T1. T1 has caused more grief on Wikipedia than most other things and it is disrupting the harmony of the encyclopedia. We are not talking about a legal situation like copyvios and we are not talking about main space articles where NPOV certainly reigns. We are talking about advocacy of something that is legal in most of the United States and will likely become legal in even more of the United States this coming year. Until and unless T1 can be re-written into a more objective and implementable form userboxes that have been speedied on that criterion alone should not be speedied. They should go through the normal TFD process. Undelete. David Newton 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be significantly easier with warning of the template's impending deletion. But if we got that via TfD, you might find consensus against you, and you certainly couldn't have that, could you? Undelete. Rogue 9 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I don't see how letting other people know you're packing could possibly be of benefit to writing the encyclopedia. If anything, it's threatening. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I totally disagree with the idea of concealed carry, but I respect other people's opinions. MiraLuka 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor clarification: carrying a concealed weapon is a statement of fact, not an opinion. And your statement is implying that those of us voting "Delete" don't respect other people's opinions, which is absolutely untrue. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. It furthers factionalization. Michael Ralston 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I have seen no evidence of factionalization by this userbox.--God of War 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That isn't good enough anymore. For something to be on Wikipedia (i.e. "kept"), it has to be of value. Especially in the Template: namespace. And something about packing heat is not of value. --Cyde Weys 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep Deleted Belongs in user pages, has nothing at all to do with writing an encyclopedia. Rx StrangeLove 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - another template that doesn't support the mission. Trödel&#149;talk 07:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is nothing divisive or inflammatory about the right to armed self-defense. --Daniel 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - was that irony? Tell Michael Moore and the NRA there's nothing divisive or inflammatory about people's opinions on gun control/gun rights. Wow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Your strawmen aside, concealed carry laws are (gasp!) laws. The Second Amendment is still a part of the American constitution. If you think they're divisive and inflammatory, then you may as well ban Americans from using Wikipedia. --Daniel 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

    Not a strawman, a direct reply to what you actually said: "there is nothing divisive or inflammatory about the right to armed self-defense." That is an absurd statement; I stand by my reply. It is, empirically, divisive, because it divides people in, for example, America. It's a controversial issue. People get inflamed about it. Taking a stand on it is inherently divisive, as it encourages polarization - agree or don't! A Wikipedia article on concealed-carry laws describes the controversy - this userbox advocates for one side of it. If you can't understand how advocacy is divisive, then you don't know the meanings of the words involved. You might be surprised to learn that I strongly support concealed carry laws. I have lots of political opinions, but I don't advertise them on my user page using Wikipedia templates. That would be divisive and inflammatory. You go on to say "you may as well ban Americans from using Wikipedia". I'll let you figure out which logical fallacy that is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. This effort needs put down until T1 can be put in objective terms. --StuffOfInterest 15:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Until we can agree as to what the heck it means, T1 shouldn't be invoked. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 15:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete suspect mis-use or mis-understanding of T1.Mike McGregor (Can) 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is precisely what T1 is for; political userboxes have no place in the template namespace. Hard-code it onto your page, if you want it so badly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This template has no role in creating an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep deleted. Obscure and bizarre template that would be much better kept as raw source on your userpage. I can't see many Wikipedians feeling the need to express this exact opinion. Cedars 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. --Aaron 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Undelete as useful way to keep track of which Wikipedians not to meet in person. ;) Also useful for NPOV on weapons-related pages.--M@rēino 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Threatening, worthless, divisive crap. Proto||type 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JWSchmidt. Stifle 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. SushiGeek 22:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete -- and change wording. I don't think "pro carry" is the right thing to say here, and I get the feeling the user isn't necessarily trying to say that. Let's undelete it and change it to something more appropriate, such as "user understands concealed carry laws." And Cyde, this isn't threatening in the least. ... aa:talk 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Everyone has a right to an opinion. Coolgamer 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. Get a blog if you want to express your opinion. There is no case for this ever being productive for an encyclopaedia. User is a Republican, okay. User is a Buddhist, okay. User is for a particular political stance, get a blog. Grace Note 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User vomit

Brought up for deletion on February 12. Since there was no consensus, it was kept. It was deleted anyway by Drini. No reason was given (that I can tell). --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 18:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and please stop wasting our time with deletion reviews of stupid userboxes. Do we really need a vomit userbox? NO! --Cyde Weys 18:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Stupid or not isn't the point here. This deletion was against consensus. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you and your ilk need a sense of humor, Cyde? YES! --Daniel 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - No reason has been provided for speedy deletion. Until then, Speedy undelete this.--God of War 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted wikipedia is not a free host. Unless someone makes a case on why it helped to the encyclopedia building goals. Also per WP:SNOW -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:SNOW is an interesting discussion, and I do agree with it in theory. I would note, however, that WP:SNOW states that "if an issue doesn't even stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing a certain process [...]". Seeing as this template already passed TFD, I think it can be argued that WP:SNOW doesn't really apply here. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can't find any such template. But that's beside the point. Cyde is basically right here. There are better ways to address the userbox controversy than to endlessly drag things to DRV. There's not going to be any consensus on anything here, and no decisions are going to be made in these mini shouting matches. I'm starting to think this entire page could use a Ed Poor style deletion. Maybe that will force people to engage the situation in a more constructive way. -R. fiend 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - doesn't help mission, which by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Who's it hurting? MiraLuka 02:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "it's not hurting anyone" is not a valid keep criterion on Wikipedia. If it was, 95% of the articles currently deleted through AfD would survive. Luckily, that's not a valid criterion. We're doing much more than assembling a bunch of random stuff that "isn't hurting anyone" - we're building an encyclopedia. You should instead ask yourself how this is helping to build the encyclopedia, realize that it's not, and let it be deleted. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete helohe (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I usually give no comment on userboxes, but how a userbox about... uh, vomiting, relates to contributing to the encyclopedia I have no idea, and never will. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete I beleve t1 is for highly offensive, divisive, infalmmitory or polematic templates (on the level of the pedofielia template). this may be offensive to some, but claiming that its to the same level is a embelishment to say the least. "does not contribute to an encylopedia" is not covered by t1. I beleve this should be undeleted on the basis that t1 was improparly used to delete this template. Furthermore, pedofeilia is a trickey word to spell, and I don't think I've got it right yet in these discussions (feel free to fix that)... Mike McGregor (Can) 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for obvious reasons. --cesarb 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted if the user is not going to provide a reason why he wants the template undeleted or what the template was about than there really shouldn't be any debate. Cedars 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Mike McGregor. --Aaron 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD:G1. Stifle 13:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. Proto||type 09:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per User:Mike McGregor. For the record, I voted to delete on the associated TFD, and do feel that this template is useless when it comes to the process of building an encyclopedia, but we are reviewing whether the deletion was appropriate, not whether or not we should salt the earth. It passed TFD, and could only be a T1 by an exceptional stretch of imagination. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User -genderneutral

• The pro-gender neutral box was kept--Roofus 07:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• request for content can some one post the text of this so I can understand this template? ThanksMike McGregor (Can) 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I understood that the aim of the encyclopædia is to achieve NPOV articles. When editors understand each other’s POV’s we get a better encyclopædia. It’s very simple. It is hard to assume good faith when these deletions continue despite the overwhelming preponderance of opinion against them. User pages have always allowed statements of personal belief. User boxes simply do this a little more humorously. The should not be taken too seriously. If personal opinions are to be nuked en masse what is to be left on the user page? This user box even relates to Wikipedia and an editing philosophy used in its construction. The opposite view is allowed a user box, and no, I don’t want it deleted too. Avalon 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If that were the case, writing in detail about your POVs instead of putting a 7 word bumpersticker would be much more helpful -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Use your "freedom of speech" and write your statement on your userpage. The template is unneeded. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Freedom of speech can go take a running jump. This is Wikipedia, not The United States of America; we do things differently here. At least Avalon (talk · contribs) and Roofus (talk · contribs) managed to provide relatively reasonable arguments for keeping the template; you didn't even try. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not inflammatory or polemical. Speedy deletion is not a toy Cynical 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Cynical. Thryduulf 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as with all templated userboxen. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Undelete per Avalon, but I'd like to know what the text of the box was. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Edit and undelete. The original template said something to the effect that "this user is sick of hypersensitivity about gender neutral language." As noted above, Template:User genderneutral remains. There really needs to be some kind of process for restoring templates in a more neutrally phrased form without the risk of wheel-warring or accusations of restoring deleted content. Smerdis of Tlön 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete No Thought-Police for me. Userboxes make Wikipedia better, as you know the POV of the editor. Simple. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and speedy delete pro-gender neutral box also not necessary - doesn't help mission, which by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, and Speedy Delete the pro-gender neutral box for the same reason - both can support factionalization, and are unnecessary. Michael Ralston 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This effort needs put down until T1 can be put in objective terms. --StuffOfInterest 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted if you cannot take the time to write more than a sentence on why a userbox should be undeleted then you have got to question why you are posting to Deletion Review. Cedars 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the best you can do is an ad hominem attack which does not address the userbox in question then I question why you are posting to Deletion Review. Avalon 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is in the Template: namespace, not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. This vote makes no judgement about this userbox's value to Wikipedia. Proto||type 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes now at User:JDoorjam/Political parties

Now I know how a post-apocalyptic wikiworld would look like. Seriously, which wiki policy or guidelines prevents me from using a userbox to support Polish Beer-Lovers' Party? I say all those userboxes should be undeleted, from top to bottom. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kill them, kill them with fire, nuke them from orbit, salt the earth behind them. If you want bumper stickers, Cafepress is that-a-way, and if you want self-expression, MySpace is that-a-way. This place is supposed to be a collaborative writing project. Wanna-be revolutionaries/martyrs looking for a cause ought to go elsewhere or take up a hobby. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to note that, in my humble opinion, your vote ("Kill them...") is an example of Wikihate. Please, don't hate. Thank you. Misza13 ^(Talk) 12:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: may I remind you of WP:CIVIL as well ... aa:talk 18:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and strong agreement with Carlton. If you want to express your political affiliation go ahead, just don't use main articlespace templates to do so. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Send it to MFD - This is a list of userboxes NOT an actual userbox. MFD is the place for this.--God of War 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • ... if it's all the same I'd like to keep my little reference page. I concur with Cyde on this one: POV userboxes really belong purely in user space. What we need is a policy that strongly says "template space is for encyclopedia templates," instead of a vague one that attacks people's POVs and doesn't really get the job done. JDoorjam Talk 05:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, just to clarify: I'm also fully in support of people expressing their PsOV on their user pages. It's the template space thing that I disagree with. I also don't think current policy justifies deletions of many of the boxes we're discussing. In other words, my opinion is so nuanced I'm next to useless in this discussion. JDoorjam Talk 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No, you're moderate and thinking with a clear head. You should defenitely be contributing to this discussion. And although I'm strongly oppossed to what's going on, I don't mind people who support just subsetting everything and deleting templates, the only problem is the codes are gone or hard to find and there is no way to get them back without undeleting them. Most people had no idea that they should have been subsetting their templates and now they are in between a rock and a hard place. The Ungovernable Force 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lawful opinions should be expressed. Every editor has a POV. The task of keeping it out of the encyclopaedia will be assisted by knowing what a particular editor's POV is. You do not make company directors hide their other interests so that there can never be a charge of conflict of interest, you make them divulge their other interests. Also, there needs to be a small area, out of the encyclopaedia where editors can let their hair down a little. Avalon 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (and delete the ones that remain) to avoid the sort of witch-hunts which Avalon seems to want. Editors' political opinions have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, that's bull and you know it. None of us are neutral; revealing our biases voluntarily helps others keep our editing in line. What is easier to stop from corrupting NPOV, a group of editors who have an opinion on something and reveal it or editors who secretly set out to influence things without telling anyone? It's far better to reveal our biases as quickly as possible and get it over with rather than have people have to discern where we're coming from by gleaning our edit histories. There's no witch hunt involved; coming clean up front is likely to prevent witch hunts when compared to a situation where everyone knows that everyone else is biased but doesn't know how or on what subjects, and must guess at them. Undelete. Rogue 9 13:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted does nothing to support NPOV.--MONGO 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what Avalon already said. I have a POV. You have a POV. If our user pages openly declare our various POVs, it's easier for everyone to collaboratively police each other. If an avowed vegan starts editing articles on the health benefits on meat, I'll know to check their sources as they're biased. If an avowed anti-communist like me starts editing articles on communist wrongdoings, you'll know to check my sources as I'm biased. Pretending we're all paragons of neutrality is counter-productive to the neutrality of Wikipedia. As to "witch-hunts", it's very simple to find out a person's biases just by spending 10 minutes looking at their edit history. I for one prefer to wear them on my sleeve so you won't have to bother. Undelete all Unigolyn 13:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Have opinions, express them -- don't use the template system to do so. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to apropriate XfD page. There is no speedy deletion criteria regarding using templates to express POV, if you want to delete them get consensus first. Thryduulf 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - some votes above keep missing the point - this is not XfD! We're discussing the (un)appropriateness of speedying them under T1. The discussion of POV allowance on user pages definitely belongs elsewhere. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• question aren't these in his user space? Mike McGregor (Can) 02:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete I beleve t1 is for highly offensive, divisive, infalmmitory or polematic templates (on the level of the pedofeilia template). this may be offensive to some, but claiming that its to the same level is a embelishment to say the least. "does not contribute to an encylopedia" is not covered by t1. I beleve this should be undeleted on the basis that t1 was improparly used to delete this template. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. None of the templates on that page are of use in making the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Mike McGregor. --Aaron 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. You want people to be aware of your POV? Then write it on your user page. You don't need a bunch of pretty colours. Additionally, the Template: namespace is not user space - this is the wrong place for such things. Proto||type 09:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted and send it to MFD. This isn't a template, it isn't even a page intended to be used for transclusion. It is purely a reference, and I do believe it to be an appropriate use of userspace. In addition, this kind of sentiment (references of hardcoded userboxes) would enable users to express themselves with a userbox, while avoiding the bothersome problems of whatlinkshere and (hopefully) associated categories. In fact, I have a similar subpage in my userspace. Purely a reference.--User:Blu Aardvark 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment My understanding of this item is that it is a proposal to take all the userboxes currently in User:JDoorjam/Political parties and put them back into Template Space. I don't think this what you intended to support. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • If this is the case, I apologize - I've been in a cave the last week or so, and wasn't aware of any mass deletion of political userboxes. I do believe that they should be undeleted, or at the very least, subst'd on all pages which they are present on. We all possess a bias of one sort or another, and userboxes happen to be an exceptionally useful way of identifying those biases, in turn making it easier to reach a Neutral Point of View. (They also possess bothersome qualities in the Special:Whatlinkshere and associated categories, this is true). Whatever the outcome, however, I think that his user subpage should be allowed to stand, even if the templates are not. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User MusicBrainz

This user is a MusicBrainz moderator.

Deleted by user: BorgHunter and user:Cyde out of process under false allegations. See also: MusicBrainz and Wikipedia:WikiProject MusicBrainz. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is no surprise here, but Keep deleted. This is an unnecessary commercial userbox template that was subst'ed onto all relevant user pages and deleted. Hardly out of process. Nobody's stopping you from using this userbox; you just need to copy over the code. The point is that the current state of userboxes is an intolerable situation and changes must be made. The first is to reduce the number of userboxes by subst'ing and deleting them. Need I remind you what the Template: namespace is for. The userboxes really should never have been in it in the first place. PS you forget to call BorgHunter a dick. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, you somehow failed to make any reference to any actual policy for the deletion of templates. Can someone please reproduce this thing so we know what was deleted? JDoorjam Talk 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I swear to the Gods, if we have to bring every single fracking deleted userbox template to DRV we are going to waste hundreds of man-years. Did you know there are already over 6,000 of these things?! I'm trying to fix the damn situation. I subst'ed that box into user pages on every occurrence. --Cyde Weys 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • We're all trying to fix the situation. Clearly, however, given that the number of userboxes has doubled since New Year's, the current "trouble with tribbles" attempts to eradicate them aren't really working out. We need to call for a more exacting policy so that it's completely unambiguous which user boxes should stay, and which should go, because in the meantime, we get stuck arguing over a few lines of code that maybe should get deleted in principle but the deletion of which is not clearly supported in actual policy. (Nice battlestar galactica ref, btw.) JDoorjam Talk 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yet DRV is the proper way to do it whether it takes many man-years or not. If you think it should be different then you need to work on getting the policy changed. Deleting templates without discussion and proper procedure is going to get your user account taken to arbitration. — Mperry 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete: There is no need to be rude. Please read the MusicBrainz article. It is a non-commercial service with it's data either in the public domain or under the EFF Open Audio License. Below is a copy. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How is a userbox about a non-commercial, non-profit music database considered commercial? — Mperry 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes, it's the way out of this mess. We need to start subst'ing in templates, deleting the templates, and replacing them with userbox code libraries. It's the only solution everyone is going to agree on. You still get exactly the same effect on your userpage, only it doesn't use anything in the template namespace and the Whatlinkshere functionality cannot be abused for vote recruiting. It's the perfect solution. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, User:Boxes tried doing something very similar, making a directory of userboxes that were subst code only and got perma-banned without any good reason.--God of War 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In any case, a *deletion review* is not the right place to campaign for new procedures. Take it to WP:UBP or something. --AySz88^-^ 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect he got blocked because of the name. That's not going to happen to Pathoschild, who is widely liked (and also an admin). This is the way out of this: a codebase of userboxes which can be copied, thus keeping everything out of Template:. And positive changes have to start somewhere. I'm choosing here. --Cyde Weys 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By all means, please petition for new policy or code! But the issue here is whether or not this particular template should have been deleted in the first place. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The way this discussion is heading it looks more like disruption to make a point. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's very cute, to accuse me of WP:POINT to attempt to invalidate what I have to say, but I assure you, it is not my intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I'm just trying to go along with a reasonable userbox policy and MusicBrainz happened to be the first of thousands that was turned into codebase rather than templates. --Cyde Weys 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You do have a valid point. There needs to be a system in place. I agree. But just going though and arbitrarily deleting things helps no one and only serves to irritate at the very least. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It has to start somewhere though. It might as well be something noncontroversial and relatively unused (so it doesn't affect a lot of people). Please, you know there are thousands of these things already and most (if not all) are going to have to go. Please be part of the solution. I've included the relevant code and instructions on the MusicBrainz WikiProject on how to reproduce the userbox. All this undeletion would do is move it back unnecessarily into main template space. I'm not trying to take away your userbox, just move it from template space where it doesn't belong. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The template is non-commerical and references a fledgling Wikipedia sister project. It is not a userbox of political, religious, or controversial nature. — Mperry 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--MONGO 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. This is exceptionally useful. How many times have we had "nn" artists deleted? It would be terrific if we could identify users to help us sort out the music stubs and articles which show up on afd. Can't anyone see past the fact that this is a (cursed) userbox? ... aa:talk 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - doesn't help mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete of course, totally senseless deletion. I can understand the problems with some of the divisive userboxes, but this is totally harmless. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Deleted out of process and to make a point. MiraLuka 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • First, you sound like a hypocrite because you are using userbox templates on your user page. Your argument would carry more weight if you subst those. Regarding usefulness, I think the userbox is useful. Unlike the userboxes that have caused so much controversy, this userbox is not of a political or religious nature. It is used by participants in MusicBrainz, a non-commercial, non-profit, volunteer group to catalogue metadata about music releases. Given that people such as myself are working with the Wikipedia MusicBrainz Project to cross link and update information, it might be useful for other Wikipedians to be able to easily identify us as MusicBrainz users. They could then approach us if they had questions. For consistency's sake, it helps to have a common way to display this information, just as you have done with the templates on your page. It doesn't make sense to have duplicate copies of the code everywhere. Putting it into a template helps to remove redundancy and is the technically correct way to abstract this (just like using a function in programming). — Mperry 07:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...says the person with a Michigan Wiki project template on his page. You also sound like a hypocrite because you are using userbox templates on your user page, just like the person I responded to above. Put your money where your keyboard is and subst your templates on your page. Then we'll know that we can take your comment seriously. — Mperry 07:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This effort needs put down until T1 can be put in objective terms. --StuffOfInterest 15:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TFD for technical reasons only. It should definitely be deleted, but there was no consensus to do so. Stifle 13:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Addressing the allegations in the deletion:

1. Template is unused because User:Cyde removed/substed all uses of it.
2. All MusicBrainz users are moderators, thus it could be considered general.
3. MusicBrainz is a project being run by the non profit MetaBrainz group.

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Advertising. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush Templates

The discussion for these templates were all blanked by User:MarkSweep. He has threatened to ban all users attempting to revert the blanking of this DRV discussion. With the approval of administrator Guanaco at User_talk:Guanaco#GWB. I am relisting these discussions on DRV again.--God of War 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This is not what templates should be used for. Maybe when there is a separate template namespace for userspace this will fly, but until then, no. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all. I even vote to undelete those which whose opinion I disagree with. They are not divisive. --Nelson Ricardo 02:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all. Keeping them is less divisive than speedy deleting them without consensus. The Ungovernable Force 07:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I thought we already decided this. David | Talk 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The "decision" to delete them was just another childish, self-serving bullying action made my MarkSweep. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 13:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You're way out of line here. This was discussed on the administrators' noticeboard and enjoys wide support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I support the remark completely; your definition of "wide support" (ironic that YOU should use such a term) doesn't seem to be a very logical one to me. Larix 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TfD, let the chips fall where they may. We all know that speedy dee was designed for extream cases (and I mean on the level of the pedofielia template) this is obviously not that extream. Hence, I can't assume that this deletion (and subsiquent suppressions of dicsussions regarding this and other Bush templates) was made in good faith. So, in short, my undelete is based on the appearence that T1 was abused.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete These admins jumping the gun and going crazy speedy deleting every userbox in sight really ticks me off. Janizary 20:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - doesn't help mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Big-loss.....less divisive templates...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There is every reason to remove any and all divisive user boxes. Proto||type 10:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• And no reason to believe these are divisive. Undelete. Rogue 9 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete either one can express an opinion on a user page or they are not worth having. All opinions are "divisive" because someone, somewhere, will disagree with anything. Avalon 19:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, all of them. This has nothing to do with user pages, only with templates which we don't need. If you have an opinion on Mr. Bush and it's relevant to Wikipedia, roll your own or write it in your own words on your userpage. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User PresidentBush

see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_16#Template:User_PresidentBush. 5-5 is hardly a consensus or a mandate to delete. also, I thought TfD was allowed 7 days, this was nominated on the 16th, thats 24hrs at most...infact, I have yet to see a convincing consensus for deletion on any of the Bush userboxes. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• There was no established policy for deletion until after these were removed from the page. The standard then became 48 hours after the debate went cold (i.e., no one was talking about it anymore), and then that got changed to "five days after posting." Under that policy this debate will stay on this page until 2/23/06 at 02:05 or so. JDoorjam Talk 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per my nomination. In addition, there needs to be more trasparency in the criteria that's being used to close discussions early, speedy delete templates during active discussion, re-list templates after an un-favorable consensus, etc, etc, etc. this is hardly a fair process when only one side knows the rules. At this point, I find it impossible to AGF Mike McGregor (Can) 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Deleting something in the middle of a vote on whether or not to delete it is wrong. MiraLuka 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Hurts the project, not useful. Divisive. --Improv 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• As much as I hate, and I do mean hate, Bush, undelete. 5-5 is not consensus, and we need a policy regarding userboxes before we go around deleting all of them. Either make a policy banning all political userboxes, or allow all of them. There is no middle ground, and I suggest allowing all of them. The Ungovernable Force 06:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I hate GWB, but I will defend people's right to say their opinions about him.--God of War 00:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This is not what templates should be used for. Maybe when there is a separate template namespace for userspace this will fly, but until then, no. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Per User:-Ril-. I initially thought this unsupported and unilateral action was in homage to President Bush. Palm_Dogg 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per -Ril- MiraLuka 03:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither inflammatory nor divisive. The continued roguish behavior by anti-userbox admin honchos is both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Christopher_Parham is seeking to block me for voicing this opinion. Please see [[4]]. --Daniel 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clearly a violation of NPOV and we are not a soapbox.--MONGO 10:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive. David | Talk 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TfD, let the chips fall where they may. We all know that speedy dee was designed for extream cases (and I mean on the level of the pedofielia template) this is obviously not that extream. Hence, I can't assume that this deletion (and subsiquent suppressions of dicsussions regarding this and other Bush templates) was made in good faith. So, in short, my undelete is based on the appearence that T1 was abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I voted already... bah! : ) Mike McGregor (Can) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted not necessary - doesn't help mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete Coolgamer 03:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - same reason - nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This template does not help make the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Larix 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete either one can express an opinion on a user page or they are not worth having. All opinions are "divisive" because someone, somewhere, will disagree with anything. Avalon 19:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User GWB2

See the TFD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_9#Template:User_GWB2. Even though there was a consensus to keep, someone has deleted the history then re-created this as re-direct to a far less clever userbox that has since been speedily deleted.--God of War 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory.--Daniel 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep delete - divisive and inflammetory --Doc ^ask? 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Restore both the original version of this one and {{disBush}}. What the frak is going on here? --Fang Aili 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Relist. I do not believe this to be unessarily divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ridiculously opinionated trash. Keep it on your userpage in a form that won't be transcluded by sheep. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive, speedy candidate now. --Improv 09:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. This is a legitimate opinion which, if allowed to be expressed, will help editors understand each others' points of view and thereby lead to a better, more neutral, encyclopedia. The userbox deletionists are exactly wrong about the effects of trying to eliminate people's expression of their opinions. --James S. 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very well-put. Deleting expressions of an opinion, POV, view, or bias does not make it go away, it just makes it fester; the slant will still have its influence on the user's actions, it'll just be hidden and thus cause more misunderstandings, errors and conflicts. Wikipedia must demonstrate an open and tolerant atmosphere where Wikipedians are encouraged to freely state their views on their userpages, and strongly discouraged from trying to enforce those views on articlespace (the two are not contradictory, as is often implied in anti-userbox sentiment, but are quite compatible). People assume that if we let Wikipedians say what they think in brightly-colored boxes on their userpages, they'll get out of hand and start organizing into POV-pushing factions and trying to warp the encyclopedia to fit their own views—but the opposite is really the case for just about any user who isn't a troll or vandal already: letting people self-express and have their little games with these trivial, silly little boxes is a great way for them to get it out of their system, and clearly seeing through userboxes how many intelligent, capable, likable editors out there differ from your views in numerous areas demonstrates the wonderfully diverse environment, which we should encourage, not stiel, among our users, all while being absolutely uncompromising in our protection of articles from OR and POV (which is aided by userboxes, in that it gets it all out in the open). Good god, that was a long sentence. Anyway, strong undelete and relist. No reason not to let this go through TfD even if there are people who think it should be deleted; the T1 entry for speedy deletion specifically states that only "clearly inflammatory and divisive" templates may be speedied (if this were clearly both inflammatory and divisive, we wouldn't be having an argument like this! since the speedy's disputed, a full TfD discussion is merited), and it certainly doesn't encourage speedying them against consensus! (And Jimbo himself said that this new deletion criteron was chiefly for use on any new, clearly inflammatory templates that sprung up, not for anti-userbox editors to use as an excuse to scourge any old, well-established templates they found distasteful!) -Silence 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and keep deleted. If you want your purported biases to be visible, type them out. It is not difficult. Divisive trolling. Proto||type 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per above. Banez 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh... keep deleted. This is one of my favorite of the cheeky userboxes, too. For me this lands in the grey zone where it’s too divisive and inflammatory to be used as a template, but may or may not be inappropriate as a non-template userbox. Tony is right, although probably too biting, in his comments: if a user feels so strongly about this that they want to put the raw code into their user profile, and if they can make a good argument that listing it there helps other users understand the first user’s inherent POVs, then I suppose it might be ok there (or, at the very least, that’s an argument for a different day), but the userbox templates make it too easy to say potentially offensive things in the user space without putting any thought into the expression. I really don’t like is that this quite obviously divisive userbox is so easy to put in to a user page without even thinking about it, or going through any sort of process. I almost wish I was on one polar end or another on this issue, but unfortunately I’m somewhere in the middle, and my take is that this template simply makes it too easy to say something loud without thinking about what it is, exactly, that you’re expressing. I agree with User:Silence: suppression of personal opinions is unhealthy and will ultimately be counter-productive. However, while a 1984-style Wiki control regime would be terrible, infeasible, and, well, silly, some control over divisiveness ought to be exerted, especially in the template space, where it's more easily thoughtlessly distributed. I’ve argued before that it’s inconsistent to argue against a userbox when you wouldn’t argue against a user expressing that same sentiment in raw text in their userbox, but now I’ll point out the corollary that implies: is a user had a screed in their user space about how they thought Bush’s changes to the Constitution ought to be undone, I would at the very least have some concern about the NPOV abilities of that editor (especially as, despite the assertions of the userbox, Bush hasn’t made any changes to the Constitution). I also really really really hate invoking The Almighty Jimbo, but the Big J is right: it’s best to leave one’s POV at the door when one comes to edit Wikipedia, and this box just… tracks too much POV mud in from outside, IMHO. JDoorjam Talk 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and block the inflammatory and divisive admins. --Revolución (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. It was going through a process which the antiuserboxtistas were going to loose. --Dragon695 06:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and agree with -Ril- MiraLuka 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither inflammatory nor divisive. The continued roguish behavior by anti-userbox honcho admins is both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Christopher_Parham is seeking to block me for this vote. Please see [[5]]. --Daniel 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV.--MONGO 10:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive. David | Talk 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Snide comment about "edits to the constitution" in the userbox makes it a T1 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, list at TfD and gain 'consensus before doing ANYTHING else with them. Thryduulf 15:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and TfD, let the chips fall where they may. We all know that speedy dee was designed for extream cases (and I mean on the level of the pedofielia template) this is obviously not that extream. Hence, I can't assume that this deletion (and subsiquent suppressions of dicsussions regarding this and other Bush templates) was made in good faith. So, in short, my undelete is based on the appearence that T1 was abused Mike McGregor (Can) 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Voted twice here too, see what happenes when i get all excited??!? : ) Mike McGregor (Can) 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted not necessary - doesn't help mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete 1984, anyone? Coolgamer 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete - freedom of speech in userpages isn't a bad thing - nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This template has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete.helohe (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TFD. Stifle 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per James S. Stifle 18:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete either one can express an opinion on a user page or they are not worth having. All opinions are "divisive" because someone, somewhere, will disagree with anything. Avalon 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User atheist

Content was: This user is an atheist.

Speedy-deleted by User:Phroziac at 02:25 on February 19 with the explanation "WP:NOT a soapbox", but WP:NOT is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion as a valid justification for speedying. If someone objects to this template, it can certainly be listed on TfD, but I honestly don't understand why this was out-of-process speedy-deleted without even a word of discussion, especially when {{user atheism}} (a much, much less popular variant), {{user theist}}, and {{user theist2}} were ignored.

Note that this template has subsequently been recreated (probably due to confusion over why there was a missing template on so many userpages—nearly 250 users have this template on their userpage!) by User:Bhumiya. However, the recreation (in addition to being out-of-process) did not restore any of the original's edit history, replaced the color scheme and layout with a more generic one, and replaced the text "ath" (if I remember correctly) with an image which has proven offensive to some atheists. So, the current situation is not a satisfactory compromise; I recommend undeleting this, unless there is some pressing or dire reason that this particular template is unacceptable. Even if you think all userboxes, or all userboxes with POVs, should be deleted, arbitrarily picking and choosing random ones like this will only cause unrest and accusations of bigotry, which I'm sure isn't the intent here. -Silence 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that this template has been redeleted by User:Improv. This seems reasonable to me. Once the discussion is over, if there is consensus to undelete, it can be undeleted. -Silence 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And redeleted again. Voting cannot override the T1 criterion that Jimbo has imposed. Sorry. You can vote here, but you're wasting your time. --Improv 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not voting about whether the T1 criterion can be overridden; we are voting on whether or not it applies to this specific template. Just because a person says T1 holds here doesn't make it so; consensus exists not to override policy, but to interpret it. So, let's look at T1 and whether it applies to this specific template.

T1 states that "templates that are polemical or inflammatory" can be speedy-deleted. Polemical means "of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation", from the noun polemic, which means "a controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine". Atheism is a belief, not an argument, and this template does not argue for ahteism or serve as a "bumper sticker", but merely states what the user self-identifies as. Most atheists on Wikipedia define it as merely "lack of theism", making it no more "polemic" than "This user is homosexual", "This user is a vegetarian" or "This user is a Protestant Christian"; it's just a harmless, innocuous statement about the user. And to an even greater extent, inflammatory certainly doesn't apply here; it is hardly intended to cause anger, animosity or indignation. Also, of course, T1 was never mentioned when this template was speedied, only WP:NOT; but that's nitpicking, I understand your reason for voting "delete". And vehemently disagree with it. -Silence 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Silence, it is inappropriate to blanket every possible application of a policy one disagrees with with an attempt to interpret it into nothingness. That's what I see here. --Improv 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm afraid I don't understand. Where did my interpretation differ from reality, and where did I attempt to render T1 meaningless or useless? T1 is what it says it is: a way to speedy-delete templates that are clearly intended to cause disruption, offense, anger, hatred, etc. This applies to countless potential templates, including "this user hates theists", "this user is an atheist because theists kill babies", "this user is better than theists", etc. It was created to quickly and easily deal with blatantly offensive templates, and Jimbo was quite clear on the matter that he did not want T1 to lead to a cull of already-existing userboxes, which could only cause more controversy, ill will, and feuding. He was also very deliberate in which words he chose: first "divisive and inflammatory", then "polemic and inflammatory". If he wanted all religious, philosophical, spiritual, etc. userboxes speedy-deleted immediately, why would he choose that wording? Because that's not what he wanted. The creators of T1 did not say "All userboxes that express POVs", nor "All religious or political userboxes", nor "All userboxes any admin dislikes"; that was a deliberate and meaningful decision which you are remarkably interested in ignoring because it conflicts with your own admitted, pre-set bias against all userboxes. Just because you want all userboxes gone doesn't mean that this is currently encouraged (or even permitted) by Wikipedia's policies. Nor is this the proper place to discuss revising Wikipedia's speedy-deletion criteria to include simple statements of religious or philosophical belief; go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for that. I'm sorry, but T1 does not apply to this template. It's as simple as that. I'm not arguing against T1, I'm arguing for interpreting it accurately and neutrally rather than abusing it to further an agenda to mass-delete these silly little boxes. Whether your opinion is justified or not (and it doesn't seem justified to me at the moment), it's not policy, and cannot be implemented as though it were. -Silence 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I am interpreting what Jimbo has said correctly, and regardless of consensus, I will redelete this userbox if it is created again. I will be happy to explain why, and am amenable to correction by Jimbo or Arbcom (and perhaps you may convince me I'm wrong through argument), but as it stands, these userboxes will not stand. If you want to take it higher up, talk to Jimbo or Arbcom about it now, because I am about to go beyond this single userbox to some others that meet T1. --Improv 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you :) I just hope we can get something less ambiguous. Haukur 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Divisive, T1. No matter what side of the fence these things come from, they hurt the project. --Improv 23:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete unless the "This user is a Christian/Jew/Muslin/etc" ones are to be deleted too. And if they are, better justification needs to be made than "T1". This is a matter of interpretation of the law, which is best not done by those who enforce it. -R. fiend 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am keen to delete those too. Nominate them! Look, the T1 criterion means *something*. You may not like it, but it is a clear (and IMO good) mandate from above. Don't twist Jimbo's words, and don't dance around attempting to nullify them. We have a clear mandate to delete things like this. If you don't like it, take it up with Jimbo. If he goes the other way on this, then I'll follow, of course. --Improv 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Unacceptable. You deleted the atheist template, you should have deleted the other religious templates simultaneously. Undelete. TKarrde 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TKarrde is right. If they qualify for T1, they don't need to be nominated; you can delete them now. The problem is figuring out if they do qualify. "Polemical or inflammatory" (the current wording of CSD: T1) is about as vague as you can get. I honestly don't much care about userboxes, I just think they should be treated as evenly as possible. If that means none that disparage their subject, fine. If that means anything goes (exluding personal attacks, slander, etc) fine. If that means no userboxes at all, then I can live with that. I just don't like the artbitrary deletion policy we have now. I wrote about it on a subpage of mine. Sanity neds to be restored. If I hadn't moved all these to a separate page they would have completely swamped DRV. -R. fiend 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • They do not qualify for T1, so the "all or nothing" discussion is moot. For now, it's got to be nothing. The religious templates can certainly be nominated on WP:TfD if people feel that they're harmful, but they don't qualify for speedying. -Silence 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Original deletion justified under WP:NOT? Apparently not, if you click the link. WP:NOT refers to articles, not user pages or userboxes. Articles by definition must have a NPOV. User profiles by definition cannot possibly have a NPOV, or they'd all be the exact same. 1984, anyone? TKarrde 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Speedy deleting the christian/muslim/jew templates would merely be disrupting wikipedia to make a point, which is clearly unacceptable. As was deleting this userbox. Undelete, Wikipedia not a Soapbox is not a reason to speedy undelete a userbox. Let's even give the person the benefit of the doubt and say they meant to use CSD T1, it still is not divisive to any reasonable editor in my opinion. Anyone who is so upset by it that they can't work with a user shouldn't be editing here anyway. The Ungovernable Force 07:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Your userpage is not your property, nor is this a public/democratic forum. Would you call your workplace 1984-land if they asked you to take down some offensive things from your cubicle walls? We're here for the project, not the self-expression and bumper stickers. --Improv 00:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Red herring. You still haven't addressed the fact that WP:NOT dictates how articles should be written and not userboxes. And for the record, we get paid to work. I come here and invest my free time and effort out of generosity ;) That should be worth being able to have my own userboxes (which most people will never see anyway). While I'm busy refuting red herrings, User: Atheist is only offensive if you choose to take it that way. Offensiveness is relative, and general consensus is usually the ONLY benchmark that can be used to determine if something is "generally offensive", as it can never be determined whether something is "absolutely offensive". General consensus in this case, I'd wager, would be that "This user is an atheist" is inoffensive and falls under self-expression. It certainly doesn't attack anyone. TKarrde 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. If you deleted the atheist template, you should have deleted the other religious templates simultaneously. helohe (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do that, and I'll back you up. I am convinced that T1 is being intentionally perverted by people who don't like it, and collectively we're working to zap them all thanks to Jimbo's new criterion. It's going to happen bit-by-bit. Why don't you help me do it more evenly? --Improv 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Statement of one's religion, or lack thereof, is not polemical. No one is being attacked here. The box makes a statement about the user which is not true of all users, yes, but that makes the box as divisive as "This user speaks fluent English". This box doesn't say "Christians suck." This box doesn't say "I hate Muslims." This doesn't even say "God wears a funny hat," which, for the record, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with. It's absolutely not a soapbox, which, as has already been said, wouldn't matter anyway. I think this is pretty clearly a misinterpretation of policy. JDoorjam Talk 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Many (most) workplaces in the real world would ask people to take almost all these userboxes off of their cubicle or office walls/doors. Do you understand why? Think about it. --Improv 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia.com is not a workplace. It is a website where users come to donate their time and effort (WITHOUT COMPENSATION) to create an encyclopedia, something that is normally created by paid employees of a company. I think users deserve a little freedom of self-expression for their trouble. This whole affair seems like Jimbo is trying to thank us with a swift kick in the teeth ;) After all, his website wouldn't exist without US, the users. TKarrde 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you volunteer in a shelter, you will find that your efforts to express yourself, e.g. preaching politics or faith or similar to other volunteers or clients, especially if you think you "deserve it", will be met with cold hostility. If you want to donate your time to make something great, that's wonderful! Don't think it's a transaction you can cash in on though, or that it gives you a license to act as you want. --Improv 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a heckuva devil's advocate, Improv :P Consider this: Userboxes are not analogous to preaching to the homeless in a shelter where you donate your time. Userboxes are analogous to wearing a T-shirt, or even carrying a card in your wallet, since Userboxes aren't immediately visible to the community (a member has to actually visit your user page to see them). If userboxes appeared next to your username whenever you edited or created an article, that'd be different. Userboxes aren't broadcast, like preaching in a public place in the real world. Userboxes are compartmentalized and have to be deliberately accessed in order to be viewed. TKarrde 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And even that's understating the difference between the (false) analogy and this situation, because this template isn't preaching or endorsing a certain viewpoint, anymore than "this user is heterosexual" is critical of non-heterosexuals or "this user has red hair" would be offensive to non-red-haired people. It's a self-identification template to help express a user's POVs (helping avoid confusion and disputes by airing all this stuff out in the open) and interests (helping users work together on articles relevant to their beliefs and perspective). The "card in a wallet" is the best comparison, though I don't see why any comparisons are relevant here—this templat does does not qualify for speedy-deletion because it is neither polemical nor inflammatory. Not believing in a god is really not a big deal. -Silence 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is like a mix of cubicle walls and handing out pamphlets while donating time at a shelter. The content of your userpage is not like your house (if it were, we wouldn't even bother providing space for it), rather, it's to help clarify what you do on the project and serve other purposes, within certain bounds. I see a lot of people upset here, and I'm not happy that this needs to happen, but what I, and I believe Jimbo and a number of other people see here is that the community is being hurt and will continue to be hurt by userboxes. The existing situation cannot continue to exist -- it must be remedied. Many other language wikipediae get along fine with a complete or partial ban on userboxen -- contrary to what some people say, the project does not disappear as people leave in droves. In the long run, I think we'll all see that this was for the best. If people want to express themselves freely outside of the bounds of Wikipedia, that is a great thing. I do it, many others do it. Some things are simply inappropriate here, and the new speedy criterion was added to let us delete things like this. If you don't like it, take it up with Jimbo, or you may file a request for arbitration on me (or perhaps join me with Tony's?). I am willing at this point to stand up and follow what I think is both necessary for the community and endorsed by Jimbo. If he tells me I am wrong, or if Arbcom does, I will stop. I believe though that we have all heard what Jimbo has said though, and that much of this discussion is from people who neither understand what strife can do to a workplace or people who think that userpages are property and wikipedia is a democracy. If I find out that I am wrong about Jimbo's intention, then I will apologise for being too bold. This is, in my current judgement, a case of people not understanding the big picture of how people relate to each other, however. I ask of all of you to please try to understand my perspective, and to think about all the things Jimbo has said about it. I am willing to discuss this at length with any of you in any forum you want, and of course, I won't be upset or take it personally if you want to take this to Jimbo or arbitration. --Improv 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelet - Statement of fact, not divisive. Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and delete all other userboxes that are used to refer to any specific religion or religious views or lack thereof, i.e. "This user is Christian", "This user is pro-life", "This user is agnostic", etc. --Cyde Weys 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - Absolute perversion of the intended meaning of T1. Read polemic. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete immediately - What the hell is going on here!!!! - This is a disgrace!! Jooler 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. We are trampling on people's religious freedom if we disallow this userbox while allowing others of a religious nature. The person who deleted this should be stripped of adminship. --Nelson Ricardo 02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. AGF be damned. If someone deleted this one but left Christian, Jewish, and Muslim templates behind then there is a definite pushing of an agenda. --StuffOfInterest 02:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I assure you that if you looked into the positions that I hold, you would find it to be absurd to accuse me of pushing any kind of political agenda in this. If you wish, go googling for "Pat Gunn". The only agenda I have is to do what is right for Wikipedia, and the only reason I am willing to be as bold as I am is because I believe that Jimbo has given us a dictum and that people on this page are deliberately misinterpreting it because they don't like it. --Improv 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete immediately. This is really outrageous. Grandmasterka 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and agree with Nricardo MiraLuka 02:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If you're offended by truth, then tough shit. --Daniel 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Egad, undelete and stop worrying about bloody userboxes! Isn't there an encyclopedia out there to write? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• RECAP: Opposition to the deleting of the atheist userbox claim that it doesn't hurt anyone, while proponents of it remind everyone that this is Jimbo's decision, not theirs. Which is true. Anything else? TKarrde 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, that's not quite accurate: Jimbo's only actual policy decision was to create a criterion for speedy deletion that targeted inflammatory and divisive userboxes. So you missed "there is no consensus as to what the current policy on deleting userboxes is, or what it is Jimbo decided, except that it has something to do with userboxes and maintaining a sense of community." The important thing is that opposition to the deleting of the atheist userbox claim that it doesn't hurt anyone and is therefore not covered by this policy. JDoorjam Talk 04:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Whoever deleted this one, should really think twice before clicking delete again, sheez.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire If you want bumper stickers, Cafepress is that-a-way, and if you want self-expression, MySpace is that-a-way. This place is supposed to be a collaborative writing project. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's twice you've violated WP:CIVIL. Be nice. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete unless you drop all religious userboxes. It is unquestionably discriminatory to consider atheism an attack on religion. It is a faith unto itself, just as is being Hindu or Lutheran. Unless you are a hypocrite of the highest caliber, atheism must be restored as a userbox or the others must go. Cornell Rockey

Cornell, I think you're confusing atheism with antitheism. Atheism is not a faith, it is the absence of faith. TKarrde 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Ugh ... it seems you don't understand atheism at all. And don't worry, the religious userboxes are all going to be deleted soon enough. The reason we started with this one is because the deleting admin is an atheist and so he can't be accused of bias in deleting this one. --Cyde Weys 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete right now! Unless you are going to delete all user boxes referring to religious beliefs (or lack of them) then this is outrageous! -Paul 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If the userpage is solely meant to "help clarify what you do on the project" (as Improv has stated), then would it mean that other Wikipedian activities that do not directly benefit the project (such as Barnstars and Wikipedia: Department of Fun) are susceptible of being deleted as well? Also, wouldn't it mean that all the categories that classify Wikipedians (such as Wikipedians by country, Wikipedians by religion, and Wikipedians by politics) are liable for deletion too? Doesn't this contradict the goals of the Usercategorisation Wikiproject? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm still relatively new (about 3-4 months) to Wikipedia--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted of course.--MONGO 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete of course. Speedy deletion was obviously unjustified. Misza13 ^(Talk) 13:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- This appears to be an unfair application of the rules. Unless and until EVERY religious and statement of philosophy user box is also deleted, there is no basis for singling out this one. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Keep deleted Changing my vote after looking over this userbox issue some. It appears that the pro-userbox crowd are an unruly mob and their actions have voided whatever minimal usefulness and humor might have been derived from such things. Delete them all with only very narrow exceptions such as the language boxes. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy revert this act of vandalism.  Grue  13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Surely Undelete but does anybody with the right powers even read this page??? --UVnet 14:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. However, I would politely suggest in the interests of redundancy that the Wikipedia atheist community pick either Template:user atheist or Template:user atheism and remove the other. Palm_Dogg 15:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Or make up your own, as I did. Why does everyone have to have the same box? David | Talk 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete Coolgamer 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unless we are going to take the (in my opinion) stupid position that userboxes which merely make a positive statement of fact, not attacking anybody else (the userbox merely states that the user is an atheist, not that atheists are stupid, or theists are murderous fanatics, or anything like that) are deletable, in which case I see no reason why all userboxes cannot be so deleted, since anything statement can be construed as a POV or objectionable (eg, if you state you like strawberries, you implicitly are saying you don't like other fruits nearly as much), this should definitely be restored. --maru (talk) contribs 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Not inflammatory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It is a philosophical stance that I want to declare as a source of potential bias. ChaTo 13:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and de-sysop all rogue admins.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Simple statement of the user's affiliation. --cesarb 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - I'm not an atheist but I strongly believe they should be able to express themselves freely and I believe their numbers can justify a userbox. Cedars 00:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - I truly wish the misconception that atheists (and, by extension, atheism) are inherently antagonist in nature would vanish. Jeff Silvers 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Either Undelete this user template, or delete all POV templates. There is no reason to pick on one or some. RayGates 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete atheism and all other religious-affiliation templates. I can understand why these might be restricted to userspace... but why deleted altogether? Sure, this is a collaborative project with policies, and not a free-for-all, but what has happened here (if I understand it right) seems to me akin to a teacher giving his entire class detention because a few students were disruptive. Heavy-handedness can be damaging to the project just as strife can.EikwaR 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You say you understand why this should be restricted to userspace yet you vote to undelete it? Personally I think the Template: in Template:User atheist is rather obvious. It is explicitly not userspace, it is templatespace, and should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and delete every other religious userbox, too. In fact, delete every other userbox except the babel templates, to end this whole stupid fiasco once and for all. And if that caused a slew of people to leave, let them - they only people who would leave would be those who are more concerned with turning Wikipedia into a bastardisation of Myspace than to contributing towards building a free and full encyclopaedia for all, and the project would be better off without this. In addition, this is in the template namespace. This is not the correct location for a userbox. The correct location for a user box is hell user space. Proto||type 11:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I see nothing wrong with it. --Arny 09:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and delete all other religious boxes, too; per above.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW

This user is a member of Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia.

Speedied under T1 by Johnleemk, but this is not actually a template. —Guanaco 23:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete. Now this goes a bit way too far. Obviously, CSD T1 does not apply and we don't even have to debate whether the words "divisive"/"inflammatory" apply (sitenote: they don't, IMO), because it didn't even belong in the Template: namespace. So, speedy undelete (as an admin's mistake). Or should I fear about my {{User:Misza13/User no Big Brother}}? BTW: I like the logo. :)Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is a misuse of T1, which only applies to template space. This would be like deleting a user page under the "non-notable bio" criterion for article deletion. JDoorjam Talk 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete.Misuse of T1. helohe (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

*Undelete - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • oops voted twice--God of War 03:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a template, it's user space. JDoorjam Talk 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Wikipedia users should have a voice. This organization is a non-volitile social group seeking change. This has no right to be surpressed just because Wikipedia's higher authority doesn't like what we stand for. Just another example of an attempt by Wikipedia officials to silence users advocating change. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Template space is not for nonsense like this. --Cyde Weys 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't template space, it's user space. JDoorjam Talk 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete it anyway as divisive. --Cyde Weys 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please direct me to the policy stating user space can be speedily deleted for being divisive. JDoorjam Talk 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:SNOWBALL, WP:ENC, and WP:IAR. --Cyde Weys 02:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
          • None of those even mention speedy deletion at all, SNOWBALL explicitly says it isn't policy, and as for IAR... are you saying the current rules depress or frighten you? I don't understand your application of that self-admitted non-official non-guideline. JDoorjam Talk 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Sometimes you just have to do what you know to be right, even if there isn't an explicit policy backing you up. This is a clear-cut case of that kind of situation. This "userbox" (or whatever the hell it is) exists solely to identify, recruit, and rally people on one side of a specific issue in changing policy. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - There is no "T1" for Miscellany. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. per guanaco, of course, and also that this is not divisive. nothing to see here, folks, move along. aa v ^ 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -Invalid application of T1 to userspace.--God of War 02:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Looks like I have to worry about my userpage too now. MiraLuka 02:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The continued roguish behavior by anti-userbox admin honchos is both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Christopher_Parham is seeking to block me for this vote. Please see [[6]]. --Daniel 18:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Looks like one of the better userboxes generated by this sad debacle. And whoever deleted it should get a censorship anti-barnstar ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire If you want bumper stickers, Cafepress is that-a-way, and if you want self-expression, MySpace is that-a-way. This place is supposed to be a collaborative writing project. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not much of a collaborative writing project when you capriciously ban users from collaborating as they see fit. And if you want to be obnoxious, Fark is that-a-way. --Daniel 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Calton, do you mean that only faceless robots (of the same POV as you) can contribute? Avalon 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So, Avalon, do you mean Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey? Because that question makes just as much sense as yours does. --Calton | Talk 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again Carlton, you have posted a comment that easily falls under Wikihate. Don't hate. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted silly for sure, how does this help us write a better encyclopedia?--MONGO 10:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nasty polemical. Users without userboxes have no individuality? David | Talk 10:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire, then salt the earth in which it dared to grow in defiance of the laws of God and man. This template was childish nonsense. Userspace is not a haven to which fugitive crap can escape, and this sort of thing is an abuse of userspace privileges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now Since when is it wrong to have an opinion? I'm adding this one to my userpage if it's brought back. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and blow up a few neighboring countries for good measure. Absurd, useless -- anybody remember this is an encylopedia? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We must not tolerate any opinion I don't fully agree with -- or the Islamofascist will have WON! Now, Stop this nonsense or my head asplode!
• Undelete. There are only two fundamental reasons for speedy deletion: 1) it would be a shoe-in at *fD, or 2) decree from above. The T1 criterium clearly falls under "decree from above". In this mail on wikiEN-l, Jimbo seems to be of the opinion that it's userboxes in the Template namespace specifically that are a problem; T1 should therefore not be expanded to cover user space. Eugene van der Pijll 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If it looks like a template, walks like a template, and quacks like a template, it's a template -- even if it's in User: space. --Carnildo 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Any and every page on Wikipedia can be subst'ed. If T1 is expanded beyond template space, it can be justifiably used to delete anything. That's simply too extreme. JDoorjam Talk 19:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a debate going on atWikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about whether T1 should apply only to template space, as many on this page seem to interpret it, or whether it should be expanded to include all transcludable pages. As this goes directly to the heart of what T1 means and how it should be applied, contributors on this page should read the discussion going on there. JDoorjam Talk 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

• Undelete. This is a user page. Do you know how creepy it is to delete information on user pages like this? Next thing you know, someone will delete the Jesus article because he was polemical.--M@rēino 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mareino, don't give them any ideas.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete I'm still upset. But my past comments were uncalled for. Coolgamer 04:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I generally avoid butting in DRV because I don't want to interrupt your "down with the jackbooted fascist admins" song and dance, but you fellows are of course aware of the policies on WP:USER that discourage (if not outright prohibit) creation of content that would be invalid in other namespaces in the userspace? And here's a nice rule of thumb for you -- if it walks like a template, looks like a template, and acts like a template, it is a template. Once you create something and indicate full intent to use it as a template, and start actively transcluding it on pages, for all intents and purposes, it is a template. Since DRV seems to enjoy being so lenient about this, though, I guess I can start trolling in my userspace now. ^_^ Johnleemk | Talk 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Utterly unhelpful, walks like a template, etc. Running to userspace to get nonsense past T1 is not to be encouraged. As an aside, the idea that you need a bunch of cookie-cutter boxes on your space in order to express your individuality is only slightly funnier than it is sad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. For all the obvious reasons. Would also support the banning of the user who linked the deaths of millions to the manipulation of a couple of elections. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• This page is not a template, so it was deleted improperly. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a template. It's just not in the Template: namespace. That's the Big Question: does Jimbo want to get rid of all idiotic templates, or just the ones in Template: space? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - pushing this fight into userspace is too much, I tyhink. But the image, Image:Uduiw.jpg, I think is inappropraite use of image space: it is not good for other purposes, and it is useful for poll stacking. I'll IfD it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Cf. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 21 --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 21 --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. It has long been established that user subpages can be transcluded to simplify the code of the user page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It has also been established that people should not violate WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. How does this help to create an encyclopedia? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. Userpages don't help to create an encyclopedia, either. Are you suggesting those be done away with? Jeff Silvers 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no question. User talk pages definitively are aimed athelping to create an encyclopedia. And I've even seen user pages, helping to create an encyclopedia. But this template doesn't. --Pjacobi 12:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*Keep deleted per CSD T1. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) - whoops, already voted .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - obviously intended to be used as a template, and obviously divisive (if not trolling). --Doc ^ask? 16:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sometimes you just have to step back and say to yourself, "Isn't it time I grew up, and got over the fact that userboxes are, like, dead?" Why did the users who are voting undelete register an account? I have a feeling it was for the wrong reasons. Keep it nuked. Esteffect 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted - divisive; doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, T1 does not appear to apply in userspace. Out of process. Stifle 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kick Johnleemk and undelete This has to stop, if people keep this up, it's only going to lead to a great deal of resentment for anyone who is an administrator, because it seems like all of them are abusing their positions. Janizary 18:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• DID EVERYONE MISS THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT IN TEMPLATE SPACE?!? Undelete IMMEDIATELY. Rogue 9 13:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, because speedying miscellany to which no CSD applies suggests that admins wield a sceptre, rather than a mop. Babajobu 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete THIS IS NOT IN THE TEMPLATE SPACE! Also, it was pro-speech (censored by the wikipedia thought police and their leader Jimbo Wales) --Shell <e> 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User God

Content was: This user is God.

Speedied by Physchim62 as empty template; content was: {{db-meta|abusive userbox, used to divide community}}{{{category|Category:Candidates for speedy deletion}}}.

I don't think the userbox was that bad, but I would like someone to explain to an HTML-illiterlate(namely me!) about what mumbo jumbo above means. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - This kind of silly, unencyclopedic content does not belong in main template space. It should be restricted solely to userspace, and Template: is not in userspace! --Cyde Weys 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when does "silly" count as criteria for template/userbox deletion? --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I like how you jumped on the silly but didn't address the substantive claim, that this is unencyclopedic yet in the main templatespace. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Content being unencyclopedic in template space is not a criterion for deletion. Should it be? That's a different discussion. Under current policy, there is no CSD that says unencyclopedic content gets the axe. JDoorjam Talk 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Policy is changing. Very soon it's going to be required that templates have encyclopedic value, or be deleted. --Cyde Weys 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as silly userbox --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Doc ^ask? 17:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - "Silly" is not a valid speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf 17:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I also disagree with the "used to divide community" remark. What baloney. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Thryduulf. "Silliness" might be considered on TfD. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, but perhaps it's a good idea to userfy as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete), I can't believe that anyone would take this template seriously enough for it to be a T1 violation, but list at TfD if you really want to. --AySz88^-^ 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This template is not silly, it is factual. I am a God. A Greek God of war that is.--God of War 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. So spoke god (thats me). helohe (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Suitheism is a valid, non-inflammatory philosophical and spiritual belief. To delete it just because certain users consider it a ridiculous view is just asking for someone to accuse Wikipedia of bigotry; userboxes should not censor belief structures just because they are unusual. Likewise, deleting this template as a humorous userbox, rather than one expressing a valid and meaningful self-identification (and it can be both), is censoring humor based on how many people find it funny, and is also unacceptable. Furthermore, T1 does not apply to this template because it is neither polemic (where's the argument?) nor inflammatory (where's the attack?); list it at TfD if you think it should be deleted. Do not abuse the speedy deletion process. -Silence 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete So this userbox was used to divide the community into those who are gods and those who are not, then? MiraLuka 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If you want bumper stickers, Cafepress is that-a-way, and if you want self-expression, MySpace is that-a-way. If you're looking for a noble cause, go volunteer at your local food bank. This place is supposed to be a collaborative writing project. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. How is that divisive? A humorous, unencyclopedic, userbox, but not divisive. And neither humorous nor unencylopedic are categories for the speedy deletion of templates. Even if they were, it should be changed b/c it helps boost morale, which helps the encyclopedia run better. The Ungovernable Force 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted childish nonsense, does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 10:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Again: Suitheism is a valid, non-inflammatory philosophical and spiritual belief. helohe (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Silly and uselessly provocative. older ≠ wiser 13:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Again: Suitheism is a valid, non-inflammatory philosophical and spiritual belief. helohe (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. God does not need a soap box, anyhow. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. Go waste your time at Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. --cesarb 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete This template IS not silly. This is a deep philosophical and spiritual statement common among Hindu saints and sages who have realized the ultimate Truth. "We are all Gods" is also a common statement in the books of Neale Donald Walsch. Even Jesus Christ told this profound statement to the masses and this is written even in the Holy Bible. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What are u talking about? This userbox is for all the greek gods here on wikipedia. You puny mortals cant use it :)--God of War 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete userboxes = increased morale = better encyclopaedia. (Can User:Cyde use his powers to give me the lottery numbers for next week?) Avalon 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. We have WP:BJAODN, so why can't we have this? If we only wanted encyclopedic content, WP:BJAODN would have been purged and erased from existance long ago. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Doom Box

Content was:

We're Doomed! This user supports userboxes. They probably just need to get outside more often,. You can help save Wikipedia by slapping this user silly, then blocking them forever..

This was a rather humorous template intended to poke fun at both sides of the userbox debate. It was deleted today by Dmcdevit because "this is unnecessarily confrontational, and designed only to inflame the current userbox struggle" Anyone who saw this knows that it was not confrontational. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted perhaps the ONLY template on here that DOES qualify as 'inflammatory or polemical' Cynical 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Jokes are by nature hard to judge. Since I'm not convinced that is polemical (rather satire) or inflammatory (ever heard of irony and sense of humor?), so I give it a weak undelete. Once the userbox-storm is over and these kind of boxes become redundant I'll probably vote delete and move to BJAODN but only in a proper TfD debate. Misza13 ^(Talk) 15:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD. Once it's at TfD, I'll vote "delete", but I'm not so impatient or unwliling to hear the other side's arguments that I feel this template shouldn't be given a full TfD discussion. It's complex and borderline enough that whether it falls under T1 can certainly be disputed, unlike, say, a template which says "I hate Mexicans"—that's the sort of template T1 was really made for! I understand why the admin speedy-deleted this, but I believe this is an excessively loose, undisciplined interpretation of T1. -Silence 16:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and send to TfD. This is the most borderline template I've seen here, but because it is borderline and the intention is clearly humour it needs to be at TfD, not speedy. Once it is listed at TfD then I will almost certainly vote delete, and like Misza13 I think it merits a spot in BJAODN. Thryduulf 16:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This kind of silly, unencyclopedic content does not belong in main template space. It should be restricted solely to userspace, and Template: is not in userspace! --Cyde Weys 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, as you are undoubtedly aware of, this is not TfD where such issues ("silliness") may be discussed. This is DRV where we discuss the appropriateness (or its lack) of speedy deletions. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Would you please stop spamming everything I'm saying with your reply? Your attempt to have my say discounted for some incorrect reason is both transparent and irritating. And I do think the speedy deletions were correct. Everything that doesn't belong in main templatespace should be deleted, the sooner the better. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand your view, but the only thing that deletion review can take into account is: "Was the deletion proper?". In the case of speedy deletion this means "Did any speedy deletion criteria apply?". There is currently no speedy deletion criteria that templates that do not relate to articles can been speedy deleted, so whether they do or do not is irrelevant to this page as I and others keep telling you. If you want all non-article related templates to be deleted then I suggest you formulate a proposal to this effect and then advertise it on centralised discussions to see if there is community consensus regarding this. Thryduulf 17:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't like the implications that only people who oppose a userbox's deletion can have their say here. Nobody is attacking the unsubstantive "Keep" votes around here. At least I'm trying to explain my reasoning. And by the way, divisive/inflammatory is a speedy deletion criteria and this userbox falls under that as well. --Cyde Weys 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It is difficult to "attack" (I don't like the word) them, since if the voters don't give any reasons (like Jaranda, Doc an Mackensen below). As of your vote: silly/unencyclopedic - no such CSD - go to TfD; divisive/inflammatory - well, can you please explain who is inflamed by this template or how this joke divides the community? Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It's divisive because it creates an "us versus them" mentality, i.e. those who are in favor of userboxes and those who are against. That it is presented in a humorous light is merely an attempt to disguise its real intentions. But please, I'd like to see you commenting on all of the "keep" voters that aren't backing up their reasoning, either. --Cyde Weys 20:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no "hidden inentions." What you see is what you get. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
            • And what I see is divisive and inflammatory. --Cyde Weys 20:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
              • An interesting remark. Because, some people do not see such things - which I believe proves that this template is not "clearly" divisive/inflammatory and thus should be undeleted and discussed at TfD (where it will be crushed as useless, but still, WP:PI and don't abuse WP:IAR). As of commenting, if one does not state anything, I assume "per above" by default. But if there is nothing above... Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
                • • • • • It's ironic, userbox haters claim that they are divisive to the community. Yet they seem to ignore how divisive and disruptive the out of process speedy deletions are to the community.--God of War 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • What's ironic is someone claiming to care for the community voting to keep this garbage. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
                            • Deleting userboxes willy-nilly is what's harming the community; this is extremely damaging to morale. I'm now forced to use my valuable time to oppose such idiocy rather than editing the encyclopedia; if userboxes were left alone as harmless (which they are with a few very rare exceptions), we could all get on with our business. Undelete. Rogue 9 13:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted no TFD --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Doc ^ask? 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as God of War MiraLuka 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. The Ungovernable Force 07:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted childish!...just think, the time could have been spent writing an encyclopedia...what a pity.--MONGO 10:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but I've spent plenty of time contributing to the encyclopedia. Including during the userbox debate. Don't hate. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete
• Keep deleted. Per MONGO, Dalbury, ... --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted This template does not help build the encyclopedia. Please take your games to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and leave a copy in BJAODN. Cute, but ephermeral and distracting. Let's use the template space to support the writing of an encyclopedia, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Obvious joke template. --cesarb 21:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, send to TFD where it will be deleted, and BJAODN. Wikipedia:Process is Important. Stifle 13:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Obvious joke. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anarchist2

Content was: This user thinks that an Anarchy makes an easy target for invasion.

reason for deletion given was: actually no reason was given. I guess we don't deserve an expanation. deleted by user:Physchim62 Mike McGregor (Can) 13:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• • actually, it does say content was divisive. Hard to see though since it looks like code. The Ungovernable Force 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• strong undelete discloses user's POV, encourgases pluralism, contributes to an open and honest atmosphere which is condusive to writing an encylopedia. also, abused T1. this is not in the spirit of the policy. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• strong undelete and desysop. Abused T1. helohe (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unjustified SD. Misza13 ^(Talk) 14:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Speedy Undelete If you can't come up with a reason to speedy, then don't speedy it at all. It's that simple. Admins are not Gods. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete not 'inflammatory or polemical', therefore doesn't qualify for CSD. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Cynical 15:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD. There's clearly enough contention over the speedy-deletion to merit a discussion of the template. If it was listed on TfD, I might vote "weak delete" just because this template, though not especially inflammatory, isn't really that useful for telling us about the user's POVs, interests, or style (and might cause confusion regarding what the user actually does think about anarchy), though I appreciate that it's largely meant to be humorous. Or I might not vote at all; this is a real borderline case. -Silence 16:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This clearly does not meet T1 (or any other) speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This kind of silly, unencyclopedic content does not belong in main template space. It should be restricted solely to userspace, and Template: is not in userspace! --Cyde Weys 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, as you are undoubtedly aware of, this is not TfD where such issues ("silliness") may be discussed. This is DRV where we discuss the appropriateness (or its lack) of speedy deletions. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted polemical --Doc ^ask? 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. has no business being deleted without reason. aa v ^ 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. Strange, but so what?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete) and list at TfD, could be interpreted as polemical. --AySz88^-^ 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find it offensive or polemical and I'm an anarchist. I think it's funny and almost put it on my own page, but that would have just confused people who might not see the humor. The Ungovernable Force 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. No reason given for deletion which is completely unacceptable. I also see nothing about this userbox that meets the criterion for speedy deletion. If you feel this is inappropriate, put it up for Tfd. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If you want bumper stickers, Cafepress is that-a-way, and if you want self-expression, MySpace is that-a-way. This place is supposed to be a collaborative writing project. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Not divisive, not polemic, most likely a joke (and a funny one at that, and this is coming from an anarchist), which is not a justification for speedy deletion of userboxes. The Ungovernable Force 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted no billboards.--MONGO 10:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Classic T1. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Unamerican

Content was: U.S. flag upside down and the text This user is Un-American.

reason given for deletion was "t1" by User:Physchim62. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• strong undelete discloses user's POV, encourgases pluralism, contributes to an open and honest atmosphere which is condusive to writing an encylopedia. also, abused T1. this is not in the spirit of the policy. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete I may not agree with what the userbox says, but I will gladly defend to the death the right for that userbox to say it. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete not 'inflammatory or polemical', therefore doesn't qualify for CSD. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Cynical 15:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per all three undelete votes above mine. Thryduulf 16:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Deleted While I sympathize with the idea of free speech, this isn't a free speech zone, and this is CLEARLY meant to be polemical and OBVIOUSLY meant to be inflammatory and divisive (How could it NOT be???) If someone wants to say "I hate America" (or Europe, or Iran, etc.) they can do it by writing this sentiment on their Userpage - or better yet, on their homepage, off Wikipedia. And yes, I would feel the same way if the message was "I'm PROUD to be American," by the way. Nhprman ^UserLists 17:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This kind of silly, unencyclopedic content does not belong in main template space. It should be restricted solely to userspace, and Template: is not in userspace! --Cyde Weys 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, as you are undoubtedly aware of, this is not TfD where such issues ("silliness") may be discussed. This is DRV where we discuss the appropriateness (or its lack) of speedy deletions. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted polemical --Doc ^ask? 17:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete, list for tfd, or tag with t1, whatever. but do not delete anything without leaving at least a summary. aa v ^ 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete), clicking on the link explains the joke (like the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy box). --AySz88^-^ 21:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list it on tfd.--Adam ^(talk) 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The upside-down American flag is used as a direct insult to the US. Just like the middle finger. This is completely inappropriate and, as a patriotic American, I am very offended by this. -- §Hurricane

ERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, but considering your earlier free speech rant I find that a sad reason to keep deleted. I defended your ideas, even though I found them sick (I am seriously offended when I see non-desecrated flags considering this country's long history of genocide and imperialism in the name of "freedom"). Free speech goes both ways, and while I will not withdraw my support of undeletion for the userboxes you want undeleted, (such as republican and troops), I do hope you will consider withdrawing this vote to keep deleted. The Ungovernable Force 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an example of something that clearly is divisive, IMO. It's also a misapplication: an upside-down American flag (or any flag) is a sign of distress, not a sign of un-Americanism. But that's beside the point. I think there are a good number of boxes that are mis-tagged T1, but I think it's pretty clear that this box is divisive. JDoorjam Talk 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. MiraLuka 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither inflammatory nor divisive. The continued roguish behavior by anti-userbox admin honchos is both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Christopher_Parham is seeking to block me for this vote. Please see [[7]]. --Daniel 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Although I understand the possibly divisive nature of this userbox, I think that if we are going to support any userboxes, we should support just about all userboxes. Everything can be divisive to the wrong people (even upright american flags), and we should respect minority views here and not just delete them because a few people cannot control their emotions enough to work with users they disagree with politically. The Ungovernable Force 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted use a MOAB on this.--MONGO 10:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete as above. --UVnet 14:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete as a patriotic American, I am very disturbed that some people are citing their patriotism as a reason to delete this box. --M@rēino 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete I have no hate towards admins. Just admins with power issues. Coolgamer 04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Legitimate political expression and I think I've seen these on one or two user pages (i.e. the userbox has the numbers to justify it). Cedars 00:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Has no encyclopedic value and it doesn't really matter how many people use it, it still doesn't belong outside of userspace. There isn't a fundamental right of free speach here Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Nothing to see here, move along. Proto||type 11:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - freedom of speech and opinion. --Arny 09:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Use regular processes.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Don't want to be a Wikipedian Idiot... --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User death-stop

Why was this one deleted, stating that you do not agree with the death penalty in any circumstance does not seem to agree with the given reason "It is a template that is polemical or inflammatory". If you think so then I would say almost all userboxes are! Arnoutf 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Someone clearly applied the broadest category of the term polemical. Apparently any statement is polemical. When I say that I had a coffee this morning, someone would probably think that I'm advocating the usage of caffeine or start a polemic with those who had tea... Halibutt 18:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete Those who delete userboxes should actually explain why the userbox is divisive and be prepared to back those assertions up. That's what TfD is for Mostlyharmless 19:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. And bann the admin who deleted it. helohe (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's really what you think - file a case with Arbcom. Otherwise stop making idle threats. --Doc ^ask? 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete. And helohe, if you want to file an RfC or RFAr over this I will gladly second it Cynical 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete No Thought-Police for me. Userboxes make Wikipedia better, as you know the POV of the editor. Simple. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I see nothing inflammatory or inappropriate about this userbox. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 05:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Not divisive. What is divisive is the deletion of userboxes. User:The Ungovernable Force/manifesto. The Ungovernable Force 09:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• speedy Undelete neither devisive, inflamatory nor polemic. Does not qualift for speedy deletion. Thryduulf 10:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. CSD T1 not applicable. Misza13 ^(Talk) 11:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'm sure "I like rainy days" will be next because it would be considered devisive against anyone who does not. Welcome to the new Wikipedia, no individuality allowed. --StuffOfInterest 13:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Read polemic. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Wikipedia is not communism. Admins are not Gods. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This kind of silly, unencyclopedic content does not belong in main template space. It should be restricted solely to userspace, and Template: is not in userspace! --Cyde Weys 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, as you are undoubtedly aware of, this is not TfD where such issues ("silliness") may be discussed. This is DRV where we discuss the appropriateness (or its lack) of speedy deletions. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn (undelete), this doesn't seem to be polemical. --AySz88^-^ 21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV.--MONGO 10:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete 2+2=5. Coolgamer 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted'. T1, not suitable for template in the least. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User troops

This userbox was deleted by Physchim62 without discussion. Why? All it said was "this user supports the troops". What's wrong with that? I love my country and I especially love the people who are willing to, and all too frequently do, die for it. Why can't I say that in a userbox? I see nothing at all negative about this userbox and I want it back. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 05:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete clearly not T1 --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete This user supports the Iraqi insurgency, but thinks that it's a good idea if other editors actually label their opinions when editing. Mostlyharmless 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete I hate my country and would rather have a userbox that says "I support our troops when they kill their officers" but still, we need to stand together against this baseless deletion of userboxes. No need, not divisive, stop deleting. User:The Ungovernable Force/manifesto. The Ungovernable Force 09:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it is ridiculous to suggest this is in any way devisive or pollemic. Thryduulf 10:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. CSD T1 not applicable. Misza13 ^(Talk) 11:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 13:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Read polemic before using T1. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The phrase used in this userbox was universal, so it wa not inclusionist to a certain country. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete not 'inflammatory or polemical', therefore doesn't qualify for CSD. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Cynical 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This kind of silly, unencyclopedic content does not belong in main template space. It should be restricted solely to userspace, and Template: is not in userspace! --Cyde Weys 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, as you are undoubtedly aware of, this is not TfD where such issues ("silliness") may be discussed. This is DRV where we discuss the appropriateness (or its lack) of speedy deletions. Misza13 ^(Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Deleted as per User:Cyde, above. Despite my personal feelings, it's polemical and divisive. As a side note, any comment about "the troops" is kind of vague in an internationally edited encyclopedia. Best done in Userspace. Nhprman ^UserLists 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  The vagueness is kinda the point. --AySz88^-^ 21:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted (mind you, it could be Al Qaeda's troops) --Doc ^ask? 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete how again is this divisive? aa v ^ 17:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it does not meet speedy deletion criteria- nominate it on Tfd.--Adam ^(talk) 21:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (undelete), so vague as to probably not be polemical. --AySz88^-^ 21:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Why oh why must people be so obtuse? --Nelson Ricardo 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not even close. MiraLuka 02:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not even close: right-wing code phrase = intentionally divisive user box. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--MONGO 10:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not on a user page, it is on a template page. You're welcome to say what you want within reasonable bounds on your user page, but the template space is supposed to encyclopedic and NPOV.--Alhutch 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Strong undelete. Mike McGregor took the words out of my mouth. Knowing where people stand can only help us seek out systemic bias and strengthen the encyclopedia. Noirdame 09:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, because admins wield a mop, not a sceptre. Say no to wikiMamlukism, Babajobu 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Hello folks, it's an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, get this stuff out of the template space. This template does not help build the encyclopedia.--Alhutch 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete People have PsOV, they don't disappear because they are hidden. In the open they can be allowed for. Avalon 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. Expressing support for use of military force is about as political as you can get. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Not polemical. Support of troops is not the same as support of war.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Yes Animal Testing

Content was: This user supports animal testing. Unless we delete all the dozen all so 'this user opposes animal testing', I think this should be restored. Deletion reason was (guess...) T1. Your comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Undelete - this is not harmful to Wikipedia, devisive, pollemic, etc. TFD is the apropriate course of action not speedy deletion. Thryduulf 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I'm a vegetarian, working on vegan, and am seriously anti-vivisection, but c'mon, let them voice their opinion! This is not divisive, I doubt a lot of people are going to be up in arms just b/c someone has this on their userpage. The Ungovernable Force 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, polemic. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted even though I share this view. Get rid of these damn non-article space templates. --Cyde Weys 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete even though I oppose this view. Those who oppose userboxes are just abusing their powers to impose their will on everyone. Mostlyharmless 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive, not appropriate. --Improv 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Halibutt 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete MiraLuka 07:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. CSD T1 not applicable. Misza13 ^(Talk) 11:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelte Hello, Rfc. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete not 'inflammatory or polemical', therefore doesn't qualify for CSD. Speedy deletion is not a toy. Cynical 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive. --Doc ^ask? 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted just junk.--MONGO 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- this isn't even divisive. The anti-testing people are very much aware that there is an opposition, and they aren't shocked to know that some people must support all the testing that goes on.--M@rēino 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and be glad I'm not advocating vivisection of the rogue admins. --Daniel 02:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• If "user opposes animal testing" etc are still around then Undelete. Discordance 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I generally oppose animal testing but I also oppose the proscription of the voicing of opinions on user pages. Unless the opinion advocates the commission of a wrong malum in se. Avalon 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - there is no proscription of the voicing of opinions on userpages. What kind of opinions do you have that can only be voiced in a userbox format? Are you really just unable to express yourself without boxen? The best, most creative, and most expressive userpages here don't have any userboxes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. And speedy any other polemic on animal testing. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per CSD T1. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User liberation wars

Content was: This user supports wars of liberation, and is equally opposed to pacifism, nationalism, imperialism, fascism, racism, and theocracy. Deleted beacuse content was: '{{db-divisive}}. Doesn't look like valid delete reason to me. What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Piotrus. This is not polemic or divisive. Send to TfD instead. Thryduulf 01:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Although I don't see how pacifism can be sanely grouped with fascism, imperialism, racism and theocracy, I say undelete per Piotrus--not divisive. The Ungovernable Force 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Easily so; pacifism is the belief that you have no obligation to oppose fascism etc, and have every right to leech off of your society without defending it, and to claim a halo for your hypocrisy. Absolute pacifism is extremely harmful. Now on the subject, Undelete. Rogue 9 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Not saying whether I agree here or not, but come on. How on EARTH can taking a stand on all these issues at once NOT be polemic ("the practice of inciting disputation or causing controversy") if not outright divisive? It seems designed to provoke political debate. Which is fine for a bumper sticker, but not Wikipedia. Nhprman 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as misuse of templates. --Cyde Weys 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted T1 --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Okay, this one is T1. --AySz88^-^ 05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Not appropriate. Divisive. Try livejournal. --Improv 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The users deleting MUST give more context to the reasons they deleted. Simply citing a rule is not enough - you actually have to show how it applies. Mostlyharmless 06:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, wrong interpretation of the term divisive. Halibutt 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete MiraLuka 07:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Surprised? ;-) Actually, what might hurt here is the "and is equally opposed to...". This box does not only state a support but also "attacks" other groups and thus might be considered polemic. Just This user supports wars for liberation. is much more appropriate, non-T1 and could be properly discussed/improved on TfD. Misza13 ^(Talk) 11:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted polemic. --Doc ^ask? 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Supports violence and divisive, that's not cool. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)=
• Undelete This userbox is neither inflammatory nor divisive. The continued roguish behavior by anti-userbox admin honchos is both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Christopher_Parham is seeking to block me for this vote. Please see [[8]]. --Daniel 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV.--MONGO 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Oh for heaven's sake, polemical as they come. T1. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted surprised?    GUÐSÞEGN    – UTEX – 19:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Tibet

Deleted because per CSD T1 - Jimbo's new rule. Content was: suports independence for Tibet or something similar (can't remember without undeleting it). I disagree it falls under T1. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete - Please, please, please actually read polemic before invoking T1. This is not a polemic template. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - not covered by any speedy criteria. Thryduulf 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete I've never seen anyone upset by "Free Tibet" bumperstickers. Why is this different? That is one of the most tame political userboxes you can have. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as misuse of templates. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 02:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No Thought-Police for me. Userboxes make Wikipedia better, as you know the POV of the editor. Simple. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Misza13 ^(Talk) 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete .helohe (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete T1 clearly does not apply here. Sigh... Mostlyharmless 05:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Again, divisive. You can't pretend that the T1 criterion does not mean anything. --Improv 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid many people wrongly call the diversity of users a "division". For my understanding, a divisive template would be something along the lines of "This user hates/dislikes/opposes <insert group here> wikipedians." - though not quite that - I can't really find a good example. Misza13 ^(Talk) 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a sign that you're not interpreting "divisive" correctly. That's the impression I get -- I think that most of the people voting to undelete here are enormously dissatisfied that Jimbo added the new deletion criterion, and so they want to render it meaningless by finding the most useless interpretation of it they can possibly find. I find that disappointing. --Improv 23:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Halibutt 06:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Comment: This userbox would actually fall into the category below. MiraLuka 07:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and double above comment. However this template deserves special attention since it is probably one of the most linked ones. Misza13 ^(Talk) 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive. --Doc ^ask? 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete "divisive" = "you don't agree with me." Avalon 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV--MONGO 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Thorri 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Use regular means if necessary.    GUÐSÞEGN    – UTEX – 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User All Drugs

• 21:00, 18 February 2006 Doc glasgow deleted this. Comment: (T1 G4). Obviously, it is not (T1 G4).

Content was: This user supports the legalization of all drugs for adults.

• Speedy undelete and punish Doc glasgow. helohe (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What was the text of this userbox? --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"This user supports the legalization of all drugs" or something to that extent. Also Speedy undelete. Fightindaman 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly then: "This user is for the legalisation of all drugs for personal use." helohe (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and desysop how much more vandalism is DocGlasgow going to be allowed to get away with? Cynical 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not make uncivil and unfounded accusations. DocGlasgow has not vandalized anything (see my below comment under the "inclusionist and deletionist" userbox review); he has interpreted policy in a way that you disagree with, in an attempt to help Wikipedia (as he sees it). If that attempt has failed, it is because he misinterpreted policy, misunderstood the potential value or harm of certain userboxes, and/or was a bit too overzealous and poorly-timed with his deletions, perhaps not realizing that they would only cause even more needless strife and ill-will over this silly topic. He has acted in good faith and done the wrong thing—it happens to everyone. Let's not vilify those we disagree with just because they did something you find completely unacceptable; such deletions will be easy enough to revert with an undelete in order to allow the templates to be listed on TfD for discussion, with no lasting harm done. Whether you think a desysop is merited or not, hatred and baseless accusations are certainly neither merited nor helpful. If each person involved in this matter can calm down and simply discuss the matter in an even, open-minded manner, regardless of how poorly the other side is acting, we will very rapidly turn this from a divisive and destructive war back into a simple policy discussion. It's not impossible; no matter how deeply wrong and harmful you think the other side's views or actions are, try giving it a shot. We all have the same ultimate goal in mind; this is not a culture war between trolls/vandals/dictators and the noble Wikipedians they seek to oppress. It's just a simple, honest disagreement. -Silence 21:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am considering an Rfc, so he might not get away with much anymore. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete Immediately. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is patently not speediable under T1. G4 is recreation of deleted material "In case of a speedily deleted page, [the deleting administrator] must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place." This does not meet T1 and no other criteria has even been suggested so it is not a valid speedy under G4 either. Thryduulf 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I hope my votes aren't getting too tiresome now. I just think that userboxes, as a whole, have done much more harm than good to Wikipedia, and so they should all go. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clyde, I hope you don't tire of people pointing out to you that this is not the forum to debate whether userboxes have done more harm than good or otherwise. This is the forum to debate whether the deletion was correct. Speedy deletions must follow the letter and spirit of the criteria - this has not. Thryduulf 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, you're the first to point this out to me. And my criteria is clear: all userboxes should be deleted. So for any userbox that comes up for deletion review I'm going to say that the speedy deletion was correct. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, a personal opinion that all userboxes should get deleted has no impact on consensus decision wheter this particular deletion was correct. These are not votes here. helohe (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me rephrase: templates are used in the main article space and should be NPOV and relevant to articles. We're building an encyclopedia here, not some virtual community where everyone says everything about themselves in colored boxes. If you want to keep your POV in userspace by all means go ahead. But Template: is not userspace! --Cyde Weys 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but at least give people a week or so of notice so they can put the codes on their pages before you guys go deleting all the templates, which makes finding the codes difficult. The Ungovernable Force 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - it is NOT a T1. Misza13 ^(Talk) 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divides Wikipedians by their views on drug legalisation. David | Talk 22:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hopefully you are aware there is currently no Wikipedia policy or guideline against templates which divide users by their views. The proper place for this discussion is TfD, where it will be deleted if consensus or discussion indicate that it ought to be. -Silence 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, I hate T1 and how it was brought in but it's the rule and it was brought in in a rule-abiding fashion. To my eye, this template fit T1. I will be copy-pasting this notice a few times, I foresee. Lord Bob 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Enough already. The Ungovernable Force 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Enough said. enochlau (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 02:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Why should I give a reason or bother to debate this? Didn't happen before its' deletion. Mostlyharmless 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Divisive, T1. --Improv 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I would never use it myself, but I see no reason to violate wiki rules and delete it just because Halibutt 06:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and I must say, it's rather hard to assume good faith on the part of the deleter when you look at just how many of his deletions are disputed. You'd think he'd get the message and stop deleting things... MiraLuka 07:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive. --Doc ^ask? 17:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete. i don't agree with it, but that isn't the point. this is precisely why the {{db-divisive}} template is ineffectual. aa v ^ 18:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete list on tfd. I don't consider this divisive or polemical. I personally disagree with the template, but people have a right to use it.--Adam ^(talk) 21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted stupid, obvious speedy, polemic junk.--MONGO 10:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary or part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete as this is not inflammatory or divisive. Might get more traction at TFD, but I'd vote to keep it. — brighterorange (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Coolgamer 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Mike Rosoft. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Siva1979 and MikeRosoft. SushiGeek 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete after all, admins wield a mop, not a sceptre. Babajobu 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Copybook T1. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no evil boxes

• 2006-02-18 03:34:30 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User no evil boxes" (t1)

It was just a smiley saying Hi! I am a userbox with a POV. I won't hurt you, I promise! Pretty please don't delete me.

Obviously, it is not "clearly divisive or inflammatory" (CSD T1). Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and punish Doc glasgow. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Punish me? In the current atmosphere, that userbox is clearly trolling. Stop it. --Doc ^ask? 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong. This userbox is not trolling; the word you're looking for is "satire". Nor is deleting it trolling; Doc glasgow simply feels that the userbox is detrimental to our work on the Wikipedia encyclopedia project. I have no doubt that none of the participants in this affair are acting in bad faith; this is merely the result of a simple difference in opinion, and not one so horribly tangled and complex that it's impossible for us to work this out in a discussion. They're just little colored boxes, for god's sake. Since whether this is "clearly divisive or inflammatory" is disputed, it can no longer easily be considered "clearly", so a TfD is merited: undelete and list on TfD. As a rule, speedy-deleting is for (relatively) uncontroversial deletions, not just a way to totally circumvent the TfD process, which has a long and successful history of making the correct decision through consensus and debate. Even if the outcome of the discussion ends up being moot for some reason, better to have at least had the discussion, so arguments for and against can be made. If nothing else, it'll at least lessen the ill-will of users who feel that their voices aren't being heard, which benefits the encyclopedia project by not disillusioning or driving away any of its valuable contributors. -Silence 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Doc, we're not talking the usefulness of the userbox. That might be discussed on TfD after (a hopeful!) undeletion. We're discussing whether or not your deletion was justified. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete per everything Misza13 said. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per Misza13 Cynical 20:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and punish Doc glasgow.helohe (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - No need to say more at this point, I think. Read some of my comments on some of the below. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and send to TfD. This is probably a WP:POINT violation, but that is not a speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - That userbox is cool. I've had enough of them trying to delete all of the userboxes. It's trying to prove a point.Dtm142 21:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I hope my votes aren't getting too tiresome now. I just think that userboxes, as a whole, have done much more harm than good to Wikipedia, and so they should all go. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clyde, I hope you don't tire of people pointing out to you that this is not the forum to debate whether userboxes have done more harm than good or otherwise. This is the forum to debate whether the deletion was correct. Speedy deletions must follow the letter and spirit of the criteria - this has not. Thryduulf 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is, it seems to me, a WP:POINT violation, created in order to have it speedy deleted and therefore stoke the debate on userboxes. David | Talk 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• As the creator of this box I can guarantee to you that this was not created for just to have it speedily deleted. If you people wanted to know why it was created then you could of just asked instead of this pointless speculation.--God of War 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. WP:POINT. enochlau (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT is not a criterion for speedy deletion. JDoorjam Talk 08:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 02:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and send to TfD if it offends you. Mostlyharmless 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Not appropriate here. --Improv 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Mizsa13 MiraLuka 07:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The ab use of admin. power just keeps getting more breathtaking. --Nelson Ricardo 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete satire ≠ divisive. Get a grip. Avalon 06:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy an invitation to delete...the creator should be blocked for disruption.--MONGO 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Harmless satire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• This template is a joke. I repeat: a joke - in no way offensive or disruptive. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted under current name per CSD T1; I have nothing against it being undeleted under a better name. --cesarb 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as BJAODN, not as CSD T1. User:Doc glasgow really should take a voluntary break from Admin duties though -- this is a clear case of Wikistress--M@rēino 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no valid reason for the speedy. List on TFD if desired. Stifle 18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete --Thorri 12:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Let's not encourage trolls. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Advise Sidaway to WP:AGF Ashibaka tock 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Silly, but nothing wrong with it. --Arny 09:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Humor is good.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Homestarmy 02:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User incl and Template:User delete

These were the inclusionist and deletionist userboxes, relating to Wikipedia editing philosophy. Both were apparently speedily deleted by Doc glasgow on the grounds that they were "divisive." Smerdis of Tlön 18:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete. I hang my head in dismay at what this imposed diktat has unleashed. Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - They even relate directly to Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete and slap Doc Glasgow across the head. --Revolución (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per all above. User:Doc glasgow (and a few others) is really abusing the T1 CSD criterium. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Could someone please show me the discussion and concensus behind T1 which is being used so broadly the last two days? I fear that concensus no longer matters in deletion decisions. --StuffOfInterest 19:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  I think Jimbo Wales started that going. --AySz88^-^ 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete "This user is an inclusionist." REAL divisive. Huh? Good is bad? What?   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete And reprimand/remove admind duties/block any admin who continues to violate Wikipolicy. This is an outrage! --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and slap the admin as per D-Day's contribution. Mostlyharmless 20:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - oh come on! These are boxes to divide people into factions - stick lables on editors and say, 'I'm in this gang'. How are they not divisive? How do they further sensible debate? It is this sort of crap that has broken Afd. Now this whole page is a waste of time - it is not about debating it is just knee-jerk 'oh it is a userbox - don't delete' 'cos we are the userbox faction. Ahhhhhhhh. --Doc ^ask? 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hardley knee jerk. The only thing that brought me here was having two Wikipedia related userboxes (this and freedom) deleted from my user page in a day. Now you are ascribing motive? --StuffOfInterest 19:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, these have been deleted as 'divisive'. Please present a coherent reason why you don't find providing bumper stickers to divide people into editing factions divisive? Explain how that division assists the encyclopedia, and makes people more inclined not to prejudice discussions by ideology and partisanship? --Doc ^ask? 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. How about you provide a coherent reason why this userbox is harmful. It is not his or anyone else's job to prove a negative; you are asserting that there is harm done, now you provide the evidence. Undelete. Rogue 9 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Not that anything that's written here will make a difference, but wouldn't this concern be addressed more pertinently by speedily deleting the m:inclusionism and m:deletionism pages from meta? Smerdis of Tlön 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The Inclusionism and Deletionism pages describe two ends of a philosophical spectrum that people can be on. The pages don't ask people to label themselves as being on one side opposing the other, and the pages explicitely note that factionalism is a bad thing. --Interiot 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete, "divisive" doesn't seem to be within the scope of CSD T1. --AySz88^-^ 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete these are no different than any other userbox. The tell the world about the user. Mostlyharmless 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. No problem with these so long as users don't misunderstand them as being more serious than they in fact are. David | Talk 20:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and desysop Doc Glasgow until he takes the time to actually read the policy he is abusing - 'divisive' is NOT part of CSD T#1, a template has to be 'inflammatory' or 'polemical' before it qualifies. Stop vandalising please Cynical 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Doc Glasgow has not vandalized anything; please try to remember that all participants in this debate are interested in doing what is best for Wikipedia. There are no evil forces at work here, no army of trolls seeking to tear Wikipedia apart from the inside; all there is is a simple disagreement over a minor policy issue. Doc was not acting in malice (indeed, from his perspective he is taking valuable time out of his day to protect Wikipedia from harmful and factionalizing elements, a rather noble objective), so the correct description of his actions is "a mistake", not "vandalism". Moreover, it's a mistake that's very easy to remedy, with a simple undelete. Shrill accusations are not necessary or helpful in this debate; it is possible to state your opinion in full without in any way straying from the ideals of WP:CIVIL. -Silence 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and desysop Doc Glasgow.helohe (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I hope my votes aren't getting too tiresome now. I just think that userboxes, as a whole, have done much more harm than good to Wikipedia, and so they should all go. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clyde, I hope you don't tire of people pointing out to you that this is not the forum to debate whether userboxes have done more harm than good or otherwise. This is the forum to debate whether the deletion was correct. Speedy deletions must follow the letter and spirit of the criteria - this has not. Thryduulf 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Templates allowing users to self identify as holding an editing philosophy have been on Wikipedia since before I arrived in December 2004 without being in the slightest bit devisive. Thryduulf 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. Thryduulf, you know that is not true. Of course deletion review looks at the content of material for which undeletion is requested. Users feel that these templates are not divisive should try spending some more time at WP:AFD. Physchim62 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I do spend a fair amount of my time editing at WP:AFD, looking for seriously flawed articles to save, or nominations based on imperfect information. Consensus still works there; even I see that some articles should be deleted, and do not contest the large majority of nominations. AfD still runs on consensus, more or less, and while strained, it ain't broken. Suggesting that a userbox template was deleted in error or haste is probably an idle protest at this time, because consensus has nothing to do with CSD:T1; it means what any single admin decides it means today. Smerdis of Tlön 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, I hate T1 and how it was brought in but it's the rule and it was brought in in a rule-abiding fashion. To my eye, this template fit T1. Lord Bob 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Criteria: Evelyn Beatrice Hall.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. enochlau (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete those two userboxes does no harm --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete certainly not within the scope of CSD:T1 Mostlyharmless 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, encourages votestacking, which is not cool. --Improv 05:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is an untruth. -Silence 05:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Votestacking is uncool, but this page does not encourage it. Thryduulf 10:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's what I meant. -Silence 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Do I really need to say why? MiraLuka 07:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete *Strong Undelete discloses editor tendancies. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete per Mike McGregor. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete speechless at the gall of some admins. Avalon 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted factional nonsense.--MONGO 10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• strong undelete These designations have been around on Wikipedia for a LONG time, peacefully coexisting. Also: It would be nice if the people commenting on these either spoke to the specific template being considered, or took their blanket comments to the policy discussions about userboxes. Pasting the same thing in each discussion is pretty pointless. — brighterorange (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This deletion, of boxes which proclaim no out-of-Wikipedia platform, and are relevant to WP and WP only, is the sort of absolutely draconian proceedure that Jimbo decries in the third quote at the head of this page. (Please note that I have voted on no other box; whatever your position on the political userbox question, this is out of line.) Septentrionalis 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Wikipedia should not be trying to control Wikimedia, and these are M metas.--M@rēino 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I can't read the template so I have no idea what's in it, but the nom says it was deleted out of process and no one has gainsaid that, so undelete on purely technical grounds. Herostratus 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • They said "This user is an inclusionist Wikipedian" and "This user is a deletionist Wikipedian" and had appropriate categories. Stifle 11:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not relist. This is not a divisive or polemic userbox. Stifle 11:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Absolutely not divisive, simply expresses an opinion about how AfD should be handled. Deleting it on clearly inapplicable grounds sends the message that admins wield a sceptre, rather than a mop. Babajobu 18:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. More stuff that should be confined to userspace. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete They show user philosophy which is important. It isn't divisive its informational. What's divisive are these massive deletes of userboxes without concensus. --JPotter 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allboxes

This user supports userboxes .

Despite a month-old Tfd that recommended to the contrary, this userbox was delted yesterday because it was divisive. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Deleting political userboxes is bad enough, don't delete userboxes that express an opinion directly related to wikipedia. The Ungovernable Force 18:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - Nothing polemic, related to Wikipedia. Bad faith, abusive deletion. Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Maximum prescription strengh extreme lesbian extra super strong speedy keep DELETED. Speedy deletion is a useful tool for reducing pointless clutter. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, any reason why you choose to invoke "lesbian" in your reason to keep deleted? Based on AGF I'm sure you are not meaning it, but the comment could be read to say that lesbians should be deleted and so should this box. --StuffOfInterest 19:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In-joke, see previous RFA votes. --Interiot 20:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration and Rfc are useful tools for reducing pointless edits by admins who continue to abuse their duties. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and slap the abusive admins. Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How long until we see an new round of RfC regarding admin actions? --StuffOfInterest 19:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of more needless speedies and I'm going to do just that. I hoped I would never have to use that tool. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and RfC per D-Day Cynical 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There is no Wikipedia policy against pages like this, and consensus is currently to keep them. If you wish to have them deleted, the correct course of action is to suggest a new policy banning all lists of the sort, such as the ones featured on countless WikiProjects. It is not to take vigilante action against a random and arbitrary example of this common activity. Surely anti-userbox Wikipedians are just as capable of watching the list as pro-Wikipedians are; lists like this are not to stack votes (TfD is not a raw vote anyway), but to let interested parties keep tabs on ongoing discussions. -21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I hope my votes aren't getting too tiresome now. I just think that userboxes, as a whole, have done much more harm than good to Wikipedia, and so they should all go. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clyde, I hope you don't tire of people pointing out to you that this is not the forum to debate whether userboxes have done more harm than good or otherwise. This is the forum to debate whether the deletion was correct. Speedy deletions must follow the letter and spirit of the criteria - this has not. Thryduulf 22:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you having fun attacking all of my votes on this page? That's kind of a lame thing to do. And anyway, I noticed that you couldn't bother to get my name right, and then just copied the mistake quite a few times. Very nice. --Cyde Weys 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and report the admin responsible for abuse of powers. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Hardly the divisive template. enochlau (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - well at least Clyde is being honest about his desire to delete all userboxes.... Mostlyharmless 05:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Halibutt 06:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete & RfC as above. MiraLuka 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - people are going to have opinions. — CJewell (talk to me) 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted of course.--MONGO 10:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose wanton deletion of userboxes against community consensus. Speedy deletion serves for cases which would have been extremely uncontroversial if brought to an actual vote, or where consensus has already been established. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a a play-ground for user box fans. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per CJewell. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Let's get rid of this silly, trollish nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, agree with Tony. The only purpose of this userbox is defiance against WP:NOT. It might as well say "This user supports a free web community where we have fun toys to play with" -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not polemical. No good reason to delete.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1. undelete wikipedia is nothing without consensus and this admins need to have the damage they've done to consensus reverted whenever possible. Mike McGregor (Can) 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts

I wasn't sure if this belong on here since it's not a userbox, but it is relevant to the project. In any case, I can barely contain my anger over this speedy deletion in particular. This was used to alert Wikipedians to userbox debates that were in progress. This was brought up for deletion, and the consensus was KEEP.[9] Mark Sweep speedied this yesterday, leaving a comment of "enough." No reason was given for this speedy deletion. This has gone too far. Even users who oppose userboxes said that they used this page to keep track of debates, so this was not a pro-userbox tool by any means. If I could, I would post my real feelings about this, but they would be in violation of WP:CIVIL, so I will just end this rant by asking my fellow Wikipedians to make a wise, thought-out choice on this. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. It seems someone was too fast and a tad too furious. Halibutt 17:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I remember seeing this template a few hours ago and thinking how useful it was. MiraLuka 17:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Changing link in nom, assuming "alterts" is a typo for "alerts." MiraLuka 17:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It was. Thanks! :-) --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I really don't like vote stacking. Central noticeboards encouraging people to go vote on things seem rather cabalist. Anyway, that template has been superceded by this page now. --Cyde Weys 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Not every Tfd userbox is posted on here. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - vote stacking mechanism. --Doc ^ask? 17:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Precedent (User:GRider/Schoolwatch) suggests that these public pages are acceptable. For this reason this belongs on WP:MFD not speedy deletion. Thryduulf 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RFC Cynical 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. - TheKeith 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and ban MarkSweep. --Revolución (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete and ban MarkSweep   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. For what little anyone's input really means here. --StuffOfInterest 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete and ban MarkSweep. helohe (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and list at MfD - There is no reason for this to have been speedy deleted. I'm not sure if I would vote to keep it at MfD, but let it go through process when WP:SNOW does not apply. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It already was brought up at Mfd, and the result was keep. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should remember the full nom text when I write my responses. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. No valid reason given by deletionist - neither originally ("enough") nor subsequently ("I don't like vote stacking" - yeah, and I don't like onions). Misza13 ^(Talk) 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Exists solely to skew deletion debates. David | Talk 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per MfD. —Andux^␅ 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and take whoever deleted it to RfC. enochlau (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. ditto. JSIN 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Not kosher here. --Improv 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete As per Misza13 above. Mostlyharmless 05:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RFC deleter FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This has gone far enough. DeAdmin Mark Sweep--God of War 01:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It's gone well beyond far enough. Avalon 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted send this to Yucca Mountain--MONGO 10:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This vote/comment should be disregarded because it is clear that, given its verbatim message on other userbox votes, this voter did not realize he was voting on something that is not a userbox (that he knew his friends didn't like). An alert box is not fodder for "rolling your own" as a userbox is.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 04:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep deleted vote stacking = bad.--Alhutch 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This does not help build the encyclopedia. Go waste your time at Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it passed TfD, and "enough" is not grounds for speedy deletion! A wise man once said, "ADMINS HOLD A MOP, NOT A SCEPTRE!" Babajobu 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete looks useful to me, wish I could of seen it on the User:Christian userbox so I could of copied the code in time. Homestarmy 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Use email if you want to shitstir. Grace Note 09:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User U.S. Republic

That the United States is a republic is a fact, not an opinion, and not inflammatory in the least. This template does not meet criteria T1 or any other. Undelete. Rogue 9 13:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's part of the problem with having all these templates deleted. I was going to say "undelete" because of your comment, but being an admin, I can see what was deleted, and wild accusations that the United States is not democratic is definitely inflammatory, even for my somewhat more restricted interpretation of CSD T1. Keep deleted. enochlau (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The United States isn't a democracy. It's a republic. That's the point. There's no wild accusation there; that was Template:User wishful. Rogue 9 15:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted, you aare technically right, the US is not a full democracy in the strict legal and philosophical sense. But if you think that's what this userbox was trying to say, especially when it made a comparision to democracy in wikipedia - you are being terrible naïve - this is obviously polemical and thus certainly meets WP:CSD T1. Why is it being reviewed? Oh, yes, it is a userbox, so deletion must be wrong ....--Doc ^ask? 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, I know what it was saying, as I made it. I assure you, I was not being polemical. Rogue 9 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The rationale I've been seeing is "it is a userbox, so it must be deleted." MiraLuka 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If you don't like it - fix it. Spilling the kid out with the bath is not the best tactics. Halibutt 17:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes. My stance is clear on this issue. --Cyde Weys 17:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your stance is clear, but that doesn't make it a speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Violates T1, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gentgeen 18:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per cynical. Mostlyharmless 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Rogue9, if you want to say it, do it on your userpage. Don't make a template for it. WP:NOT a soapbox. The Land 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Reviews like this one just make the anti-userbox crusade look valid. It was clearly a T1. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, I hate T1 and how it was brought in but it's the rule and it was brought in in a rule-abiding fashion. To my eye, this template fit T1. Lord Bob 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I haven't a clue what this userbox is arguing for but it's highly contentious and therefore divisive. David | Talk 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment 'divisive' is not one of the criteria - it has to be inflammatory or polemical Cynical 09:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Polemic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - This is going too far. --Thorri 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Poorly disguised political advocacy. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Chavez

I originally called for the deletion of this template. Wikipedians voted 5v1 for a keep. However, it was deleted anyway by MarkSweep. Did I miss something? How is this possible? Dosn't make any sense if you ask me. I've noticed other wikipedians have expressed the same concern regarding the deletion of other templates. If this is a common occurrence, why do we even bother with the voting process? alarm bells should be ringing.--James Bond 10:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(irrelevant thread moved to talk page)

• Keep deleted if you think this should have been deleted, why are you asking for review. Process exists not for its own sake but to help build an encyclopedia. How does this help? You yourself think it should go? In any case, political userboxes are divisive (t1). We are neutral wikipedians in here not political advocates. Please don't bring things to review unless their deletion is a loss to the encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 15:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to establish your net-personhood. T1. --Improv 15:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Speedy Keep I am having a hard time assuming good faith by MarkSweep. This is just plain vicious. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Restore Come on now. MiraLuka 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and possibly warn the abuser. Halibutt 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - The mere fact that userboxes in general are causing so much divisive and counterproductive behavior makes me think they should all be done away with. The template namespace should be restricted to article templates ONLY. --Cyde Weys 17:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While I can see the merit in your proposal (although I disagree with it), it is not current policy at the moment and so cannot be used as a basis for deleting anything. Thryduulf 18:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Userboxes cause conflict because they are speedy deleted without reason. That is reason to discipline the admins responsible, not delete the userboxes. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Userboxes don't cause problems, authoritarian administrators do.
• Restore as per the unsigned vote above. There is a consensus to keep this template, ergo it is not within the spirit of speedy deletion criteria T1. Thryduulf 18:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted - Divisive, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gentgeen 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Not polemic, not inflammatory. The deletion was. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and slap the admin who deleted it. --Revolución (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Improv.--Alhutch 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't think saying you support a particular mainstream politician is divisive or inflammatory per se. The Landjavascript:insertTags('--JWSchmidt 14:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)',,);--JWSchmidt 14:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 20:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and slap the admin who deleted it. helohe (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostlyharmless 05:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 13:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: This userbox was neither inflammatory nor divisive. Mark Sweep's actions continue to be both inflammatory and divisive. --Daniel 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consensus to keep at the TFD, and while slightly divisive it is not inflammatory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. This template does not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Delete MarkSweep for not respecting the community.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1, they're all going soon anyhow. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, for heaven's sake, if TfD was an avalanche keep, and no speedy criteria apply, then deleting it suggests that admins wield a sceptre, rather than a mop!!!. We can't have that! Babajobu 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1, advocacy. No need to prolong its misery. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional_Politics

This time a massive deletion effort by (what seems) User:Physchim62. Just follow the above link and see for yourself. The deleting admins don't even care about the red links they create. Also see how selective he was - some deleted and some (of similar nature) still (yet?) alive. A few random checks show that most were removed either with the comment (t1) or content was: {{db-divisive}}..., so he either decided by himself or (in my opinion) wrongly agreed with some non-admin's {{db-divisive}} tag. Obviously someone may argue that this is not a proper undeletion nomination, but it would just be tedious as in the case of Political Parties UserBoxes below. Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - obviously - CSD T1 does not apply. Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - TheKeith 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per everything I've said on all these deletions the last two days. The Ungovernable Force 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not a T1. --James Bond 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Respectfully, User:Physchim62, User:MarkSweep, User:Doc Glasgow, etc., you all must read polemic and become familiar with the concept. Your own actions are polemical. These userboxes were not. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Criteria: Evelyn Beatrice Hall.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. And I strongly object to being called "etc." Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

:-)      Guðsþegn – UTCE – 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, not polemic. Thryduulf 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - OK, Mack wants us to hate his actions too ... check.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 01:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, does not fall under CSD T1. enochlau (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Do I even have to say why anymore? The Ungovernable Force 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as misuse of templates. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --StuffOfInterest 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. does anyone have to say why anymore? (those who are deleting userboxes clearly don't have to) Mostlyharmless 05:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Inappropriate on Wikipedia. T1. --Improv 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Halibutt 06:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Wow, what happened here? Someone trying to see how many userboxes they could delete at once? MiraLuka 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and desysop blatant violation of CSD T1 (by the vandal-admins, not the userbox) Cynical 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Stop the madness! --Horses In The Sky 11:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted divisive. --Doc ^ask? 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this is getting old. this is kelly-martin-esque already. aa v ^ 17:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Are we not allowed to express an opinion on our userpages? Kirjtc2 21:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete — CJewell (talk to me) 22:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is is neither inflammatory nor divisive. The continued roguish behavior by anti-userbox admin honchos is both divisive and inflammatory.--Daniel 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Christopher_Parham is seeking to block me for this vote. Please see [[10]]. --Daniel 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not divisive Avalon 05:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--MONGO 10:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete--Molobo 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• See my vote in Political Parties UserBoxes below. RadioKirk talk to me 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per all above. --Aaron 18:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - sorry if you don't like userboxes, but the consensus is clear: userboxes are here to stay.--God of War 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Seig Heil, mein Fuher! Coolgamer 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and keep deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box. These templates do not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I went to some effort to make this page. I had it look all nice with all the boxes neatly categorized. Then some rogue admin comes along and destroys it all in 5 minutes. This is depressing.--God of War 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as the above reasons. These Admins need to be curbed and re-elected, they are abusing their power.Fkmd 06:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep deleted as T1. De facto divisive. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Parties UserBoxes

These templates should be undeleted. Isnt it ones right to express themselves as to which political party they may belong to or support? Most were NOT using any copyrighted images. FKMD

• Speedy Undelete Fkmd 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Hossens27 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You MUST specify, and provide links to, which userboxes you are talking about. Otherwise someone who is reading through DRV without having seen this debate elsewhere will be unable to assess it. The Land 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a democracy. Keep deleted. Every last one of them. Also, for reference, the article namespace is a neat place. Mackensen (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not what Wiki is not a democracy means. (It means that discussions like this, or those on FAC or AfD or RfA, are not straight votes but attempts for consensus.) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What he said. Referencing Wikipedia is not a democracy here seems odd at best. But thank you for the kind reference to article space. As a complete idiot, I need pointers from people like you. Herostratus 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per nom MiraLuka 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - Nothing polemic about them. They do not in and of themselves incite or exacerbate political disputes, nor do they in any way suggest that the user is willing to engage in political disputes. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete, I was tempted to remove the speedy tags myself when I saw they were being mass-tagged. It would behoove Kelly Martin to stop dropping herself in the middle of the userbox drama, especially after her RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is not the place. Divisive and not helpful. --Improv 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Wikipedia isn't a sysop dictatorship either. We are supposed to reach consensus on issues, which does not include speedy deleting userboxes that express a political or social opinion. Undelete these and all other userboxes, unless they are clearly out of line or have gone through a vote for deletion. And most of the userboxes that have been deleting the last 24 hours are not incredibly divisive or inflammatory. What is divisive and inflamatory is this rampant deletion of peoples opinions. The Ungovernable Force 06:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete. Most private interests can be contentious, including political ideologies, sexuality, views on gun laws etc etc. Political Parties is one aspect. The difference is that these userboxes are just that: userboxes. They are used by the users(!) to indicate what views they hold. To that end, in reference to Wikipedia, one can see fields of interest of particular users, and possibly collaborate with those users to help improve the encylopedia itself. The boxes are used only on peoples' user pages - that is their intended use.

I'm re-adding these comments I had made. MarkSweep deleted them from this page, citing WP:BEANS as the reason. I suggest that it is the sysop responsible for having deleted the user boxes that is actually in 'violation' of WP:BEANS. These were my original comments .. HOWEVER, I have not re-added a certain suggestion which *may* be considered violation of WP:BEANS -

The page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties still exists. Why?

If you are going to delete a whole section of Userboxes, then delete them all and have done with it. Was this category of userboxes deleted because the sysop took a personal dislike to them? Either delete the facility entirely, or leave it alone and let users decide on what is or is not appropriate or useful by concensus. --Mal 07:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties is still useful for further cleanup work, but I'm assuming it will be deleted soon. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By whom, and why? You know, I don't really care that much, but I am curious. I had added a box for a particularly moderate political party, in case anyone saw it and wanted to use it. I hadn't actually intended on using any of these specific boxes myself however. --Mal 10:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Most of these were harmless and were unilaterally deleted in violation of the rules of WP:TFD in the first place. Halibutt 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted They were deleted as 'divisive', which they clearly are. AS Jimbo has put it 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. Wikipedia is about neutrality, where a POV or party affiliation is irrelevant. Templates are for building an encyclopedia, not for use for soapboxes or partisan strutting. You want to express your individuality - create you own website. Folk keep saying 'what about TfD' well, 1) TfD clearly says POV is a deletion criteria for templates. 2) In iny case TfD is irrelevant, because these were speedied - speedy deletions do not require debate or consensus. --Doc ^ask? 10:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• but accusation of POV is not enough for speedy deletion, is it. Otherwise we'd have barely any articles in wikipedia. Halibutt

Stop wikilawyering. How is a democratic party userbox not representing a POV? You can't have it both ways - claim they are not like articles so NPOV doen't apply, and then claim they are entitled to the same protection from deletion that articles enjoy. Clearly no-one should speedy an article as POV. --Doc ^ask? 11:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. There's nothing divisive about them. I agree with the above undelete comments. enochlau (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:NOT, WP:CSD, WP:JIMBO. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete does not qualify for speedy deletion under any of the criteria. CSD T#1 only applies to inflammatory or polemical userboxes. Since these are neither, the deletion was not only baseless but was in fact a direct violation of Wikipedia policy Cynical 11:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete JSIN 12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. What is this, round four? Stating your belief is not divisive. Stating someone else's belief is not valid is divisive. The whole userbox debate comes down to one group saying another can not express their opinion which is putting extreme divisiveness into the community. --StuffOfInterest 12:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - TheKeith 12:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per Cynical. This is ludicrous. No reasonable human being could look at those userboxes and think "whoever made this is trying to start a fight." Rogue 9 12:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Undelete per above arguments. not that it matters any more. Consensus has become a joke on Wiki. Way to go! Mike McGregor (Can) 13:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - users may have whatever they want on their pages as long as it is not defacing (although I know an admin who was elected despite having defacing comments on his userpage). -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Ian3055 13:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Sjeraj 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion. Divisive. Go use livejournal if you want this kind of thing. T1. --Improv 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC) You already voted. JDoorjam Talk

• Speedy Undelete I dream of an online encyclopedia where its users aren't constantly berated for expressing themselves in userspace. I am a afraid we may have to start a NEW WIKI ENCYCLOPEDIA to have such freedom.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 15:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the talk of starting a new encyclopedia over the userbox debate is a little silly. JDoorjam Talk

Yeah it's a bit extreme, and I don't really want to start a new one. It was just used to stress the point. Userbox debates aren't just about goofy little userboxes. In this environment userboxes have surfaced as an expression of the right of individuals in any community to freedom of association. Communities cannot exist without it. One might say the whole community is our association. On one level true, but this is the excuse to actually deny freedom of association. As an example, used for clarity not to inflame, Communist governments used to claim that they represented ALL the people, so no non-dependent associations were allowed to form. It killed the community. Point, there is no universal community without particular communities. Another example, there is no universal church without particular churches, and particular churches have differences. If particulars are not allowed to flourish, then the universal dies.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 16:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• On the japanese wikipedia, they encourage anonymous contributions and discourage freedom of association. Encyclopedia writers don't build a community to write about themselves, or promote their own viewpoints, they come together to write neutrally about notable things. --Interiot 17:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I've always lived in the anglophone world. The anglophone world values freedom and personal responsibility, over conformity. This is coming from someone who considers himself communitarian and near-centrist. Perhaps I'm just being parochial, but I think freedom with social responsibility with thick-skinned-ness is the best way.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • There are countless free websites out there that let anyone say whatever they want, and let you link to encyclopedia articles. The idea of forking userspace is a bit odd. --Interiot 15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and henceforth stop deleting non-controversial userboxes. Expressing one's POV is not inherently divisive. JDoorjam Talk 15:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete until such a time their removal is policy Ian13/talk 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Why can't we be allowed to support the parties we believe in and put that on Wikipedia? --Albert 17:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• UNDELETE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT - THESE WERE GREAT USERBOXES! Why would some upnight nit-wit go and delete these?! Weatherman90 17:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote is TWENTY THREE to THREE in favor of keeping them, someone bring them back already! Weatherman90 17:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Super Strong Speedy Keep. Like Glue. Wikipedia is NOT Communism. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - The mere fact that userboxes in general are causing so much divisive and counterproductive behavior makes me think they should all be done away with. The template namespace should be restricted to article templates ONLY. --Cyde Weys 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't be divisive if admins didn't have a temper tantrum every time they saw one of these and tried to speedy them against the wishes of the majority. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, userboxes aren't causing division, userspace deletionism is causing division and counterproductivity.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Userboxes are not the cause of conflict, the speedy deletion of userboxes without reasonable cause (read: not T1) is the cause of conflict. That is reason to discipline the admins responsible, not delete the userboxes. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - These userboxes help us know more about the users. They do not show wether the users are subjective on their writing or not. It is a wonderful idea to have them at wikipedia. They deserve to be here much more than some funny and senseless boxes.--Pjetër Bogdani III 17:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Neither devsive nor inflamatory, let along polemically so. Thryduulf 18:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete The deletion of userboxes such as these out of process have been far more divisive than the userboxes could ever hope to be. Karmafist 19:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete ALL OF THEM. --Revolución (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete Userboxes like these hold the users accountable for their political bias and clarify the nature of their edits, as well as helping to build the community Mostlyharmless 19:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It is actually handy to know what biases your fellow editors have. These arn't divisive, as they don't reflect specific issues.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If people want to waste their time involved with the dinosaurs of the past, why stop them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is the first time I've had one of my userboxes disappear; I tend to stay on the side of caution when selecting them. I guess even this is too much for some people, which I find very odd. Radagast 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete some, like User Democratic and User Republican as I see no harm in it, others keep deleted --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Harmless statements of beliefs. What these admins seem to be not getting is that Jimbo's statement was a suggestion. He wasn't forcing it on anybody. The arbitrators, b-crats and admins are forcing it on everybody. Now some are a little divisive but those should be handled induvidually. Having these userboxes give users some level of induviduality. Depriving them of that right degrades them and makes them just a name on a screen. Text can only say so much. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete The deletion of all these userboxes without warning nor reason is definitely not cool. Mostlyharmless 05:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete discloses user POV. an open and honest atmosphere contibutes to an NPOV 'pedia. that and Speedy Delete is being abused. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete: Seems a bit draconian, like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Ombudsman 20:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete: Whoever did this needs to get a life. Palm_Dogg 01:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete All: Userboxes expressing political affiliation are neither inflammatory nor divisive. The deletion of tons of them at once is pretty darned inflammatory and divisive, however. Whoever did this should be censured immediately following undeletion. --Daniel 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete All. The unilateral deletion was a gross overstepping of protocol and fair play. The Tom 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV--MONGO 10:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Immediate undelete as per my arguments here. A simple statement of political affiliation does not quality for T1 under any of the criteria laid out above (including WP:JIMBO, since I read "[u]serboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project" to refer to the divisive, not to simple statements of affiliation), and the deleter should be called on the carpet to explain the selective deletion as outlined herein. RadioKirk talk to me 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The inclusion hereinabove of Jimbo's remarks tends to bolster my argument that the spirit and intent of his request is to purge this encyclopedia of that which is "polemic"—as per Merriam-Webster, "1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b : the art or practice of disputation or controversy". A simple statement of political affiliation, as per the example set by the former template:User Libertarian US, does not by any stretch of the imagination fit the definition as presented. Quite the opposite, in fact, could be argued: The summary deletion with prejudice of the above-referenced template could be considered a "refutation of the opinions or principles of another". RadioKirk talk to me 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete - sorry if you don't like userboxes, but the consensus is clear. Userboxes are here to stay.--God of War 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete - I see a consensus --JamieBattenbo 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Deleted not necessary or part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted These templated do not help build the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1, and Jimbo says they're all going to be deleted very soon anyway. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as long as they only say "I belong to party XXX". Simple statement of the user's affiliation. --cesarb 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per CesarB. SushiGeek 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per CesarB. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per WP:NOT, WP:CSD, and WP:JIMBO. Seriously though, these don't fall under CSD, Jimbo has clearly stated that he does not approve of mass deletions (at this time, anyway), and although it is true that Wikipedia is not a democracy, dictatorship, beauracracy, soapbax, etc, Wikipedia is run on consensus, and these were kept by overwhelming consensus before. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete Coolgamer 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overwhelming majority to undelete these, so that's what I'll do now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User No Marxism

Template was speedily deleted, apparently against community consensus. There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I have no idea why this particular userbox was essentially singled out for speedy deletion. GoodSirJava 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive and polemical, valid speedy. David | Talk 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. A simple statement of opposition to a point of view is neither polemical ("controversial; disputatious"), nor inflammatory ("Arousing passion or strong emotion"), insofar as its actual statement goes. The issue of userboxes containing a POV is inflammatory and polemical, and an actual set out one-sided arguement against marxism would be inflammatory and polemical, but a simple statement of opposition to Marxist thinking is not. Reveilled 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Wikipedia is not a Borg mothership and some individuality should be allowed. --StuffOfInterest 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a debating society and this is obviously polemical. Stop knee-jerk listing thse things please. --Doc ^ask? 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it polemical? Not agreeing with Marxist philosophy is by no means controversial, and without providing an argument is cannot be considered dispuatious. Thus, it is not polemical. Reveilled 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am a libertarian commie, and though I don't support Marx, people may well consider my ideas marxist. I don't find this polemical, and even though I know most people with this userbox would disagree with my ideas as well, I think this userbox should remain, as should all political userboxes until a real policy is developed. undelete The Ungovernable Force 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - delete all userboxes and obviously keep deleted the ones that have already been deleted. --Cyde Weys 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted.. This is not the place, see CSD. --Improv 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Stop the nonsense, this is not divisive. --Dragon695 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per Reveilled et al. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Idiotic, divisive.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 03:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above, especially StuffOfInterest, who made me laugh. MiraLuka 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't think CSD T1 is being interpreted right here - this isn't divisive, it is simply asserting a statement of belief. Divisive user boxes are those created by trolls and other undesirables in order to intentionally inflame others, like the pedophilia stuff. This isn't one of them. enochlau (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per enochlau. Rogue 9 12:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. admins abusing power is not cool. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC) oops, already voted Mike McGregor (Can) 13:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. You don't need a template clogging the serves in order to assert your political beliefs. You also don't need to assert your political beliefs in order to write an encyclopeda. This division is harmful. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete All political userboxes may be regarded as 'divisive' etc. As a large variety of pro-communist boxes is available, deleting anti-communist box hastily is biased and against free speech. What would people think if the anti-fascist template would be deleted, while a lot of fascist ones retained? Constanz - Talk 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• UndeleteI don't think anyone can provide a genuine explanation for deleting anti-communist box, if anti-communist boxes are to be deleted, then all other boxes should also be deleted, and we should not have any boxes, if political expression are not allowed to be expressed freely, then it is the end of free world, today anti-communist boxes are deleted, then we will have pro-democracy boxes deleted. If one cannot have boxes to express our political point of view, then why do we have boxes for what type of browser we use, or what operating system we use, which search engine we use, what are hobby are, which university we graduated from, you don't need all those boxes for writing an article on wikipedia, if those boxes are clogging up the service, then all the boxes should be deleted, and this is nothing more than a misuse of power by the Administrator. The Anti-communist box should be restored.(Rohit Singh 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
• UndeleteHalibutt 17:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• UndeleteIf you're going to delete a userbox for an anti-Marxist political view and keep all the other userboxes for all other political beliefs, that's just not fair. Delete them all or keep them all. My vote is to undelete. HeyNow10029 18:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete As per HeyNow10029. The box merely allows others to perceive possible biases, and frankly adds a little bit of individuality to a otherwise boring page of pure information.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete People need to stop trying to muffle others they don't agree with. MSTCrow 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostlyharmless 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Rohit Singh and HeyNow10029 and others. But my vote is a protest against selective deletions, since these boxes really are divisive and polemical. Let's start being fair about this process, or halt it altogether. Nhprman ^UserLists
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete everyone has a POV, let us know what it is. Avalon 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV.--MONGO 10:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it violates NPOV? It's a USER BOX, for crying out loud. NPOV applies to articles, it CAN'T apply to users, because all of us are human beings and have POINTS OF VIEW. Who came up with this inane jihad anyway? Undelete Unigolyn 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Waste of Wikipedia resources, particularly the time of editors. --JWSchmidt 14:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1. If you're against marxism, you don't need a template to say so. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But in case one is a Trotskyst or Marxist, one needs a template to say so? Constanz - Talk 08:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, those should go, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Remarkably, as a leftist who reads Marx, I've yet to be inflamed by this. Could it be that we types have better things to worry about (like the struggles of the international proletariat, perhaps?) So long as the admins control the means of userbox production, I take it that we have to deal with stuff like this. Sigh. --Daniel 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Naryathegreat's pithy comments. Noirdame 09:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD:T1, and I strongly object to the idea that the only way to avoid borg-like sameness is by using userbox templates. The best userpages here don't use boxen. "Otherwise boring page of pure informtion," humbug. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• 21 to undelete, 14 to keep deleted. THis one is therefore undeleted and brought to TFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User marriage man-woman and User Same Sex Marriage

Templates were speedily deleted, apparently against community consensus. There is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. Undelete. - Mike Rosoft 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, both of them. Divisive and polemical, valid speedy. David | Talk 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Wikipedia is not a Borg mothership and some individuality should be allowed. --StuffOfInterest 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, a split vote:
    • Uphold deletion on "User marriage man-woman". Divisive in that it says somebody should not have a right.
    • Undelete on "User Same Sex Marriage". Does not claim anyone's right is not valid just says that it believes others should have a right.
  • Divisive is not saying you support something. Divisive is saying someone else's view is not valid or they should not have rights you are afforded. T1 still needs major reworking to remove subjective interpretation. Only objective criteria should be used for speedy deletion such as that used for notability in people and websites. --StuffOfInterest 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a debating society and this is obviously divisive. Stop knee-jerk listing thse things please. --Doc ^ask? 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Do not fulfill T1 requirements for speedy deletion (not deliberately inflammatory or divisive), discussion of User marriage man-woman brought up essentially the same points entirely in favor of keeping before being Speedy Kept, then deleted by the crusaders (User Same Sex Marriage was speedied too quickly for discussion). The most divisive thing about these userboxes is that people deleted them on a whim. Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither is wikipedia - go play politics somewhere else, and buy a bumber sticker if you want. --Doc ^ask? 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Doc, please stop being a dick. --Dragon695 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:DICK. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Totally divisive templates. How can sexual minorities possibly be happy contributors in an environment where people are openly and proudly prejudiced against them? Please think about this ... if you were gay, how would YOU like to see people proclaiming that certain rights should be denied to you? Would we allow a "This user thinks marriage is between members of the same race" userbox? The same type of people who are against gay marriage now were the ones saying that just a few short decades ago. Keep this polemical, divisive, bigoted trash off of Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Light, I am gay. And I really don't care. They can say what they want on their user pages. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This is not the place. See T1. Divisive, inflammatory. --Improv 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. About as divisive as a limp noodle. --Dragon695 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per Cuiviénen. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Divisive, bigoted, absolutely offensive. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 03:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No reason to delete. MiraLuka 05:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete valid and notable points of view, which, if allowed to be expressed, would result in greater knowlege of editors' biases, leading to a more neutral encyclopedia. --James S. 08:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak undelete. Slightly more controversial here, but really not divisive. enochlau (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Enochlau. Halibutt 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per StuffOfInterest. Thryduulf 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now. --Revolución (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Improperly deleted unilaterally an admin contrary to process and consensus. Gross abuse of power. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Factionalism is a threat to a project like wikipedia. Michael Ralston 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD - Speedy deletion is disruptive and bad for the wikipedia community. Please use TFD from now on.--God of War 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted violates NPOV.--MONGO 10:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted ....and even better, remove from further discussion now as waste of Wikipedians' time. --JWSchmidt 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Copy-book T1. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD. Stifle 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD. This is not what CSD T1 was designed for. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User freedom

TFD has already been closed as a Strong Keep here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_22#Template:User_freedom. Cleary the community has spoken, this template is not divisive. This speedy deletion by User:Doc glasgow is nothing more than an end run around a valid TFD.

• Restore. The TfD was less than a month ago. --StuffOfInterest 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Jesus H. Christ we have been through this so many times. Leave the damn template alone. --Fang Aili 17:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore - How Ironic, a userbox proclaming freedom of expression has been deleted.--God of War 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It stokes the userbox deletion debate and is therefore divisive. David | Talk 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What's divisive is deleting this template. We've had a TfD on this userbox already and the debate was over. Deleting it again is stoking the ashes. --Fang Aili 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes, and definitely keep deleted the ones that have already been deleted. --Cyde Weys 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • One problem with that theory. This one was kept. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how "Delete all userboxes" could possibly be misinterpreted. --Cyde Weys 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't either, and what such an attitude concerning controlling others says about you is interesting indeed. Rogue 9 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If you think it's an issue of control you're still misinterpreting it somehow. --Cyde Weys 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted pretty obviously divisive polemic. When will people understand that Speedy deletion has nothing to do with TfD debates. Speedy deletion is dependent on the WP:CSD guidelines - if you don't like T1, then take it up with Jimbo, stop clogging up this page with silly invalid process arguments.--Doc ^ask? 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • When will admins understand that consenus is there for a reason and that they should not ignore an implemented decision, nor that admins are infallible? --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps more importantly, when will admins learn that this template had nothing to do with T1? T1 is being more and more liberally applied, stretching and contorting the limits of the rule. With this userbox, the anti-userbox crusade has vastly overstepped its bounds in a ridiculously over-broad interpretation of T1. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Speedy Keep per all above. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. This template has faced much attack, much more divisive than the template could ever be. Ian13/talk 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. What is divisive is deleting the template in the face of a community consensus to keep. Thryduulf 20:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is not what userpages are for. --Improv 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I oppose wanton deletion of userboxes against community consensus. Speedy deletion serves for cases which would have been extremely uncontroversial if brought to an actual vote, or where consensus has already been established. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The only thing divisive about this userbox is its completely unwarranted speedy deletion. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Clearly inappropriate. T1. --Improv 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. helohe (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. And people wonder why I believe that the boo-hoo brigade is violating WP:POINT. --Dragon695 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per above comments. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Conditional:I haven't seen this, but I'm assuming its a snarky 'with us or against us' pro-bush remark. If thats not the case, ignore this!--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It had nothing to with Bush, and I would recommend that you not let political sentiments get mixed up with the debate. The template promoted free speech on Wikipedia while acknowledging that it does not exist. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ignored. It has nothing to do with Bush. -Silence 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Oh, how ironic. MiraLuka 05:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible undelete. As if deleting political userboxes wasn't bad enough, people now want to delete userboxes that express opinions directly related to wikipedia policy. I'm sorry, but that crosses the line. Actually, a lot of this deleting crosses the line, but whatever. Wikipedia is NOT a dictatorship, sysops can't just run around deleting all our userboxes against consensus, and if that is what wikipedia is going to become, count me out. The Ungovernable Force 06:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible undelete per The Ungovernable Force. --James S. 08:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. enochlau (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, per blatant violation of speedy deletion policy. Rogue 9 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per blatant upholding of speedy deletion policy. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. And instruct the person who deleted it. Halibutt 17:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. 'Nuff said. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Doc glasgow strikes again, eh? Undelete it. The decision was to keep it, but then he goes and deletes it? Hardly seems fair to me...Dtm142 21:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Deleting this really reeks of censorship... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete hard to express my feelings about Doc Glascow within WP:Civil... He might yet get his way and have me leave wikipedia. Mostlyharmless 06:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete wow, MarkSweep has really crossed the line this time. I think deadminning should be in order.  Grue  10:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting it, Grue. Can you please now move this discussion to the (protected) archive? Misza13 ^(Talk) 11:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete get this junk out of Wikipedia.--MONGO 10:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Bkonrad. does nothing to help build an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and keep deleted This template does not help the encyclopedia; it is wasting our time. --JWSchmidt 13:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obviously not good for the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hermeneus (user/talk) 19:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fox hunting userboxes

Template:User against fox hunting was originally deleted by Tony Sidaway on January 3, as "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources" Mike Rosoft restored it not too long after Tony's deletion. Yesterday, Mark Sweep speedied as "per CSD T1 as tagged." And did the same to Template:User for fox hunting for the same reason.

I'm not sure what the latter said, but the one against fox hunting simply said "This user opposes fox hunting." and containted a picture of a fox. I don't see what can be so "inflammatory" or "divisive" about that, especially if their is an opposing userbox to balance the POV. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wiktionary:Divisive. 'Having a quality that divides or separates'. Explain to me how splitting people into opposing factions is not divisive. Keep deleted, close this review as bad faith. Proto||type 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Divisive is no longer the language used in CSD T1. JDoorjam Talk 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop bring all userbox deletions for review. I won't call this bad faith, but it is clearly misguided. The purpose of deletion review is to prevent good content being deleted, not to review every call by an admin you don't like. WP:NOT a soapbox, and calling userboxes designed only for advocacy 'divisive' is clearly not an abuse of the WP:TFD. If you don't like T1, go argue your case elsewhere, but please stop bringing every use of it to review. Speedies do not require debate. --Doc ^ask? 12:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is setting the tolerance too low. I don't think even a fox hunter would be offended or put off by this statement, and it's not "advocacy" because it doesn't say anyone should do anything about it. Who's getting hurt by this userbox?? (don't say "Wikipedia.") JDoorjam Talk 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete user pages are not subject to NPOV, this deleting boxes because they are divisive seems to be being used as a way around that. Disclosing POV on various issues promotes understanding of editors POV, making them voluntarily more accountable to NPOV. and, also per JDoorj. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We wouldn't be wasting anybody's time if they weren't deleted in the first place. Rogue 9 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD*We wouldn't have to have this if you guys would simply follow the TFD procedure. You would only have to wait a few days. Deleting these userboxes because you don't like them is making a WP:POINT and is disruptive to wikipedia. It is destroying the community. When TFD is followed even the people opposing deletion will not have any reason to complain. It is more harmonious for wikipedia.--God of War 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. Thryduulf 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not the place. --Improv 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. --Dragon695 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As per Proto --It divides and separates..--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and stop deleting all userboxes MiraLuka 05:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as a notable point of view, which, while obscure, will support a more neutral encyclopedia if these biases are allowed to be expressed. --James S. 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and use TFD as per James S. and the deletion of templates of all stripes without proper debate is getting ridiculous Mostlyharmless 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and take to TFD. Potentially divisive, but not necessarily so. enochlau (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD. Because the only reason it was not listed on TfD is because the admins know what would happen there; the community would come to the eminently sensible conclusion that voicing civil disagreement is not inflammatory. And we can't have that. Rogue 9 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list for deletion the normal way. Halibutt 17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Cynical. Mostlyharmless 06:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Endorse Cynical view. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, neither inflammatory, polemic nor divisive. The Ungovernable Force 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a soap box; this template is not useful for constructing Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Straightforward T1. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, simply states the users position on a particular issue, nothing particularly divisive about it. The admin shouldn't have speedied; let's not forget that admins wield a mop, not a sceptre! Babajobu 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template: User nospeedy

Was speedied because it was "divisive", "inflammatory", and violation of T1. No consensus for its deletion was reached yet, and the debate was not closed. --D-Day 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• undeleate Voices legit concerns over admins ignoring or circumventing process. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: can someone put the content of this userbox on display here? I'd like to know exactly what it said. (Though, having said that, I'm getting tired of userboxes being deleted out of process, regardless of their content.) JDoorjam Talk 16:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• For information, the content was: This user wishes that userboxes wouldn't get speedied without consent, especially during a TfD debate. Please be fair, admins.. And it was deleted for: 'per WP:CSD T1, WP:POINT, and WP:TROLL as tagged)'.
• Important comment I think a number of people are missing the point here:

1. Speedy deletions do not require consensus, debate or process - they never have. That's why they are called 'speedy'. They are carried out at discression of admins, under the guidence of the WP:CSD. It is quite legitimate to speedy during an xfD debate or at any other time if the article is within the spirit of the criteria.
2. Speedy deletions should not usually be brought to DRV unless the item self-evidently is ouwith the spirit of the deletion criteria - or its deletion would be a loss to the encyclopedia. Yet some people seem intent on listing every userbox deletion here, in a clear attempt to circumvent a deletion criteron (T1) that they do not like. (It is clearly quite reasonable for an admin to view this box as divisive and inflammetory, and unhelpful to encyclopedia building).
3. Why should userboxes enjoy special status? It keeps being said that userboxes are being deleted 'out of process'. They are not. Only very few out of the 6,000 that currently exist get deleted, and they are deleted in exactly the same manner as any other item. If they meet the spirit of the speedy criteria, they go by speedy, if not then they should be debated at tfd. Please also consider that the reason admins are relectant to send offending boxes to tfd, is that tfd is being weighted an by a 'stuff the deletion criteria - keep every userbox' block vote. --Doc ^ask? 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • No, it is not at all reasonable for an admin to see that as inflammatory, because it is not. Rogue 9 13:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the content. To clarify, I'm expressing frustration at the entire controversy in general. I understand the uses and limits of a speedy deletion; the strife its use is causing is still frustrating, though, even if it's legitimate. But my parenthetical statement was meant as more of a groan than an argument one way or another.

• Comment Divisive and clearly divisive are two entirely seperate things. Just because a person CAN view something as divisive does not mean it is clearly divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This userbox seems like it was specifically designed to get picked up and speedily deleted. It's an outward message, not a description of the user, it's clearly polemical and seems like it meant to be in order to violate WP:POINT... it seems to me like it was properly speedily deleted. Again, if people want to debate CSD T1, there are fora for such a discussion all over the Wik. Userboxes simply should not be soapbox-in-a-box (isn't that what this whole debate is about?). I'm afraid this userbox seems to be making a point of missing the point. JDoorjam Talk 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear my remarks were not aimed specifically at you, but at the nom and the debates here in general. Oh,just to be clear keep deleted - although I object to having to vote here every time something is quite legitimately speedied. --Doc ^ask? 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This does look like a clear WP:POINT violation, but that isn't a speedy delition criteria. For a template to be speedy deleted it MUST be "devisive" or "inflamatory", and to comply with the spirit it must be unarguably so. In my opinion this template is borderline on both counts so TfD would have been a more apropriate avenue. I would vote delete in a debate but it does not qualify for speedy deletion, so Undelete and send to TfD. Thryduulf 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: actually, as of yesterday or the day before, CSD T1 says nothing about being "divisive" or "inflammatory", but instead says that templates cannot be "polemical". I'm not trying to get into semantics here, except, well, we're entrenched in it, aren't we? JDoorjam Talk 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per Thryduulf. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 18:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc glasgow. It's an attempt to assert opposition to CSD T1, but that should be done through policy discussion and not through userboxes. David | Talk 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, I don't believe it's an attempt to assert opposition to T1, but rather, to assert opposition to admins who speedily delete template out of process. T1 is valid, but very few templates are truly clearly divisive. It may be read as an attempt to assert opposition to the standing interpretation of T1, but I honestly don't feel that many people disagree with the spirit of the criterion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and block all these inflammatory/divisive admins. --Revolución (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: who, precisely, are you talking about? While there have been some rather inflammatory and divisive actions and messages in regards to this general topic, this particular discussion has been entirely civil, with thought-out, coherent, rational points on both sides. Has someone said or done something in this conversation thread you find inflammatory or divisive, or worthy of blocking? JDoorjam Talk 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah I don't think blocking is the answer. But their actions should definitely be brought into review. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Straightforward T1, obviously of no earthly use to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Templates should not be used for activism, nor is "consent" required prior to speedy deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - agree WP:POINT and T1. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I fail to see how a template which asks admins not to speedy userboxes while they are listed on WP:TFD could possibly be more divisive or inflammatory than speedy deleting that same template before its TfD has closed. —Andux^␅ 09:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - does nothing but impair our aims of creating a free, full and respectable encyclopaedia. Proto||type 12:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. The deletion reviews would not be happening if the templates were not unnecessarily speedy deleted. Thryduulf 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And none of this would be happening if these godforsaken userboxes had never been created in the first place. But we can't go back and change the past. --Cyde Weys 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Settle through concensus not fiat. --StuffOfInterest 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I oppose wanton deletion of userboxes against community consensus. Speedy deletion serves for cases which would have been extremely uncontroversial if brought to an actual vote, or where consensus has already been established. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. helohe (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Thryduulf MiraLuka 05:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The argument about creating a neutral WP don't apply here. If you want to change policy, do it elsewhere. enochlau (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not divisive or inflammatory. Rogue 9 13:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. TfD is there for a reason, and this userbox supports its use in all but exceptional circumstances. Mostlyharmless 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral behaviour by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete How often do we have to repeat the arguments? Avalon 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Am I the only one who sees the irony in this template being speedy deleted? Probably not. Anyway, undelete, not inflammatory or polemic or divisive (not any more than the speedy deletions themselves anyways) and deleting it borders on censorship considering the content. The Ungovernable Force 09:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one who sees the irony ... Yes. Because there isn't a shred of irony attached here: the obvious sole purpose of this template WAS for it to be deleted, so some editors can get their martytdom ya-yas on. --Calton | Talk 19:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--MONGO 10:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, let TFD decide. I don't like it much though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We must not tolerate any opinion I don't fully agree with -- or the Islamofascist will have WON! Now, Stop this nonsense or my head asplode!

In case the vote calculators are on autopilot, this is obvious sarcasm, and should be considered a vote in the other direction.
  Guðsþegn – UTCE – 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Troll-bait for cause-seekers. --Calton | Talk 19:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete Seig Heil, mein Fuher. Coolgamer 04:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If you want to play with worthless user boxes, go to Uncyclopedia. This user box did not do anything for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 13:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to leave worthless flamebait, go to Fark. This comment did not do anything for WP:DRV/Userbox debates. --Daniel 04:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Speedy deletion is used by rogue admins to suppress freedom without review.   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TFD. Stifle 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pacifist3

File:Peace Sign.svg

This user thinks pacifists make good target practice.

on the tfd for user pacifist, here, there were 30 keep votes to 19 delete votes. A Strong majority to keep. However User:Splash has closed the afd as a No Consensus. He then went to Speedy delete the box claming it was divisive. Cleary the TFD has proven that the community thinks this userbox is not divisive. Please Undelete this.--God of War 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted CatherineWest 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:CSD T.1. And TfD is not a vote, it's a debate. TfD has not proven anything about what the community thinks: it has, however, proven that there is a minority of users who will disrupt TfD with out-of-process "Strong KEEP" opinions which run counter to the explicit instructions on WP:TFD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your uncivility, your personal attacks, and most of all your insulting elitist snobbery are all reasons why you've landed into an RfC. It is not disruption to air one's opinion in TFD - it is disruption when you have clog TFD with nonsense nominations, that are only rendered "moot" because you enlist members of the anti-userbox cabal. --Daniel 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the point of TfD "discussions" at all if the consensus can be ignored by one admin? If the outcome of the TfD was No Consensus, then thetemplate should be allowed to remain. Undelete. (And you'll note that I actually voted to delete this one in its TfD.) --Fang Aili 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You're wrong about that. Template space is not article space. A template is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. We do not automatically have to default to "keep" if a discussion is deemed to have produced "no consensus". --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your response, but you did not answer my question, What exactly is the point of TfD "discussions" at all if the consensus can be ignored by one admin? I am not speaking of this particular template alone. --Fang Aili 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The point of TfD discussions is to find out whether there are any good reasons that the template in question should be kept. If a thousand people show up, vote keep, and give no good reasons, they've added nothing to the discussion, and may be ignored. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Divisive, poisoning the well. --Improv 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and I try to stay out of these debates. As far as divisive user boxes go, it's pretty clear this one was created for the sole purpose of being divisive. Why not just have one that says "This user favors feeding Christians to lions"? (oh dear, WP:BEANS). -R. fiend 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. Whatever you say. -R. fiend 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive, and in poor taste—what an inappropriate template! — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep delete - divisive and inflammetory --Doc <sup>ask? 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Relist - not uneccessarily divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm willing to grant that some of these userboxes may not be terribly divisive. "This user doesn't like George Bush". Meh. Who does? "This suer doesn't like the ACLU". Sure, that's a perfectly fine opinion to hold. "This user advocates the murder of various wikipedians". Um, hold on just a second there. Is that somehow not supposed to be divisive and overly confrontational? Because if that's the case, it fails miserably. Yes, I know, it's in jest, the user doesn't really shoot pacifists for sport (I hope), but really, it's basically trolling. I'm not necessarily of the opinion that any userbox that doesn't help build an encycloepdia should go (if that were the case, I would say we shouldn't have any, and people's pictures of their kitties on their userpages should go too), but this one crosses over into the realm of harming the project. That's the difference. -R. fiend 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Horrible insulting trash. --Tony Sidaway 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, because it contains a personal attack? Oh wait, it doesn't. No speedy deletion criteria here. Relist, even though I voted to delete at TfD. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1.--Alhutch 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The TfD clearly showed that the general concensus was to keep. De-admin whoever speedied it, this is geting stupid now - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Any template that has a majority to keep cannot be clearly "devisive" or "inflamatory" - and as a pacafist I find this one of the funniest user boxes I've seen. Thryduulf 16:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that like saying George W. Bush can't possibly be divisive or polarizing becuase he got over 50% of the popular vote (ie a blatant falsehood)? -R. fiend 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid CSD T1. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep deleted Almost funny, but I don't think a pacifist would find it amusing. Pointless. Banez 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Relist. I don't believe this to be strictly a T1. I would, however, vote to delete on TFD. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - regardless of how I feel this template should stay buried, "the result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS". Which means it should have stayed. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - divisive trolling. Proto||type 12:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - trolling is as trolling does. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I totally agree with Thryduulf and I oppose CSD T1. --Dragon695 05:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as T1. I agree with original call of no consensus, and agree it's a T1. Keep in mind consensus means two-thirds agreement or thereabouts. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Maybe if these weren't deleted in the first place, we wouldn't need to have deletion reviews. MiraLuka 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is divisive. enochlau (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Divisive, and in poor taste. Gentgeen 18:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and possibly userfy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I have no problem with userboxes stating an opinion, but you can state that you are not a pacifist and that pacifism is a bad idea without making statements like that. How long would a "This user thinks homosexuals make good target practice" userbox last? Seems to me that suggesting that anybody be shot at fits T1. Fightindaman 17:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I say down later, I think it's a joke, if not then I actually might endorse deletion (gasp, I would endorse a deletion). The Ungovernable Force 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The constant unilateral deletions are divisive. Avalon 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly a joke (at least for most people I hope). Not inflammatory, divisive or polemic. The Ungovernable Force 09:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A userbox calling for the killing of people is definitely inflammatory. Valid T1 use from a serious admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Are we just going to Ignore what a TFD says now? This is tongue in cheek not offensive.--God of War 21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Of no use in making the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This one is divisive and it promotes violence, that's not cool. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Rare delete vote from me, but this one does seem attackish enough to warrent removal. Coolgamer 17:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD:T1. Pepsidrinka 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD T1 and WP:CIVIL. A userbox advocating the shooting of human beings for sport is precisely the kind of crap that T1 was made for. This contributes nothing to writing an encyclopedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't appreciate violent sentiment, but it survived TFD, and let's all be honest, there are much more offensive userboxes out there.--M@rēino 23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - There being more offensive userboxes out there isn't an argument to undelete this one; it's an argument to delete those. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I appreciate the humour but you can keep the template's source on your user page if you really want. Otherwise it's a little too close to being offensive to be restored. Cedars 01:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per consensus. I don't like it, but it's after clearly surviving TFD. Stifle 13:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no Rand

It's a shame that we have to discuss this AGAIN, seeing as it already passed DRV on February 9 and was re-listed on WP:TFD, but of course, an admin saw fit to speedy delete it once more under the convienent T1 loophole (log). Recommendation: Undelete and Relist on TFD --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. The continued effort to destroy it is both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• De-admin whoever speedied this one. Oh, and Undelete —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1 is hardly a loophole. It's one of the few criteria for speedy deletion that have been explicitly endorsed by Jimbo. This template has a history of use as an abusive sticker (and early version referred to "randroids") Looking at its deletion histories I see no restorations, only deletions by sysops and recreations by User:Crotalus horridus, User:Nikodemos, and User:Revolución. --Tony Sidaway 04:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• T1 is a subjective criterion to which deletionists have determined means that they get to delete any template that expresses any opposing viewpoint. I don't believe this was Jimbo's intention, and I don't believe that this is the purpose of T1, hence the term "loophole". --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 18:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted all user boxes which criticize or disparage their subjects. CSD T1 is not a loophole. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Knowledge Seeker and Tony. CSD T1 is policy and it was endorsed by Jimbo.--Alhutch 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Simply put, listing things you dislike or disagree with does nothing to build the encyclopedia and is quite likely to annoy people of the opposite persuasion. (Nobody would introduce himself to a stranger by saying, "Hi, I'm Mike, I hate the ACLU, oppose anyone who's ever fired a gun, and really hope gay marriage never sees the light of day." But this is becoming par for the course at Wikipedia.) It is exactly the sort of pointlessly inflammatory thing that has been speedy deleted in the past and should continue to be speedy deleted in the future. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but in the course of working with someone on an encyclopedia with the idea of having the article display a neutral point of view at the end, it is highly useful to know what your fellow editors' POVs are so that you can determine whether or not they are inserting said POVs into the articles. Userboxes keep people accountable. To that end, undelete. Rogue 9 06:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive, poisoning well, yaddayadda. --Improv 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Its already survived one DRV, why is there someone so hell-bent on getting this deleted?!? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use, and Christopher Parham said it better than I ever could. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Simply saying that disclosing one's POV doesn't help to build a NPOV encyclopedia doesn't make it true. This is a legitimate opinion which, if disclosed, would help other editors understand the user's point of view. --James S. 18:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Right. I think understanding that other people are not POV-less editing drones, but real people with real opinions is helpful. And knowing those opinions helps editors better communicate with one another. If anything, I find it more worrisome when people hide their biases from other people, or pretend that their biases do not extend to Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted divisive - again Trödel&#149;talk 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all negative userboxes. This means any userbox that says "no" to something, is "anti" something, "opposes" something. Keep all userboxes that are positive. This means any userbox that states a simple characteristic or quality of the editor. This does not mean make a judgement about what you personally feel is positive or negative, helpful or divisive. Feel free to copy this vote to any debate it applies to. Grace Note 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - What is wrong with people? TFD is not just a recommendation, you can't just ignore it if you don't like something.--God of War 04:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - It's divisive and inflammatory, therefore it is against both the spirit and the policy of Wikipedia. The continual recreation of this article is paramount to trolling to make a WP:POINT. Kill it, salt the earth, protect from recreation, and a pox on anyone who tries to game their way around this. Proto||type 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Anti-X templates are unhelpful to the encyclopedia. I'd say that "This user is a Communist" or "This user is a follower of Ayn Rand and Objectivism" were perfectly permissible though. The Land 09:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete neither divisive nor inflammatory. This nonsense about deleting "anti-" templates is completely ridiculous. It is a separate opinion and the statement of an opposition to something is not any more divisive than a statement in support of something. --Revolución (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per God of War. I think it's high time to speak to Jimbo about this bogus T1 shit crap, especially since he claims that he wants to avoid "mass deletions" of userboxes. --Dragon695 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist as nom MiraLuka 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and put it back on TfD as above. enochlau (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted even though I strongly agree with this boxes' sentiment. However, I wonder why certain Userboxes remain, such as the pro-Marxist and anarchist boxes, and the obvious polemical "user does not trust Electronic voting machines," while this one was targeted for deletion. Let's delete them all, or leave them all alone, but someone needs to decide which. Or are leftist/anarchist groups too powerful to confront here on Wikipedia? Nhprman 21:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete why should I give a reason. There never seems to be one for the deletion in the first place? Mostlyharmless 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted This template does nothing to help make the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Pepsidrinka 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --cesarb 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. CSD T1. SushiGeek 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• About 13 to undelete, 23 to keep deleted. This userbox stays deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

This admin is deleting templates without a consensus for deletion and adding speedy delete tags to userboxes which are already under discussion. This has resulted in the speedy deletion of several userboxes. This is censorship and an abuse of admin power. It is vandalism, and I put up a notice on Vandalism in Progress about him, though it was removed. --Revolución (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• A recent example is Template:User against Iraq War, which was put up for TfD. Voting at time of Tony's deletion was 13 keep, 4 delete [11]. --Fang Aili 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused about the purpose and nature of WP:TFD. It is not a vote. It is a debate. You are encouraged to provide arguments that address the deletion criteria for templates set out on WP:TFD. The majority of the "keep" opinions failed to address the criteria and thus contributed nothing to the debate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You are not empowered to decide the value of another user's opinion. --Fang Aili 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I created that template. I have warned him several times. I do not know what to do, and since I do not have admin powers, I can not restore these templates. --Revolución (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I dare say this is a possible mis-use of admin permissions. I suggest perhaps the process for RfC should begin? ComputerJoe 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, if not a full-blown RfA. --Aaron 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've explained that Mark Sweep and I, both administrators, have been tagging and deleting some of the more inflammatory userbox templates under the T1 speedy criterion. It seems reasonable to me that if two administrators both arrive at a good faith determination that a template is clearly inflammatory and divisive, it's reasonable grounds for speedy deletion on the basis that, in Jimbo Wales' words, they 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." --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please explain how "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates an immediate troop withdrawal" qualifies as inflammatory. --Revolución (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It's needlessly divisive. It is entirely based on real-life politics that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. All it does is divide Wikipedians by opinions that are irrelevant and orthogonal to the purpose of Writing An Encyclopedia. Especially the "advocates" bit is a violation of WP:NOT:soapbox. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't. Just follow Tony's lead and IAR by making it again, both in a subst and a template. Karmafist 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I followed your advice and recreated the template. A few seconds later, it was instantly deleted. --Revolución (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But not by me. Spooky, huh? --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dismiss - DRV is not a place for mini RfCs. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dismiss per Mr. Stewart. Summary deletion of templates is occasionally justified, per Jimbo. If one disagrees with a specific case, bring the case here. If Revolucion's description of the Iraq userbox is correct, I would be more inclined to overturn than I was in the case of "USA Police State." Xoloz 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The complaint has now changed to consider the template itself, not Mr. Sidaway. Undelete Allow TfD. Template is political, probably unwise, but not blatantly inflammatory. It deserves normal process. Xoloz 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the Iraq War template and allow full hearing at TfD. It is not "blantantly inflamatory", as evidenced by several good-faith keep votes before the TfD was interrupted. Thryduulf 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. The template is divisive and unsuitable content for a userpage. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete IMMEDIATELY No consensus was reached upon the deletion. If administrators will continue to implement a "delete first, think later" policy, Wikipedia will indeed resemble a police state. I refuse to acknowledge "Jimbo said so" as a valid argument for deletion. Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide. Vargher 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Stirring words from an editor with precisely five article edits and seven talk page comments in three weeks. In the same time, Mr Vargher has accomplished over sixty edits to his own user page. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from attacking the author of an opinion Mr. Sidaway. Please look at WP:BITE--God of War 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. It is beyond obvious these admins are falsely claiming "speedy delete" because they're overwhelmingly losing the discussions. --Aaron 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can see no reasonable connection between this template and our goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TFD. Many user templates have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, that isn't a reason to speedy it. --Kbdank71 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nominator's apparent personal crusade against Tony Sidaway is growing tiresome. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't personal. This is about abuse of admin power. --Revolución (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See this. But enough here; please continue this at my talk if you wish to. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. We were forming a concensus about this template when Tony deleted it. Let the TfD process go forward. --Fang Aili 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Voting in a vacuum I'd support this without having to see the content. The title itself is clearly divisive, presenting an obvious POV without telling others "I can help you based on my expertise." But I must say... admins should remember how much it sucks for a non-admin to see admins making sudden decisions out of process. It seems TonyS deleted this, and I have voted in favour of his deletions here, but I do want to emphasize how annoying it is when fD gets ignored because some admin was "in that mood." It really does suck. You vote yay or nay on some fD page (or maybe you're just watching) and then you realize an admin can speedy and haul it over here (where, largely, only admins comment) regardless of any emerging consensus on the relevant fD page. Thus, I don't think I support Revolucion's ideas here, but I see his frustration. Marskell 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The concensus apparently reached was "speedy delete". However, looking through the discussion, nobody had suggested a speedy deletion, and that the huge majority of people voted keep. If this is going to happen all the time, why dont we just abolish discussions? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's coming, Dussst. Mark my words; it's only a matter of time. --Aaron 22:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted when discussions go directly against policy then admins have the responsibility to follow the policy even if that is out of process - process is to support policy not create an environment to individually ignore/overturn policy when it suits a specific group of users. Trödel&#149;talk 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RFC the admins responsible what is the point of having a Tfd process if admins just arbitrarily delete templates they happen to dislike Cynical 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted TfD is broken. Speedies are exceptional deletion criteria that do not require to establish consensus. --Doc ^ask? 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't go there. Wait until the userbox debate is finished, then consider them all en bloc. This whole busienss is taking over the entire project. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've created the template in my own userspace. The fascists here will probably try to censor it again, but I won't let them. --Revolución (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Vargher Mike McGregor (Can) 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire, as per Vargher. Five article edits and 60 user page edits illustrate his misconceptions: Wikipedia is NOT a blog, free hosting service, or billboard for promoting one's personal beliefs. MySpace and Blogspot are that-a-way if that's what he wants; this place is supposed to be a freaking encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone's in the dark. The entire WP:UBX project is littered with personal beliefs! Just look at the Politics and Beliefs section, with userboxes advocating Taiwan independence and various other little things. Userboxes are the expression of our personal beliefs, and have caught on like wildifre on many user pages. Clearly the "this is an encyclopeida" is moot, as is the personal attack against the user in question. - Hbdragon88 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone's in the dark. True -- but it's not me. Check out User:Vargher's contributions: compare all edits with article edits: Time and edits enough to create/install 79 or so user boxes, and only enough time for 5 article edits. Do you understand the point, or are diagrams required?
    • The entire WP:UBX project is littered with personal beliefs! I need to ask: did the "Mom! [my brother/my sister/the next-door-neighbor's kid] does it!" rationale work when you were a child? No? Why should it work now? --Calton | Talk 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The sheer number of userboxes on UBX shows that userboxes are here to stay and that they are being used as a medium to express opinions. You wrote that Wikipedia is not a "billboard for promoting one's personal beliefs." The userboxes project proves otherwise. Don't throw the "They do it!" argument at me. - Hbdragon88 21:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't throw the "They do it!" argument at me. Why? Are you disavowing it now? Because, you know, that's precisely what you're saying; your handwaving and sputtering about numbers doesn't change what's at the core of your argument. --Calton | Talk 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid deletion per CSD T.1. Ignore all opinions here based on out-of-process arguments such as "censorship" or "free speech". --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  It's not right wing pv pimping... he has gone after boxes that the right would support as well. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  If "he" in this instance refers to me, my political compass readings are as follows:

  Economic Left/Right: -8.75

  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

  The accusations of edit warring, vandalism and whatnot are equally fatuous. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn. I do not agree with the message, but I will fight for the right to say it. IMHO I think speedy is beng abused by admins who can't get consensus. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong, Emphatic Overturn - The constant speedy deletion and vandalism of userboxes bya small number of admins has got to stop, and it has to stop immediately. This template must be restored and an RfC started. This is getting to the point, or perhaps beyond the point, of de-adminship for trolling and incessant WP:POINT violations. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all user boxes which disparage or criticize their subject. Needlessly divisive and inflammatory. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the deletion of this template WAS disruption of Wikipedia, however this userbox sucks and I almost deleted it myself when I saw it on TfD.  Grue  07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion This is hilarious. 1) I'm one of the ones who should feel inflamed and felt cut off from his fellow wikipedian by this "inflammatory and divisive" template because I totally disagree with it. The only thing is...I'M NOT! I enjoy hearing a opposite point of view and respect those who have them. I wish people would stop chicken-littling that wikipedia is going to end if people have POV's on their user pages. Edit wars don't start over that, they start over what's in ARTICLES. 2) Although I personally think free speech is a good enough reason to keep, I'm one of the few people who posted what I think are "wikipedia project-related" reasons why these templates are good, which User:MarkSweep "swept under the rug" by not responding. I said, "this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe." 3) I say deleting these templates is moot because it's just a big exercise in masturbation. Your big reason for deleting them is that you don't want "divisive, inflammatory POV" on userpages? Well, if you delete them, people will just use the raw code (or prose!) to recreate them on their userpages. What then? Lawyer2b 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together coudln't have created more bitterness and division with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore in the user namespace. (Second choice: Keep deleted.) I like Crotalus horridus' compromise that was used in some of the other DRV debates. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete.helohe (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn and Relist. This is not a review of the template, it's a review of the process; TfD is for discussion of whether templates should be deleted, and Deletion Review is for reviewing whether the deletion was merited at that point of time or not, not as a way to hide TfD revotes from the majority of voters whenever an admin gets frisky. It is absurdly clear that this deletion was very poorly-done: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_Iraq_War_2 for details. Not a single user had voted for "speedy delete", no one had brought up why and how it might be "divisive" or "inflammatory", there was a large consensus to keep, and even the people who voted "delete" did not vote "speedy". If those voters were mistaken or misinformed or unaware of the , then the correct next step to take would be to vote and explain your view, arguing for speedy-delete and then waiting to see if your argument gains support. It is not to take abrupt and callously dismissive unilateral action, which has infinitely more potential to be divisive and offensive to the majority of users than some dinky little userbox ever could. What's going to drive valuable editors away is abuse of process like this and admins' apathy to it (as demonstrated by the number of "endorse" votes here), not ridiculous brightly-colored rectangles. Even if you believe this should be deleted (in fact, I personally wouldn't really mind such an outcome, after the TfD runs its course!), you should vote to overturn this so it can be given its proper length of time; if you believe it to be divisive and inflammatory (which a large number of people clearly do not, so this speedy-delete is disputed and merits a full vote!), then explain why. Whatever happened to these things being discussions rather than votes? Instead, it seems now that they're neither: both the votes themselves and the contents of the TfD are being completely disregarded simply because an admin disagrees with them (but apparently doesn't have enough respect for any of the voters to reply to their points and form a counter-argument, rather than using force to silence them). Pointless, controversial speedy-deletes like this are making the entire TfD process look like a silly little diversion for non-admins to waste their time on while admins just speedy-del whatever the hell they feel like rather than voting or commenting. It's contributing much more to the increasingly hostile, aggressive, and intolerant atmosphere around here than the userboxes themselves are! -Silence 16:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, this is not the place. --Improv 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. Furthermore, people who go round calling their opponents 'fascists' in this sort of debate do nothing to help their own cause. The Land 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Land, you and others arguing along this line fail to realize: Wikipedia is edited by people. People who happen to have their likes and dislikes. Userboxes that allow persons to associate as a group, or make their beliefs known, and which give them a sense of place within the Wikipedia project may not be considered encyclopedic by you, but they are encyclopedic for those who use them in that they provide a small measure of reward for our work.

In the end, you are the ones shooting yourselves in the feet. A volunteer project is only as good as its willingness to accomodate its volunteers. --Daniel 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Volunteer projects are not about self-glorification of the volunteers, or about giving them a chance to push a view. Try going to a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter and handing out political buttons or otherwise "expressing yourself" that way, and I think you may change your views on this. The thing that a lot of people on this deletion review board don't understand is that their userpage is not their property. It's there at the tolerance of the project. We're not trying to storm your home to censor your thoughts -- your userpage is not your personal webpage or anything of the sort. --Improv 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Strangely enough I am a person too, and have nothing against accomodating volunteers. However, the sillier userboxes only damage the project overall. The Land 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and keep. Being opposed to the Iraq War is a reasonable opinion shared by many throughout the world. I, myself, support the Iraq War, but still feel I can listen to those with the opposite opinion. StuRat 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep template. And I'll support any effort against administrative abuse. Sarge Baldy 06:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per common sense. We need more userboxes, not less. Larix 09:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Keep this is a legitimate opinion which will help editors understand each others' points of view, and thus help achieve NPOV articles. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be encouraging. --James S. 16:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But if you read WP:JIMBO, you'll see that this is exactly the kind of thing that's actively discouraged. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has also discouraged going on a mass userbox deletion spree as counterproductive. --James S. 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete - Wikipedia is run by consensus - not admins that know what's best for us.--God of War 20:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is obviously an administrative abuse. Even if it is a debate not a vote, the admin shouldn't end the discussion 6 days before time because he doesn't like the result. As for my opinion, it is not decisive or inflammatory and we can have both a support war and an against war templates.--Wedian 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. This template is both divisive and inflammatory.--Alhutch 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If you want it so much, learn how to subst userboxes and quit trying to turn Wikipedia into a blogsite. Proto||type 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and permanently block all these inflammatory and divisive admins. --Revolución (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore history - It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 06:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and suggest that admins take a little extra time when speedy deleting things, especially if they are already in something like TfD that might get them deleted anyway. Short-circuiting the TfD process, set up for just this sort of thing, will only cause additional work for admins later.  The Steve  18:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This needs to be settled through political concensus and not individual interpretation. If some are so opposed to userboxes then perhaps there needs to be a Wikipedia wide poll to settle the issue once and for all. Of course, Jimbo can by right make a dictate if he so chooses but others trying to divine his will are doing everyone a disservice. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete And I hope the admin who deletes pages without a consensus should have his admin rights removed. helohe (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and agree with helohe. MiraLuka 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and take to TfD. Agree with above. enochlau (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - unilateral action by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Please stop deleting these things when so many people are against it. The Ungovernable Force 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Freedom of speech before all. --UVnet 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Either Marksweep supports the war, or he has never heard of Encyclopédie--M@rēino 21:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Say what you like on your user page -- no need for a template to say it for you. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted We don't need this kind of non-helpful content in a template. Roll your own on your user page if you want it so badly. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Coolgamer 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• About 30 to undelete/relist, and about 20 to keep deleted. Per the undeletion policy I'm undeleting and sending to TFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User opposes ubx screwing

This appears to be a mistaken deletion. The text of the userbox didn't appear to be divisive/inflammatory as Physchim62, who deleted it, said. The creator may correct me, but it could have meant that that user didn't want to see userboxes vandalized or added to their userpage without permission, rather than the whole userbox debate. --D-Day 19:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. If that's all that was meant, in my opinion it's a silly use of a template. To me it appears as activism, and I oppose these sorts of templates on Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*Keep deleted per CSD T1 - this template is actually unnessarily divisive. Nonetheless, I do recommend restoring the content on the userpages that link to this - I have observed a handful of userpages that have redlinks to this template. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• This template appears to have been recreated. Looking at the text displayed in the current version, it does not appear to be divisive, but nonetheless, the title is. I recommend undeleting (current revision) and moving to a non-offensive title. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like it's been re-deleted and protected. --Dragon695 06:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete voices ligit concerns about Admins selectivley applying process and gameing the system.Mike McGregor (Can) 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I've seen the userbox. It's definitely a T1. NSLE _(T+C) 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Definitive T1. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, the template was neither divisive nor inflammatory. A happy userbase is a productive userbase, and all of this deletion nonsense is pissing the userbase off. Ergo, the whole mess is making the userbase less productive; everyone involved could be off editing articles instead of complaining if the admins would leave their user pages alone. Rogue 9 08:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. T1 --Improv 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Although it wasnt particually offensive before, it has been reworded and is even more friendly - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not encycloapedic, waste of time. Everyone involved should be editing articles in the first place rather than trying to turn Wikipedia into Myspace. Proto||type 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's not really in the spirit of Wikipedia:User page, although I wouldn't delete a personal recreation in userspace. JYolkowski // talk 03:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and delete insane admins. --Revolución (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete policy disagreements are legitimate concerns. Other people have entire user subpages devoted to rants on policies. This is no different. --Dragon695 06:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Rogue9 hit the nail on the head. MiraLuka 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and take to TfD. Not divisive, but you don't really need a userbox to say this. enochlau (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gentgeen 18:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep delete the idea is fine, the wording is not. Something like {{user pro userboxes}} would be better Cynical 21:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - unilateral action by admins is unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the arguments against POV userboxes are arguments against User pages. Avalon 06:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted not necessary - fine in userspace, but template space is part of mission, which, by way of reminder, is to build an encyclopedia Trödel&#149;talk 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User USA Police State

Taxman (talk · contribs) deleted it without a consensus. If I counted right, there are 29 keep votes and 18 delete votes (correct me if I missed some for either keep or delete). --Revolución (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• As an ardent opponent of this twit person, I do fear my country may become a police-state, but this template is clearly inflammatory. Summary deletion is appropriate, and I endorse it. (Note that I have no opinion on userboxes generally, working case-by-case.) Xoloz 19:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just recreate it. Only this time make a subst and a template. If certain people want to ignore rules, it's only a matter of time before everybody does. Karmafist 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, what do you think that is going to help? - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Actually I restored it upon seeing the discussion. I stand by it clearly meeting the speedy deletion criteria, but more importantly, it having no positive value for Wikipedia. - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that this is also one of my speedies. Both MarkSweep and I tagged it at various times, and Taxman and I deleted it at different times. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. The template is divisive and unsuitable content for a userpage. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete IMMEDIATELY No consensus was reached upon the deletion. If administrators will continue to implement a "delete first, think later" policy, Wikipedia will indeed resemble a police state. I refuse to acknowledge "Jimbo said so" as a valid argument for deletion. Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide. Vargher 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just had my {{User no-wiki-police-state}} userbox deleted in no more than 5 minutes after creation. This indeed has become a police state and we are all the targets. Undelete. The common editors seem to be in support of userboxes, admins seem to be the ones most opposed. I don't see why admins should have all the power, seeing as there are far more of us than of them on this encyclopedia. Furthermore, there is no clear policy on userboxes, so why must they delete all of them, especially this quickly? We really can't let this happen, and I agree with what is said above, we build it, we decide. If the majority of the community wants to get rid of them, then fine, I'll get rid of them, but we can't just let admins go against consensus and delete evey userbox that has an opinion expressed. The Ungovernable Force 07:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I can see no reasonable connection between this template and our goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, don't think think this is irrelevent? The question here is if the template was deleted correctly, and if not, whether it should be relisted. This template is one of many on the Userboxes project. The entire project could be considered to be irrelevent to writing an encyclopeida. The point I'm trying to make is that the relevence discussion and questions should be pointed there, not on a Deletion Review. - Hbdragon88 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TFD. Many user templates have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, that isn't a reason to speedy it. --Kbdank71 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But the speedy deletion criteria are a reason to delete it. - Taxman ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: useless dreck. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Horrible nonsense. What is Wikipedia coming to when we need to debate whether to bin trash like this? --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Because that same argument could be used to, I don't know, close this very discussion right now as "Relist", or even "undelete". It causes wheel-wars. If that's what Wikipedia is coming to, you can have it. There are processes for a reason. Last I checked, it was King Jimbo, not King Taxman or King Tony. --Kbdank71 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not very convincing. The template was complete dreck. It has to die; if TfD cannot do it then we speedy under T1. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So in other words you admit that you are deliberately ignoring the Tfd just because you happen to disagree with the outcome? Cynical 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No, there's a speedy deletion criteria that covers this. Speedy deletion trumps afd and tfd. - Taxman ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The CSD was created by rule of dictator, not by consensus. Also, it is a relatively new criterion, and it is recommended that it be used with caution, not whenever an admin feels like it. But still, it's convienent, is it not? Helps to support unilateral deletion sprees of any content any admin may find objectional. Sigh. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. We were forming a concensus about this template when Taxman deleted it. Let the TfD process go forward. --Fang Aili 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete There was no concensus met, and the discussion was going towards "keep" anyway! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The substantive debate was going towards "delete". Just because some people "voted to keep" doesn't change the fact that WP:TFD is a debate, in which participants are encouraged to put forth reasoned arguments. In fact, the instructions specifically state: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." If you choose not to participate in this debate by writing "Strong KEEP" followed by an irrelevant argument which does not address the template deletion criteria, that's entirely up to you. But don't misrepresent a bunch of irrelevant opinions as "consensus", just because they happen to include the word "keep" in boldface. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Just you think someone's argument is irrelevant, doesnt mean it is. Many of the arguments put forward good points to keeping the userbox. Either way, speedying a template during a discussion is a really stupid and annoying thing to do, I just dont see what the point it. There is a reason why we have discussions, so why delete things half way through so people can no longer vote because they cannot see it? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony Sidaway Trödel&#149;talk 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Dussst. This war will never end as long as admins continue to act arbitrarily. --Aaron 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not arbitrary when there is a specific policy that calls for doing exactly what was done. - Taxman ^Talk 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you mean that policy that didn't exist until well after the war began? --Aaron 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • This war will never end as long as there are users who keep mistake Wikipedia for a blog, free hosting service, or billboard for promoting their personal beliefs. MySpace and Blogspot are that-a-way if that's what they want; this place is supposed to be a freaking encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, it's only effects will be divisive and inflammatory. And by the way, "Jimmy said so" is a valid argument. Rx StrangeLove 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per VargheMike McGregor (Can) 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. Daniel 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right, that's not even wrong." A website having and enforcing standards is evidence of a police state? Do you even know the meaning of the term? --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, examples include USA and Wikipedia - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • A:"The USA is a police state!"
      • B:"What is a police state?"
      • A:"The USA!"
      • Allow me to introduce you to the concept of Circular reasoning. Enjoy the education. --Calton | Talk 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me introduce you to Dictatorship....*shows a picture of Hitler*..actually, heres a better example..*shows picture of a Wikipedia Admin* - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • As far a Godwin's Law goes, that use probably takes the cake. Anyway, glad to see you'll never be running for adminship. -Reichsführer fiend 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Nope, never will, i dont support speedying, so i probably wont be accepted - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T.1. Ignore all out-of-process opinions based on personal animosity, "censorship", etc. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Expedient undelete. Template was deleted out of process despite ongoing discussion on TFD. Also recommend slapping Tony with a large whale. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite frankly, I'm not concerned in the slightest that someone feels the comment is innappropriate. Tony's habit of speedy deleting userboxes that are undergoing discussion on TFD or have passed TFD because he "feels like it" is also innappropriate, and highly disruptive to the project, particularly as it often leads to wheel wars. When a template is being discussed on TFD, and Tony decides to "screw process" despite lack of consensus to do so... well, you get the picture. If an admin is ignorant that such actions are disruptive, they should not be trusted with admin privelages. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete. No explanation...just inflamatory remarks (AKA "trolling"). WP:IAR.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. IMHO I think speedy is beng abused by admins who can't get consensus. It may or may not be a police state, but a police wiki is in formation. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I feel that this one should be deleted, but it was far, far from consensus. Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Inflammatory or divisive templates have no place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I support userboxes in general, but this is just lame.  Grue  06:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion This is hilarious. 1) I'm one of the ones who should inflamed and felt cut off from his fellow wikipedian by this "inflammatory and divisive" template because I totally disagree with it. The only thing is...I'M NOT! I enjoy hearing a opposite point of view and respect those who have them. I wish people would stop chicken-littling that wikipedia is going to end if people have POV's on their user pages. Edit wars don't start over that, they start over what's in ARTICLES. 2) Although I personally think free speech is a good enough reason to keep, I'm one of the few people who posted what I think are "wikipedia project-related" reasons why these templates are good, which User:MarkSweep "swept under the rug" by not responding. I said, "this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe." 3) I say deleting these templates is moot because it's just a big exercise in masturbation. Your big reason for deleting them is that you don't want "divisive, inflammatory POV" on userpages? Well, if you delete them, people will just use the raw code (or prose!) to recreate them on their userpages. What then? Lawyer2b 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together coudln't have created more bitterness and division in it with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. (Second choice: Keep deleted.) I like Crotalus horridus' compromise that was used in some of the other DRV debates. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV. Prove neutrality through excellent editing and userpages should not be little playgrounds to erect billboards that are clear violations of the NPOV.--MONGO 10:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. And undelete. helohe (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not the place, divisive. --Improv 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per 1. WP:TfD templates must be NPOV, 2. WP:NOT a saopbox, 3. WP:CSD T1 'divisive or inflammetory, 4. Jimbo's request not to use political userboxes. --Doc ^ask? 23:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion. Using an infobox to insult a country should not be allowed any more than insulting an ethnic group. StuRat 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. And the administrator who blatantly ignored the vote should be reviewed. Sarge Baldy 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn against concensus. Larix 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn abuse of speedy after attempt at consensus failed. Such actions will divide the community far more than any userbox could. --James S. 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - Wikipedia is run by consensus - not admins that know what's best for us.--God of War 20:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not unduly divisive, and harmless to the project. User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per Tony Sidaway. Banez 11:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and permanently block all these inflammatory and divisive admins. --Revolución (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore history - It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 06:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted. This is somewhat divisive. enochlau (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I am pro-userbox but this crosses the line. It's way too inflametory and divisive. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete use TfD for goodness sake if you think things should be deleted. Mostlyharmless 06:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Cannibal

This userbox was speedied twice by Kelly Martin and Doc Glasglow. It was a rather popular userbox and as the creator I do not feel it was meant to be inflammatory, offensive, etc. Ms. Martin said it was offensive and Doc called it "sick." HappyCamper and Ambi also delted it because of WP:Point.

I am asking the community to respond to this. I asked on its talk page what was wrong with it, but no one responded. This was nowhere near as offensive as the pedophile ones, and it was intended as humor. For some reason, it was placed on the eating habits page for userboxes. Which probably partially explains why it was speedied. --D-Day 22:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what's so offensive about the pedophile template? I couldn't figure it out myself. Sarge Baldy 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was because of the recent awareness of child predators is what caused the outrage. It was sort of funny, but in poor taste. As far as I know, cannibalism isn't a big problem in this country. --D-Day 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Humourous, but unnecessarily divisive (ie, criterion T1) and morbid humor. I do, however, support restoring the content of the userbox on the userpages of those who used this template. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not divisive. I find a lot of things sick, they don't get deleted - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. I find the content in the profanity article disgusting. And flatulence? Wikipedians should have better social habits then to post such filth online. Should we delete those? --D-Day 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are enyclopedia articles. This is not, therefore the comparison is totally moot.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that. I'm just using that as an example. I know they are articles, very intresting ones at that. I'm just saying that everything that may be just a tad grotesque should not be deleted. --D-Day 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, I only deleted this userbox once (the other time it was a redirect to an already deleted template) as did Kelly. It has actually been deleted once by four different admins, myself, Kelly, HappyCamper and Ambi. I'm not sure why D-Day chose to name only two of the four and wrongly state that they had deleted it twice .--Doc ^ask? 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, Keep deleted of course articles on profane subjects are kept, they are encyclopedic: this is not, so there is no comparison. I've no objection to jokes in userspace but it is not what template space is for. Anyway, this userbox commits the unpardonable sin of being both useless and unfunny. --Doc ^ask? 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all userboxes are funny. Should those be deleted if they say that "This user speaks English?"

If you admit that it isn't funny, really what is the excuse for it? Because unlike Babel language boxes, it sure the hell isn't useful. --Doc ^ask? 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• What was the "point" that they thought it was making, exactly? How is it offensive, and how wide open are we throwing the "delete it because it is/could be offensive" door here? Finally, how is it divisive? Is there really a large, staunch anti-cannibal population on Wikipedia who is going to be powerfully offended here? It's pretty obviously a joke.... JDoorjam Talk 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly a joke template, and the only thing that's divisive about userboxes are the campaigns to delete them. Sarge Baldy 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete as per Sarge BaldyMike McGregor (Can) 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Pointless, troll-ish, and unencyclopedic. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But this isn't going to be in the encyclopedia! Are we deleting everything non-encyclopedic or pointless from the user space, or are we not? I imagine we're not, in which case the repeated argument that userboxes are non-encyclopedic seems to be a non-sequitur. JDoorjam Talk 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that old chestnut again. Userspace is not 'myspace' but it ultimately exists to serve the enclyclopedia. How does this derve the encyclopedia? Anyway, it isn't in userspace. --Doc ^ask? 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The user boxes are all displayed in user space. That the templates themselves don't reside in user space is totally irrelevant. It's all hard disc space somewhere, and I don't think the servers really care whether the templates are used for articles or user space. But if we're taking out everything that fails to serve an encyclopedia, then when is the userboxen armageddon coming? My biggest problem isn't freedom of speech or expression or any of that nonsense. My problem is the sheer inconsistency. If "User cannibal" is going to be deleted, then why not get rid of all of the user boxes? And that's not a rhetorical question. Why not get rid of BJAODN? What encyclopedic purpose does BJAODN serve? If we're going to draw a line, let's draw it already, and let's stick to it. But this arbitrary selection drives me nuts. JDoorjam Talk 01:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh just keep deleted, just for being stupid. -R. fiend 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at TFD - Obviously people have divided opinions on this so let's do things properly from now on, okay?--God of War 04:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - doesn't create a greater sense of community on Wikipedia (the way the non-attack political userboxes do). Oh, and as a side issue, learni to {{subst:}} your userboxes will ensure that out-of-process deletions (which I want to emphasise this one is NOT) don't affect YOUR userpage.Cynical 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at TFD per God of War. --Fang Aili 19:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As Cynical says, just subst your boxes. Attacky and useless. Proto||type 09:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There is a line, this is on the wrong side of it. BJAODN is on the other side. The Land 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Out of curiosity, how many users constitute 'rather popular'? When was this created, originally? I find the fact that four different admins deleted it fairly compelling, but Kelly's deletion was during the GUBP, and I've no evidence that it existed much before the userbox-spamming began in late 2005. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete don't you have a sense of humor? (assuming the only thing said on the userbox was "This user is a cannibal". and not some overly offensive joke) --Revolución (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what it said. D-Day 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at TFD per God of War. Process is there for a reason and this deletion was clearly violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per above. It is not clear to me at all that this is a violation of [[WP:POINT]. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TFD per God of War. I don't agree that either the template or the deletion were a violation of WP:POINT, but it is clearly neither unarguably inflamatory or devisive. Thryduulf 18:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Trödel&#149;talk 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TFD. Not T1. It doesn't broadcast a political message either. If you want it deleted, TFD it. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It is not offensive. helohe (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Obviously the 'joke' has died. Make something more funny instead (: --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It was funny. MiraLuka 05:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Trollish. enochlau (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted under CSD T1 (inflammatory) Cynical 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Making a joke about cannibalism is not inflammatory. Consensus was to keep; if you believe that the consensus was mistaken, then list this template on TfD and make some persuasive arguments. Use discussion and reason, not force and revert-wars, to win the day. Or at least try, sheesh. Deleting this is essentially saying "if we don't find a joke funny, we will delete it"; employing consistent standards of civility on userspace is acceptable, but inconsistently censoring taste and sense of humor will only cause more conflict than the userbox itself ever could! It's not like cannibalism is a hot-button topic in just about any society today; this template will never inspire factionalism or ill-will—unless it continues to be targeted by arbitrary and bizarre speedy-deletes like this one, which will directly cause exactly what they seek to prevent. Pyrrhic victory, anyone? Is this little colored box really such a huge deal that we can't let a handful of people play around with it in their userspace if it makes them happy? -Silence 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Silence. Mostlyharmless 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User wishful

Deleted during active TFD Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5#Template:User_wishful with a consensus to keep.

Undelete Procedural undelete. User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep delete - divisive and inflammatory --Doc ^ask? 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Relist. Not unnecessarily divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand that comment - do you mean that it is neccessarily devisive? --Doc ^ask? 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• In a sense, yes. Any amount of divisiveness this template may cause is necessary. To be blunt, all userbox templates will have some degree of divisiveness attached to them, even something as simple as {{user Salad}}, because not everyone shares the same viewpoint. I do not believe this template to be exceptionally divisive, nor do I believe it to be T1 criteria. That is what I mean - when expressing an opinion, some amount of "divisiveness" is strictly necessary. When it becomes detrimental to the project, then it becomes an issue. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You admit it is divisive, and T1 says divisive userboxes should be speedied. Thus the speedy is valid by you argument. --Doc ^ask? 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• T1 says that userboxes that are clearly divisive should be deleted. I argue that this template is not divisive, and any divisiveness that arises from it is strictly necessary. Also, I do not endorse T1 - I honestly don't care if Jimbo has. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So let met get this right, you're advocating undeleting it because you don't agree with existing policy? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am advocating undeletion because I feel it should be undeleted. In addition, I disagree with the standing interpretation of T1. I do not disagree with it's intent - to prevent such inane garbage as {{user pedophile}} from clogging up Wikipedia's processes and to allow such things to be deleted. I do not believe it should be used to justify deleting any template that can be considered by someone to be "divisive", because in that case, you might as well just go and delete everything in the template namespace. The criterion is subjective, and I have applied my own subjective reasoning to it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 17:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• comment Can some one post this here so I can see it? It would be helpful to form an informed opinion...Mike McGregor (Can) 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, and don't have an exact copy of the template, but I do recall that it said "This user recognizes that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but sure wishes the United States was". --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• undelete in that case: undelete, disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This userbox is not inflammatory or divisive. Its deletion was both inflammatory and divisive. --Daniel 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - It would take some serious contortion to put this under T1. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Straightforward application of T1. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Copybook T1. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; obviously meets CSD T1. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive, well poison, so on. --Improv
• Undelete and relist Let's actually see the process through for once - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD. I cannot see how this is at all "devisive" or "inflamatory". Thryduulf 16:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Although the creator could use some education in the nature of the U.S. government (or possibly education on the nature of true democracy; one of the two), the box isn't divisive in any way. Rogue 9 06:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and block all these ridiculous admins. --Revolución (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete CSD T1 is not a formal policy and Jimbo specifically said to hold off on its use. --Dragon695 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1. CSD is formal policy, anything under it is formal policy. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. helohe (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. MiraLuka 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't care what Jimbo said, if the community didn't get to vote on the policy, I don't acknowledge it. Furthermore, it is not clearly divisive, I don't agree with it since I think wikipedia should be a consensus direct democracy, but I am not offended by it, otherwise I wouldn't be voting to undelete. I even voted to undelete a pro-bush userbox, and trust me, I hate him. Clearly the only thing that is really divisive about userboxes is their rampant undeletion by admins. This issue is actually UNITING the majority of the community into an anti-censorship movement, and so if anything, userboxes are a unifying aspect of our community. The Ungovernable Force 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is divisive. enochlau (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely not 'inflammatory or polemical'. Perhaps the vandal-admin should actually read CSD T1 Cynical 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User-AmE-0

This template is in TfD discussions, with around 75-80% consensus to keep. Unfortunately, the administrator User:Doc glasgow, (*unsubstantiated personal attack removed*), decided to unilaterally speedy it. Naturally, I re-instated it as it is a template in TfD. Once again, the said administrator put the page in Protected deleted pages, violating the categories own usage policy as well as several others. There is no justification for speedy deletion when it is in TfD with consensus to keep, and there is certainly no justification in protecting the page. Deano (Talk) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Speedy deletion does not require a 'consensus' on TfD - that's why it is called 'speedy'. It requires only that the item meets the spirit of the WP:CSD. This template was marked by another editor as a 'speedy t1', i.e. 'divisive and inflammatory'. As it not only superfluously states that the user does not speak AM-E but at the same time makes a disparaging attack on American language (as common grammatical and spelling errors mistaken for dialect), I took the view that the template did meet WP:CSD T1 (and perhaps 'attack and disparage' as well) and so I deleted it. It was subsequently recreated out of process, so I deleted it again and protected. (Further WP:NOT a soapbox). --Doc ^ask? 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC) And it clearly fits criterion T1 for speedy deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I tried to temporarily restore the template so it could be pasted to the discussion (much like the others below) before re-deleting, but it seems I can't quite get it to work. Can anyone else do it? -R. fiend 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - Wikipedia is run by consensus - not admins that know what's best for us.--God of War 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. Sorry, God of war, you're just wrong on this. Consensus is not king here. There are some places where it's important, but it never has been and never will be the only game in town. --Improv 20:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia works by building consensus". If you don't like the way things work, maybe you should consider playing your games somewhere else? Grace Note 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • • Mote, beam, eye, etc. --Calton | Talk 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia uses consensus for some things, not everything. There have always, thankfully, been some areas where it is overridden for more pressing concerns on the project. I don't know what games you refer to. --Improv 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T.1: inflammatory. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore: Down with the userbox purge! --Daniel 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and leave it alone. This has been debated so many times on TFD and here that it really should not even be an issue anymore. Relist if necessary. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Mindless, insulting spittle, unworthy of any place on Wikipedia, let alone a form that can be transmitted from page to page. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete TfD is run with concensus, not mindlessly speedying everything. If this stays deleted, you might as well change Wikipedia:Admin to Wikipedia:Dictator - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Like Tony said, though I might have phrased it less subtly than he did. --Calton | Talk 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I disagree with the template, as a speaker of American English, but I nonetheless support their right to say it. --Revolución (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore history - It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 06:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This needs to be settled through political concensus and not individual interpretation. If some are so opposed to userboxes then perhaps there needs to be a Wikipedia wide poll to settle the issue once and for all. Of course, Jimbo can by right make a dictate if he so chooses but others trying to divine his will are doing everyone a disservice. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It is everyones right to say that he does not like the american english. helohe (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive and designed as an insult. enochlau (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete JSIN 12:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and re-list for deletion if that's what people wish. I understand that throwing the idea of the community consensus right out of the window is plausible to some, but this doesn't make such behaviour right. Halibutt 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted - divisive, inflamatory, per CSD T1. Gentgeen 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (or Delete all) - agree with dictator points as above. Either the all of AmE boxes should exist or none of them should, but AmE-0 ought to have text just the same as Template:User en-0 anything else would be divisive. Ian3055 21:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

This user does not support the United Nations.

This template was deleted despite an overwhelming number of the votes to keep (see here). What's more, after all votes were submitted, the Admin who started the deletion process, User:MarkSweep wrote, "The result of the debate was moot. This template was speedy deleted." An admin is implying that the process was irrelevant. I would like the deletion of this template to be reviewed and know if User:MarkSweep's conduct was appropriate for an admin.

Just to clarify: This is what I usually write when closing a discussion early after a speedy deletion, which, by the way, is standard procedure. The part about "The result of the debate was" is supplied by {{tfd top}}. All I did was add the word "moot" and an explanation of what had happened. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've userfied both boxes - see User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU. Thus, CSD T1 no longer applies, but users who wish to either subst: or transclude this content may still do so. (See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Use of userboxes). This was done in order to avoid the necessity for another lengthy debate rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Can we please avoid yet more tedious, repetitious discussions and get back to writing an encyclopedia? I'm getting sick and tired of this nonsense. Frankly, Wikipedia just isn't fun any more, and I'm not sure how much of my time I want to devote to a community divided by such petty squabbling. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. I like Crotalus horridus' compromise. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Such an action should be taken on an en masse scale, and after achieving general consensus for such a move (I'd endorse it, for one), not in a piecemeal, haphazard fashion, and such a decision should be reached on the TfD debate, not on Deletion Review (which is only here to review the deletion, not to recommend third options that should really have been discussed on the TfD). Otherwise, we risk not only causing more chaos and disorder as anti-userbox admins get out of control with userfying whatever templates they happen to personally dislike, but also risk causing a lot of unnecessary revert-wars and POV problems: why does "anti-UN" need to be userfied, while "pro-UN" is perfectly fine on the templatespace? The only message that sends is that Wikipedia itself is pro-UN. We need to make such a move for all user templates, or for none of them. I'd support doing it for them all, but this is not really the correct place to start such a large-scale move. All we're discussing here is this TfD and current policy, which quite clearly shows that the speedy-deletion was out-of-line and that a full TfD discussion is in order (even if the ultimate result of that discussion is userfication). That's the only way to keep both sides of the matter happy, and to make it clear that users' opinions aren't being ignored and their views arbitrarily and unnecessarily censored. Speedy-deletes like this serve only to escalate the disunity and factionalization of the community, and should not be tolerated even if the userbox itself merits deletion. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then the correct vote would be "Overturn" and then, once it is overturned, to vote "Delete" (or even "Speedy Delete", if you think it's both inflammatory and divisive, not merely "unhelpful") on the reopened TfD vote. This is a discussion of process, not of the template itself: if the template isn't clearly and obviously meriting speedy-delete at this point in time (and it's not, as shown by the number of "overturn" votes here and "keep" votes there), it deserves a full-run of discussion to iron out the details and discuss this matter to a satisfying amount. Stifling debate here won't serve either side's interest (and will only serve to further polarize the community, emphasizing that there are two distinct sides and that one has no interest in listening or responding to what the other has to say). Discussion keeps a consensus-run editing community healthy, and forbidding a full discussion over this matter by endorsing out-of-process, unilateral, undiscussed speedy-deletion will only cause more damage and discontent amont Wikipedia's valuable editors, thus ultimately harming the encyclopedia. What's so wrong with letting the TfD run its course? -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per TfD. While I'm not a fan of userboxes, especially this one (see my sig), consensus indicates that they want it to stay. I would vote delete on a TfD but I wouldn't delete against the wishes of the community. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep for repeated disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to explain? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We don't need a mechanism by which editors with a pronounced anti-UN (or anti-anything) bias can contact one another and organise. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of these templates is to self-identify and show in a clear way what biases a user has, not to further an agenda or "contact one another and organise" (which I've always thought was a rather flimsy, and somewhat melodramatic and paranoid (and thus not assuming good faith), argument against userboxes; it will be rather obvious if anyone attempts to use userboxes to stuff votes or "cluster" and factionalize, so it will be (and has been) both very rare and pretty easy to prevent). We have "anti-racism" templates; are those equally inappropriate? Why is it perfectly fine to support the UN, but not to say that you don't support the UN—or any other major, global organization for that matter? Isn't it much more POVed to say "Wikipedians can only be positive of the UN" than it is to let people identify where they stand on the matter? Additionally, are you basing your vote on the speedy-deletion criterion and current Wikipedia userbox policies, and on careful analysis of the actual discussion preceding this out-of-process speedy-delete, or are you basing it on your personal opposition to anti-UN (or "anti-anything") sentiment? We have "anti-Marxist" userboxes that noone seems to object to. Is there anything really so wrong with an "anti-" opinion, as long as it's directed at a philosophy or organization or major public figure that is relevant to the POVs and beliefs of the Wikipedian? I don't see what the big deal is. There's little difference between the pro-side and the anti-side of a debate; it's merely a matter of terminology. Two sides of the same coin. Censoring one side and thus implicitly endorsing the other side is a bad practice that will get Wikipedia in more trouble than if it simply lets these things be. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Inappropriate; TfD is not strictly a vote; and most of the "keep" "votes" did not conform to TfD "voting"/discussion policy. Monicasdude 16:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Correct, "TfD is not strictly a vote"—it's a discussion. Noone made an argument for why the template should be speedy-deleted, and obviously many people disagree that this template qualifies as "divisive" and "inflammatory", so even if you feel personally that it is both divisive and inflammatory, the correct place to discuss those matters is on a TfD. The job of an admin who is closing a TfD vote is to interpret the discussion, not to voice his own opinion in complete, unilateral disregard for the entire discussion! If you're an admin and believe strongly that a template currently undergoing TfD discussion should be speedy-deleted, then the correct course of action is to vote, not to immediately speedy-delete it without any support whatsoever and without anyone having even brought up the matter of whether speedy-delete is applicable here (which it happens to not be, incidentally; this template is not strictly "inflammatory", it's quite courteous and inoffensive). Even if the TfD keep votes were accompanied by flawed reasoning, the correct response is to point out that flaw by responding to the votes, not to simply ignore them all! and assume that dozens of users are ignorant, irrelevant cattle and only your opinion is relevant, not anyone else's. All of this should be discussed in the TfD, and then it should be speedy-deleted if and only if the arguments for it end up being more markedly compelling than the arguments against it. TfD is not a vote, but it's also not a battle over which side has the most admins: it's. a. discussion. So let's discuss whether it qualifies for a speedy-delete (or a delete at all), not bully each other around with admin-privilege abuses. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is no current speedy-deletion criterion that says "all POV usertemplates should be speedy-deleted", thus your vote currently seems to rely on faulty logic that is based in personal opinion rather than interpretation of any policy; if this is not the case and you are alluding to some specific, approved policy that endorses speedy-deleting all POVed userboxes, I apologize. But that is not currently the case. Userboxes are used in userspace, not articlespace, and thus do not fall under the "NPOV" requirements (or the NOR requirements, for that matter, which would require the deletion of all userspace) for the same reason Usercategories (Category:Wikipedians) don't. You are trying to circumvent process in this case on a technicality, adhering to the letter rather than to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:TfD makes clear that POV is a deletion criteria. Thus this should be deleted. TfD debates are failing to enforce policy, but there is little point in restoring a template that meets the deletion criteria. Further, WP:NOT a soapbox. --Doc ^ask? 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn and Relist. This is not a review of the template, it's a review of the process, and it is absurdly clear that this deletion was very poorly-done: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_Iraq_War_2 (and the Anti-UN vote, of course) for details. Not a single user had voted for "speedy delete", no one had brought up why and how it might be "divisive" or "inflammatory", there was at the time a consensus to keep, the discussion had barely just begun (with a whole week of time for people who felt the template merited deletion to discuss the matter), and even the people who voted "delete" did not vote "speedy". If those voters were mistaken or misinformed or unaware of the new deletion criterion, then the correct next step to take would be to vote and explain your view, arguing for speedy-delete and then waiting to see if your argument gains support or if valid counter-arguments are made—and there are certainly some very strong possible arguments one could make to demonstrate that "This user does not support the United Nations" is probably not all that divisive, and certainly not in any way inflammatory! It's practically stale, it's so impersonal! The new speedy-delete criterion was created for templates like "This user hates Jews" or "This user wants all Americans to die", not grey-area templates like "This user opposes the UN" (which was only created as a balance to "This user supports the UN", to appease NPOV and show that Wikipedia isn't exclusively for UN supporters!; if this template is 'divisive', than that one surely has to be equally divisive, unless it would be OK to say 'This user supports capital punishment' but not 'This user opposes capital punishment')! So, while it might possibly be applied to this template, certainly it's not such a clear-cut case that we can't even permit any discussion of the matter, but just have to shove all the dozens of dissenting opinions into the gutter without so much as a response, just with a dismissive "everyone else is wrong"! What on earth does that accomplish, sacrificing users' faith in the system and in Wikipedia's openness just to get a dinky little userbox deleted today rather than four days from now? Somewhat of a pyrrhic victory, even for those who hate all userboxes; process is only a means to an end, sure, but in this case ignoring process (and ignoring, not just all votes, but all discussion, in favor of immediate speedy-delete) is more damaging to the goals of Wikipedia than, as it can only serve to alienate and further divide and factionalize this community. For Wikigod's sake, let the TfD discussion run its course! What's so terrible and unacceptable about letting people talk this over? -Silence 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Expressing a common POV in dispassionate language is not inflammatory, as I understand the meaning of that word. Saying "User opposes X", where X is the normal name of a major political entity or cause is always fine. Saying "User opposes Nazi, slimy, evil, X" is not. It's simple. This user emphatically supports the UN, incidentally. Xoloz 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist POV is not illegal, and speedying during a TfD is really annoying. If the discussion is going towards "delete" why not let it run? If it is going to "keep" then the speedying is completely inappropriate! Stop speedying everything!. There is no point of having a TfD discussion if people are just going to speedy things in the middle of it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, and now clarified as appropriate to speedy by the new criteria as per Jimbo's dictum. --Improv 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subjects. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This template neither criticizes nor disparages its subject. Read the contents: "This user does not support the United Nations." It's a statement of fact (the fact being what the user's opinion of the UN is) to make explicit a POV of the user in order, and is perfectly civil and entirely non-inflammatory. More importantly, even if you want it deleted, the speedy-delete was out of line and violated consensus and the TfD discussion, misinterpreted TfD policy (assuming that "inflammatory" simply means "not positive", which is obviously not the case), and contradicts common sense. If I wanted this template deleted, I'd vote to "undelete and relist" and then vote to "delete" at the relisted TfD; not even giving it a TfD discussion even though it's truly not an especially objectionable template (for god's sake, we gave "This user hates Jews" an entire week of in-depth discussion!) is clearly unacceptable. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are different shades of criticism, and this is more subtle than most, which is nice. Still, I feel that any of these templates which express negative views do not belong (and actually many of the ones with positive views, as well). If your preferred method of keeping material deleted is to vote to undelete and relist and then vote to delete at TfD, that is your prerogative; I prefer to simply vote to keep deleted here. I understand that you feel that these actions are unacceptable; however, please realize that there others, including me, who feel it to be quite acceptable. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of ways. They make explicit a POV of the user, allowing others to better understand that user's perspective and basic assumptions. They allow users to self-express their views in a constructive way that does not damage the encyclopedia, encouraging them to use their userpage to voice their opinions rather than using articles to voice their opinions (and push their POVs). They make it clear that Wikipedia does itself have a POV on these issues (a problem that arises from letting people have a "This user supports the UN" and forbidding them to have a "This user does not support the UN" template, implying that Wikipedia itself supports the UN and does not condone anti-UN (or even non-pro-UN, since the template's content says "doesn't support", not "opposes"!) sentiment). If the problem here is with POV templates, then both sides of the POV should be deleted, not just one; but even if that's so, it should be deleted through the TfD process, not through unilateral vigilante action in complete disregard for both consensus and discussion. This is about an improper, admin-privileges-abusing speedydelete that misinterpreted the meaning of the word "inflammatory", not about the userbox itself, which is what the TfD discussion is there for. Even if you personally think all userboxes should be deleted, or all anti-X templates should be deleted, that is not current Wikipedia policy, and voting based on that rather than on an interpretation of the vote, discussion, speedy-delete action, and current TfD policies is inappropriate. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why bother? "Consensus" is the biggest joke at wikipedia. Vote any way you want, discuss until the cows come home. If King Jimbo wants it gone, it's gone, and will stay gone, regardless of what anyone else thinks. --Kbdank71 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not useful, carefully enumerating things you don't like, for no apparent reason, is effectively trolling, in that it's only plausible effect is to draw a negative response from others. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The problem here is that if there was a major global movement that strongly opposed the UN as its foundational message, let's say "Movement X", and we made a userbox saying "This user supports Movement X", an "only pro-X, no anti-X!" belief would cause you to let the userbox remain, and would make it impossible to in any way criticize Movement X ("This user doesn't support Movement X" would be deleted), even though Movement X would be essentially synonymous with "not supporting the UN". In other words, the only difference between pro-X and anti-X is terminological and semantic; speedy-deleting something just because it says "...doesn't support..." is absurd. Not supporting, or opposing, an organization can be just as significant and noteworthy. For example, "atheism" is defined in the negative; it is a movement that is inherently a lack of something. If we didn't have a word for "atheism" and just had to say "This user doesn't support God" or similar, would that suddenly change it from being appropriate to inappropriate? Entirely on a semantic basis? There shouldn't have to be a word or term for opposing something just to allow there to be a userbox; the basis should be whether the sentiment is noteworthy ("This user doesn't support his best friend Greg" wouldn't be a noteworthy enough view to bother with a general-use userbox), meaningful ("This user doesn't support parsley" wouldn't provide a meaningful enough distinction between users), and non-abusive ("This user doesn't support the UN because they're assholes" would be incivil and would qualify for 'inflammatory and divisive' deletion, unlike this template). There's simply no reason to speedy-delete this template, anymore than there is to do so for any other user-template; as such, even if it's deleted, it should not be speedy-deleted, or at least not speedy-deleted until that option has been discussed on TfD, with pros and cons being provided for both options. There's no justification for tossing aside TfD here, as there's obviously a significant enough dispute over whether this truly qualifies for speedy-deletion to permit a TfD discussion over that option, which is what was happening just fine, and should have continued to happen, and still should be permitted to happen. Otherwise, the entire VfD process is meaningless and arbitrary, the deletion criteria are a joke, and whether or not something is deleted is the result of a coin-flip, not of a reasoned, in-depth discussion. Sad. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ignore. The userbox war has spread to every corner of Wikipedia, and bogged down every process it's come near. I say wait until there is a workable consensus on the whole issue before deleting, undeleting, nominating, using, editing or even reading any userboxen. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is not about the userbox war. The situation would be the same for any template: speedy-deletion should not be a tool for admins to use to circumvent any meaningful discussion and avoid having to bother to try to convince anyone else that they're right when they know they already are; the discussion clearly did not indicate a "speedy-delete", and if the voters were misinformed or their discussion faulty, a counter-argument should have been made before the discussion was abruptly cut off. The same would be true for any template, article, category, or page at all. Discussion is helpful, not harmful. I agree with you that we should stop bothering with these ridiculous individual nominations until a policy exists for userboxes, but that doesn't mean we should let admins abuse the system to arbitrarily attack specific templates that have a strong consensus for "keep". This is about the TfD process, not about userboxes, as Deletion Review is a review of the deletion process, discussion, policies, etc. more than of the specific page that happened to be deleted. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I disagree. I don't see that this would have been deleted absent the userbox war. There are tigers on the loose and I think it will only make matters worse if we start RfCs and other arguments before we have actually come to some agreement on the core issue; theese are not "rogue admins" they are editors with a strong opinion following their consciences and using the tools with which the community has entrusted them. Maybe that means we are too lax in handing out admin powers, but until the dust has settled I think these individual debates are, as you suggest above, sterile and unhelpful. I don't have a strong view either way right now although I lean towards the exclusion of divisive userboxen, but I don't see that we can fix the problem by deleting or undeleting anything right now. So let's make a list of the ones which are contentious, deleted or not, and revisit the whole lot once a workable consensus has been reached. It's not like the project will be brought down by the absence of a template saying that a user does or does not support the UN. I might be wrong here, but then again I might not. Now look at me - engaging in philosophical arguments in DRV, exactly like I said we shold not. See how the disute is infesting the project? I'm going to unwatch this page, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it means we're too lax in handing out admin powers. I think we're too lax about retracting them from individuals who choose to use their powers on the basis of whims rather than as dictated by site policy or voter consensus. If this keeps up, we'll end up regressing into delete/undelete wars between administrators. Sarge Baldy 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn and Relist. (Apologies for the top-posting.) I have been reviewing WP:TFD, and it appears to me that User:MarkSweep "proposes" things he wants deleted, then after a short time period just Speedy-Deletes them anyway, regardless of any consensus or debate. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_participant_userbox_war & Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:user_yellow_amer. Sct72 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MarkSweep.
• Strong overturn and keep. As a believer in inclusionism, I feel that Wikipedia should welcome diverse views, including those opposed to the UN. They should be afforded all the same rights as those who support the UN, including the right to create an infobox which proclaims their view, in the same place as the infobox with the opposing view. Also, admins which violate Wikipedia's policy and ignore the consensus by doing a speedy delete without cause should no longer be admins. StuRat 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Trödel&#149;talk 02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn. T*Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per TfD, userfy per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Sarge Baldy 06:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep Larix 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to explain? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion log shows that MarkSweep was not involved in this template's deletion. Tony Sidaway was, back in January (and who does that surprise?), but MarkSweep has not touched it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're going to correct people, perhaps it's as well to get your facts right. :) On this occasion the template was tagged T1 by MarkSweep and another administrator, Physchim62 (talk · contribs), performed the deletion. I'm sure that Physchim62 can't wait for the hate campaign to start... --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. "Not helpful to building the encyclopaedia" is not a speedy deletion criteria. Whether this template is "inflamatory" and/or "devisive" is clearly disputed, TfD is the apropriate avenue to discuss this. Thryduulf 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - Wikipedia is run by consensus - not admins that know what's best for us.--God of War 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not unduly divisive, and harmless to the project. User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am now the proud creator of the Userbox:Anti ACLU and Userbox:Anti UN. These pages are NOT templates and therefore are NOT subject to TEMPLATE POLICIES. They are now displayed in the appropriate place on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs#Politics, respectively. You know I must admit, I am a terrible programmer and much thanks is owed to User:MarkSweep who decided to edit what I posted to his talkpage without telling me. Without that, I wouldn't have learned how to make these pages. Down with Userbox Templates! Long live Userbox Code! Thanks, Mark!  :-) Lawyer2b 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - If anybody thinks there is a mistake in the coding syntax, PLEASE PLEASE fix it. I suck. Lawyer2b 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• That doesn't work; it's been discussed and shot down as an innappropriate compromise and an attempt to game the system. I've tried it, Crotalus horridus has tried it, and the overall consensus that was developed is that, for the purposes of CSD, any page designed to be transcluded is by defination, a template. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, you are attempting something different. However, seeing as the boxes are in article space, it is also an innapropriate compromise, IMO. That's not what article space is for. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Undelete not because i second its idea but because i am against this kind of administrative abuse. First of all, the admin should not use speedy delete when most votes favor keeping. At least, he/she should wait till the end of the week. Second, we should decide to delete or undelete according to the votes not according to the admin's point of view in the debate. As you may have noticed, two or maybe three admins are continuously suggesting userboxes for deletion, then the debate on the userbox is usually seen as moot by the same admins. This is an unacceptable abuse. Third, userboxes differ than wikipedia articles. Most of them express personal attitudes or interests.Thus, they all may be considered divisive in one way or another. Deletion must be merely based on votes. The number of votes can be considered as the result of the debate from users' point of view. I am suggesting a new user box to be added to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia : "This user is against admin abuse". what do you think? --Wedian 03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not make unsubstantiated accusations. And don't even think about creating yet another divisive userbox. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, User:MarkSweep. This whole time you have been deleting divisive templates under policy that regulates them. However, your above statement is a warning not to create divisive userboxes period. From what official policy does that warning originate? Lawyer2b 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, and axe {{user UN}} while you're at it for also being POV. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete the template {{user UN}} expresses a specific POV. It betrays bias on the part of the admin to delete one and not the other. The Proposed Policy on Userboxes states Both "pro-<something>" and "against <same thing>" templates should be treated equally. Rexmorgan 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not divisive nor inflammatory. --Revolución (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Please let TfD do its work. Suggest admins take some extra time when deleting such things: perhaps a week or so? 83.245.43.130 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore history - It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 06:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Settle through concensus not fiat. --StuffOfInterest 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete As above. MiraLuka 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. enochlau (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Although I am actually a fan of UN, I am also a fan of Evelyn Beatrice Hall.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per above. I can't believe that we're actually having to go through this shit. Wikipedia has processes and some admins think that they're better than them. Mostlyharmless 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-ACLU

This user does not support the ACLU.

This template was deleted despite an overwhelming number of the votes to keep (see here). What's more, after all votes were submitted, the Admin who started the deletion process, User:MarkSweep wrote, "The result of the debate was moot. This template was speedy deleted." An admin is implying that the process was irrelevant. I would like the deletion of this template to be reviewed and know if User:MarkSweep's conduct was appropriate for an admin.

Just to clarify: This is what I usually write when closing a discussion early after a speedy deletion, which, by the way, is standard procedure. The part about "The result of the debate was" is supplied by {{tfd top}}. All I did was add the word "moot" and an explanation of what had happened. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn and Relist. (Apologies for the top-posting.) I have been reviewing WP:TFD, and it appears to me that User:MarkSweep "proposes" things he wants deleted, then after a short time period just Speedy-Deletes them anyway, regardless of any consensus or debate. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_participant_userbox_war & Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:user_yellow_amer. Sct72 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've userfied both boxes - see User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU. Thus, CSD T1 no longer applies, but users who wish to either subst: or transclude this content may still do so. (See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Use of userboxes). This was done in order to avoid the necessity for another lengthy debate rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Can we please avoid yet more tedious, repetitious discussions and get back to writing an encyclopedia? I'm getting sick and tired of this nonsense. Frankly, Wikipedia just isn't fun any more, and I'm not sure how much of my time I want to devote to a community divided by such petty squabbling. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. I like Crotalus horridus' compromise. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per TfD. While I'm not a fan of userboxes, especially this one (see my sig), consensus indicates that they want it to stay. I would vote delete on a TfD but I wouldn't delete against the wishes of the community. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep for repeated disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We don't need a mechanism by which editors with a pronounced anti-ACLU (or anti-anything) bias can contact one another and organise. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate; TfD is not strictly a vote; and most of the "keep" "votes" did not conform to TfD "voting"/discussion policy. Monicasdude 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Expressing a common POV in dispassionate language is not inflammatory, as I understand the meaning of that word. Saying "User opposes X", where X is the normal name of a major political entity or cause is always fine. Saying "User opposes Nazi, slimy, evil, X" is not. It's simple. By the way, I am a Guardian of Liberty with the ACLU (I've named them in my will), and I accept this as perfectly legitimate. Xoloz 17:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn and Relist. TfD is a discussion, not a vote; ergo, since the discussion was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping at the time, since just about none of the arguments of the keep-voters had yet been addressed, and since nobody in the entire discussion had at the time suggested a "speedy-delete" or argued for why the template might be both "inflammatory" and "divisive" (the latter, certainly, seems like a very, very big stretch, and an extremely loose interpretation of "inflammatory" that seems contradictory to Jimbo's comments and the purpose of the new speedy-deletion criterion), it was completely inappropriate to throw all of the discussion into the gutter without even taking the time to first recommend that it be speedy-deleted and see what counter-arguments people could supply, then decide whether to delete or not! This is clear abuse of process, and clearly will cause more harm to Wikipedia than if we simply let the TfD discussion run its course and didn't involve this whole other ridiculous extra level of bureaucracy and controversy just because some admins don't feel like bothering to talk to the lowly non-admins who voted before annihilating a template they personally dislike! If the template said "This user thinks that the ACLU is a scumsucking Satanspawn", the speedy would be understandable; but just not supporting an organization is not "inflammatory", and even the case that it's "divisive" is not as black-and-white as its being made out to be; grey-area templates like this are exactly what TfD discussions are for, so even if you think this template should be deleted, userfied, or whatever, you should still vote to overturn this deletion and let the template be given the proper amount of time. Otherwise, we just set up a precedent where any user-template that an admin dislikes can be speedied, without providing any argument whatsoever first and completely disregarding the entire vote and discussion, making it an utter waste of time to even bother to voice your opinion or argue for your interpretation of TfD policy; you'll just be ignored if any admin disagrees with you—that admin will simply override everyone's votes rather than providing a counter-argument. TfD will change from a discussion of templates to a "which side has the most admins to muscle the other side around"; that's not a good thing. Why stir up such a hornet's-nest of contentious, divisive disputes and edit-warring over such a ridiculous matter when we could simply let the discussion over a silly old colored rectangular box-o'-POV run its course, then decide what to do? The benefits of speedy-deletion do not, in this case, outweigh the harm it will cause. -Silence 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, harmful to the project. Stop poisoning the well. --Improv 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per all the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong overturn and keep. People with minority views should not have those views suppressed by the majority. I believe the ACLU itself would fight for such a principle. I am reminded of the saying "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. ". StuRat 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Trödel&#149;talk 02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per TfD, userfy per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Deleting against consensus is vandalism. Sarge Baldy 06:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn We need more userboxes, not less Larix 09:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn Things should not be speedied during Tfd, its really anoying. Stop speedying everything and actually see the TfD process through. Im sure that if there is a pro-ACLU template, it isnt up for deletion. You either have both sides of the argument up for deletion, or neither - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The ACLU would want this template undeleted. But. Also. Seriously, it's harmless. User:Adrian/zap2.js 11:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. "Not helpful to building the encyclopaedia" is not a speedy deletion criteria. Many people believe this is neither "inflamatory" nor "devisive" and nobody has presented any counter arguments why it is, so criteria T1 does not apply. Thryduulf 12:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no social situation, including Wikipedia, in which it is appropriate to introduce yourself by listing all the things you dislike. Whether calculated or not, doing so only gets a rise out of other people. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 13:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - Wikipedia is run by consensus - not admins that know what's best for us.--God of War 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, not divisive in any way. To clarify, if this is divisive (putting off those who support the ACLU to the point where they will not work with those who have the template, an assumption that requires that said people have very thin skins indeed), then supporting the ACLU is equally divisive in the other direction. And it is equally divisive; that is to say, it isn't divisive at all. Knowing about another editor's POV doesn't preclude working with that editor in the case of disagreement; to the contrary, I, a Protest Warrior, have worked very closely with Schuminweb, a Black Bloc anarchist, on articles that are of great and conflicting interest to us both, specifically the anti-war and counter-inauguration protests of last year, to great success. Me knowing that he's an anarchist and him knowing that I'm one of those annoying guys on the line telling them to sit down and shut up while they're out running around threatening to break things did not hinder us at all. If we can work together on such a subject when we disagree in almost every particular on it, surely people who know that they have a slight difference of opinion over one or two issues won't suddenly stop speaking because of it. Rogue 9 09:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete not divisive nor inflammatory. --Revolución (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I sure hope this undelete process will be honoured.  The Steve  22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore history - It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 06:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Settle through concensus not fiat. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, there is no reason not to allow statements of personal belief on user pages. - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. MiraLuka 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above. enochlau (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per User:Jwissick. I couldn't have said it more clearly myself. Halibutt 17:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - per CSD T1, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gentgeen 18:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted T1 applys here, attack template --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User no meat

Deleted because? no mention of this on TfD. I would appreciate an explanation. This tendancy of some admins to delete first and squash debate is patronizing and damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia. I can no longer assume good faith.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted per T1. Speedy deletions do not require debate nor consensus. Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • They do when the speedy deletion does not have a reason among the criteria, and especially so when the deleter names a criterion that does not actually justify his action. Undelete. Rogue 9 13:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletions require justification. Someone, please supply the original text of the box. I strongly suspect this is not controversial at all. I am also having a hard time assuming good faith. JDoorjam Talk 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The deleted version of the template says:

This user is a strict vegetarian

but a past version of the template used to say:

This user believes that meat is murder and is a strict vegetarian

• Based on that, I will support the undeletion of the version that was actually deleted, because it is in no way inflammatory. However, if people find the past version problematic, then only the most recent edit should be undeleted. enochlau (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• In the spirit of compromise, I have redirected this to {{User Vegetarian}} - although I suspect in the end all these 'personal point of view' templates will have to go. --Doc ^ask? 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete That's what my brother believes. It's not like it's some statement made up only to offend. MiraLuka 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes. My stance is clear on this issue. --Cyde Weys 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirected, at least until some sort of policy on userboxes is established, which will no thappen here, anyway. -R. fiend 17:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User PresidentBush

Speedily deleted in the middle of an active TFD by User:MarkSweep Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_16#Template:User_PresidentBush No valid reason was given. This box does not attack or disparage the subject.

• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop bring all userbox deletions for review. I won't call this bad faith, but it is clearly misguided. The purpose of deletion review is to prevent good content being deleted, not to review every call by an admin you don't like. WP:NOT a soapbox, and calling userboxes designed only for POV declaring 'divisive' and 'polemical' is clearly not an abuse of the WP:TFD. If you don't like T1, go argue your case elsewhere, but please stop bringing every use of it to review. Speedies do not require debate. --Doc ^ask? 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Undelete and use TFD*We wouldn't have to have this if you guys would simply follow the TFD procedure. You would only have to wait a few days. Deleting these userboxes because you don't like them is making a WP:POINT and is disruptive to wikipedia. It is destroying the community. When TFD is followed even the people opposing deletion will not have any reason to complain. It is more harmonious for wikipedia.--God of War 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand wikipedia. 1)Read WP:POINT and you will see that you are misunderstanding it. It does not mean 'doing something you want to do but other people don't like' it means doing somthing you know is ridiculous to make a point. That is clearly not why this was deleted. 2)How many times does it need said: Speedy deletion does not require endorsement by a deletion debate tfd and its alleged 'consensus' are irrelevant to the legitimacy of a speedy. DRV is not for reversing unpopular speedies. --Doc ^ask? 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let me explain what has happened for everyone that doesn't have the energy to follow this perpetual war:

Some people, mostly admins, don't like userboxes. They are offended by people telling others about their opinions. They hated these little boxes that made that made expressing opinions easy. So one of them tried mass deleting them all. That failed, a community consensus over turned it. Then they tried pushing all of the userboxes through endless TFD nominations. This too failed as community consensus showed that the community wants these userboxes. Now, tired of losing their assault on userboxes, userboxes are now speedily deleted so that the userbox haters can completely ignore community consensus. This too shall fail.--God of War 17:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You're both wrong. (I know, this is gonna make me real popular.) Assuming good faith, Doc, Wikipedians who believe that a template was not inflammatory or polemical are within their rights to argue that the deletion should be overturned. You are correct that this is the wrong venue in which to present the "T1 1s teh sux0r" argument. But T1 is so new that there is no consensus on what exactly is or is not divisive enough to qualify under T1. As that is being figured out, there are going to be a lot of appeals for undeletion here. God of War, you should assume good faith too. Any page that an admin feels falls under the criteria for speedy deletion—an article, a talk page, a template, a photo—can be deleted regardless of where it is, even if it's in AfD or TfD or is nominated to be a featured article! Speedy deletion does not need to wait for its turn in line in order to be used.

I believe nearly all participants in this entire controversy are operating in good faith. The entire row is really about people disagreeing (sometimes quite passionately) about what "divisive", "polemical", inflammatory", etc. mean when applied to a little box with text in it. But please keep in mind that it is this vagueness that is causing the strife, NOT bad faith on anyone's part, or an attempt to do an end-run around process, or to make a point. This policy is controversial because we usually discuss things and come to an agreement first and then decide policy; this time the policy was decided for us, and so the "coming to agreement" phase is far more hostile than usual. As it stands, policy states admins are fully within their right to speedy delete articles they feel are inflammatory... and anyone is within their right to say they don't agree with that deletion. Eventually (assuming this policy sticks), we'll figure out as a group precisely what T1 really means. In the mean time, please be patient and assume good faith, everybody. JDoorjam Talk 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User PresidentBush

see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_16#Template:User_PresidentBush. 5-5 is hardly a consensus or a mandate to delete. also, I thought TfD was allowed 7 days, this was nominated on the 16th, thats 24hrs at most...infact, I have yet to see a convincing consensus for deletion on any of the Bush userboxes. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per my nomination. In addition, there needs to be more trasparency in the criteria that's being used to close discussions early, speedy delete templates during active discussion, re-list templates after an un-favorable consensus, etc, etc, etc. this is hardly a fair process when only one side knows the rules. At this point, I find it impossible to AGF Mike McGregor (Can) 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Deleting something in the middle of a vote on whether or not to delete it is wrong. MiraLuka 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Hurts the project, not useful. Divisive. --Improv 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• As much as I hate, and I do mean hate, Bush, undelete. 5-5 is not consensus, and we need a policy regarding userboxes before we go around deleting all of them. Either make a policy banning all political userboxes, or allow all of them. There is no middle ground, and I suggest allowing all of them. The Ungovernable Force 06:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox:Anti ACLU and Userbox:Anti UN

On 22:36, February 12, 2006 User:MarkSweep deleted Userbox:Anti ACLU with the edit summary (no such namespace). I'm confused what that edit summary means and request that its deletion be reviwed and the reason for its deletion clearly indicated.

• It means it was a misnamed clone of a deleted template. --Tony Sidaway 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Userbox:Anti ACLU and Userbox:Anti UN were not created by mistake. They were created by me, on purpose, so as to not be templates. User:MarkSweep has made a point of explaining that Userboxes as templates are required to be NPOV. This was created so as to not violate that policy. Since it is now clear they were not created by mistake, I would like them both undeleted. Thank you. Lawyer2b 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting concept. I think creating "Userbox space" could work, but I also don't think that Deletion Review is the place to make that decision. I'll vote to Undelete, at least temporarily. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Template:User Anti-UN, that's where the real debate is. This is just a strawman. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Simple explanation: There is no "Userbox" namespace. You're simply recreating templates that were previously deleted. Since you admit that your out-of-process recreation was deliberate, this is a WP:POINT violation, and if you continue you will see yourself blocked rather quickly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. 1) I didn't think there was a "process" I had to go through to create a wikipedia page. What process is that? 2) All these userboxes were deleted because they were Templates, correct? I created one that was not. I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm trying to create a userbox that will not be deleted because it doesn't violate policy. How is this a WP:POINT violation? Lawyer2b 04:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And it's a WP:POINT violation precisely because you're trying to follow your (inaccurate) interpretation of the letter of the rules without regard for their spirit. Those templates were deleted for a good reason, so don't recreate them. If they need to be recreated, that will happen in the proper place. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And pray tell, what was this mysterious "good reason?" The only reason I'm seeing is your own opinion, which only carries more weight because you have the power to make it do so and abuse it to those ends. Rogue 9 05:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No mystery: As people have pointed out above, there is no "userbox" namespace. The templates here were created in the article namespace, where they don't belong, so they will under no circumstance be recreated under the names listed here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn here, but this feels like you want everyone to play "heads you lose, tails I win". Previous attempts at deleting userboxes were met with much "weeping and gnashing of teeth". Even Jimbo Wales even frowned on the immediate deletion of them, instead calling on users to voluntarily not use them. That notwithstanding, since there is not official policy or consensus that allows you to delete userboxes like "I don't support the United Nations", you applied the rule that says templates with a POV can be deleted. All userboxes are templates, ergo they can be deleted with impunity. Isn't THAT a violation of WP:POINT?. Lawyer2b 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Since these were created in the article namespace, they easily meet several criteria for speedy deletion, including A1 and A4, as well as G4 and being non-encyclopedic. Lawyer2b, if you continue in this manner you will quickly find yourself blocked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, pending the creation of a "Userbox namespace". And if the sole purpose of a "userbox namespace" is to subvert the rules of what's allowed in templates (some sort of realm of anarchy, I suppose) then I will also here state my objects to the creation of such a namespace. This isn't Bartertown.-R. fiend 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Speedy candidate, divisive, poisoning well, etc. --Improv 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete and protect from deleation It seems the debate gets re-framed everytime the delete arguments get shot down by a consensus against it. how may times do we have to disagree before our opinion is taken seriously? You can keep moving the debate, restarting the debate, making new rules, reintreprating rules, revising what you ment, etc, but you have failed time and time again to reach a consensus for deleation. Please stop trying to game the system. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You do realize that in this case at least it's the creators of the "userboxes" who are trying to game the system by creating userboxes in the articlespace, don't you? -R. fiend 08:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per R.fiend. WP:UBP-style redirects are helpful to the encyclopedia, Userbox: style shortcuts are misuse of article space and helpful only to clutterbugs. Who is gaming what? -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Innappropriate use of article namespace. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 17:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• You know, now that I think about it, these should probably be debated at the main DRV page, since not being templates, they aren't even userboxes but misnamed articles. Their inclusion on the regular page would highlight that fact. Though I suppose it's a moot point. -R. fiend 07:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment These are both listed below on this page, why are they being nominated again?Mike McGregor (Can) 08:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically they're separate entities from the ones below. These were made in article space, not template space.--Toffile 13:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not-very-competent attempt to do an end-run around the rules. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:CSD covers these 'articles'. Proto||type 09:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the actual templates in relation to these "Userbox" namespace creations this coming from someone who isn't against the UN or the ACLU. --Revolución (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't fully understand that comment. When you say "Undelete the actual templates" do you mean Template:User anti-ACLU and Template:User anti-UN? Because if so, you're voting in the wrong section. Or do you mean that we should create a separate "Userbox" space? because that's a different issue too. One can't throw a colon into a title and make a separate userbox space and more than one creates a "Star Wars Episode I" space by creating Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. -R. fiend 19:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I mean Template:User anti-ACLU and Template:User anti-UN. I don't support creating a separate namespace, they should stay right where they belong in the template namespace. --Revolución (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. You're in the wrong section then, but I noticed you did vote in the correct area below as well. I crossed out your undelete comment here, lest it cause any confusion, since you stated you don't support a userbox namespace. -R. fiend 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused: if the Anti-UN userbox is deleted, must not the pro-UN be deleted also? Otherwise, wouldn't it leave Wikipedia with the stance of being explicitly pro-UN? Nitjanirasu 05:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted no namespace Trödel&#149;talk 02:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

break/ add comments above here?

This section is where the previous separate debate on Userbox:anti UN was before the two discussions, being basically identical, were combined. Please add comments above

On 22:35, February 12, 2006 User:MarkSweep deleted Userbox:Anti UN with the edit summary (no such namespace). I'm confused what that edit summary means and request that its deletion be reviwed and the reason for its deletion clearly indicated.

• see comment on the Userbox: template above. Basically a page created in article space by mistake, and probably a clone of a page already deleted as unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Userbox:Anti ACLU and Userbox:Anti UN were not created by mistake. They were created by me, on purpose, so as to not be templates. User:MarkSweep has made a point of explaining that Userboxes as templates are required to be NPOV. This was created so as to not violate that policy. Since it is now clear they were not created by mistake, I would like them both undeleted. Thank you. Lawyer2b 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting concept. I think creating "Userbox space" could work, but I also don't think that Deletion Review is the place to make that decision. I'll vote to Undelete, at least temporarily. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As there is no "userbox namespace", these pages are in the main namespace, and thus need to conform to NPOV even more than something in the template namespace. Keep deleted. Gentgeen 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Since these were created in the article namespace, they easily meet several criteria for speedy deletion, including A1 and A4, as well as G4 and being non-encyclopedic. Lawyer2b, if you continue in this manner you will quickly find yourself blocked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, pending the creation of a "Userbox namespace". And anyone ojbect to combining this entry with the one above? -R. fiend 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No objection. Same issue. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User GWB2

See the TFD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_9#Template:User_GWB2. Even though there was a consensus to keep, someone has deleted the history then re-created this as re-direct to a far less clever userbox that has since been speedily deleted.--God of War 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory.--Daniel 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep delete - divisive and inflammetory --Doc ^ask? 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Restore both the original version of this one and {{disBush}}. What the frak is going on here? --Fang Aili 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Relist. I do not believe this to be unessarily divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ridiculously opinionated trash. Keep it on your userpage in a form that won't be transcluded by sheep. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive, speedy candidate now. --Improv 09:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. This is a legitimate opinion which, if allowed to be expressed, will help editors understand each others' points of view and thereby lead to a better, more neutral, encyclopedia. The userbox deletionists are exactly wrong about the effects of trying to eliminate people's expression of their opinions. --James S. 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very well-put. Deleting expressions of an opinion, POV, view, or bias does not make it go away, it just makes it fester; the slant will still have its influence on the user's actions, it'll just be hidden and thus cause more misunderstandings, errors and conflicts. Wikipedia must demonstrate an open and tolerant atmosphere where Wikipedians are encouraged to freely state their views on their userpages, and strongly discouraged from trying to enforce those views on articlespace (the two are not contradictory, as is often implied in anti-userbox sentiment, but are quite compatible). People assume that if we let Wikipedians say what they think in brightly-colored boxes on their userpages, they'll get out of hand and start organizing into POV-pushing factions and trying to warp the encyclopedia to fit their own views—but the opposite is really the case for just about any user who isn't a troll or vandal already: letting people self-express and have their little games with these trivial, silly little boxes is a great way for them to get it out of their system, and clearly seeing through userboxes how many intelligent, capable, likable editors out there differ from your views in numerous areas demonstrates the wonderfully diverse environment, which we should encourage, not stiel, among our users, all while being absolutely uncompromising in our protection of articles from OR and POV (which is aided by userboxes, in that it gets it all out in the open). Good god, that was a long sentence. Anyway, strong undelete and relist. No reason not to let this go through TfD even if there are people who think it should be deleted; the T1 entry for speedy deletion specifically states that only "clearly inflammatory and divisive" templates may be speedied (if this were clearly both inflammatory and divisive, we wouldn't be having an argument like this! since the speedy's disputed, a full TfD discussion is merited), and it certainly doesn't encourage speedying them against consensus! (And Jimbo himself said that this new deletion criteron was chiefly for use on any new, clearly inflammatory templates that sprung up, not for anti-userbox editors to use as an excuse to scourge any old, well-established templates they found distasteful!) -Silence 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and keep deleted. If you want your purported biases to be visible, type them out. It is not difficult. Divisive trolling. Proto||type 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per above. Banez 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh... keep deleted. This is one of my favorite of the cheeky userboxes, too. For me this lands in the grey zone where it’s too divisive and inflammatory to be used as a template, but may or may not be inappropriate as a non-template userbox. Tony is right, although probably too biting, in his comments: if a user feels so strongly about this that they want to put the raw code into their user profile, and if they can make a good argument that listing it there helps other users understand the first user’s inherent POVs, then I suppose it might be ok there (or, at the very least, that’s an argument for a different day), but the userbox templates make it too easy to say potentially offensive things in the user space without putting any thought into the expression. I really don’t like is that this quite obviously divisive userbox is so easy to put in to a user page without even thinking about it, or going through any sort of process. I almost wish I was on one polar end or another on this issue, but unfortunately I’m somewhere in the middle, and my take is that this template simply makes it too easy to say something loud without thinking about what it is, exactly, that you’re expressing. I agree with User:Silence: suppression of personal opinions is unhealthy and will ultimately be counter-productive. However, while a 1984-style Wiki control regime would be terrible, infeasible, and, well, silly, some control over divisiveness ought to be exerted, especially in the template space, where it's more easily thoughtlessly distributed. I’ve argued before that it’s inconsistent to argue against a userbox when you wouldn’t argue against a user expressing that same sentiment in raw text in their userbox, but now I’ll point out the corollary that implies: is a user had a screed in their user space about how they thought Bush’s changes to the Constitution ought to be undone, I would at the very least have some concern about the NPOV abilities of that editor (especially as, despite the assertions of the userbox, Bush hasn’t made any changes to the Constitution). I also really really really hate invoking The Almighty Jimbo, but the Big J is right: it’s best to leave one’s POV at the door when one comes to edit Wikipedia, and this box just… tracks too much POV mud in from outside, IMHO. JDoorjam Talk 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and block the inflammatory and divisive admins. --Revolución (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. It was going through a process which the antiuserboxtistas were going to loose. --Dragon695 06:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User disBush

Deleted during active TFD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_11#Template:User_disBush. It was runnig +5 keep last time I looked.--God of War 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted per WP:CSD, WP:NOT, WP:JIMBO. And, by the way, there's no such thing as "+5 keep". TFD is not a vote, it's a debate. Just because someone adds "Super Strong Speedy KEEP" doesn't mean they've actually addressed the criteria set out on WP:TFD, as required in a TfD debate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will quickly turn into anarchy as admins wheel war over these templates. Process and consensus are the only the holding us together.--God of War 20:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See, I don't buy that. If you're so focused on process here, why don't you focus on process when participating in WP:TFD? The instructions there clearly lay out the TfD process: you're supposed to provide reasoned opinions regarding the template deletion criteria. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • You don't buy consensus, and apparently you also view yourself above WP:POINT, WP:SNOW, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL in having helped plunge Wikipedia into Userbox War II. --Daniel 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• It always was appropriate to speedy these, and now we even have explicit clarification on the point, thanks to Jimbo. Keep Deleted. --Improv 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My thanks, Improv, for making me regret having supported your nomination for ArbCom. --Daniel 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, we have an explicit caveat not to go on deletion sprees just because an admin thinks a template is divisive. We don't have an explicit clarification that it's perfectly acceptable to ignore process and consensus and disrupt Wikipedia by engaging in mass deletions of userboxes of which it is somebody's subjective opinion that it is divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subjects. I see no evidence of wheel warring. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Gees. All it said was "this user dislikes Bush" or words to that effect. I do not understand how that is divisive or inflammatory, or anti-encyclopedia, or whatever the reasoning is. It is a simple opinion. It is not a personal attack. It is, in fact, one of the more basic political opinions an American is likely to have (most either like or dislike Bush, with some not caring either way). --Fang Aili 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But why should anyone on Wikipedia care if a user likes/dislikes Mr. Bush? It's an unwelcome intrusion of real-life partisanship that has no relevance to who you are as a Wikipedian. Wikipedians are encouraged to organize by skills and interests, because that'll actually help us write an encyclopedia. But what skills can we attribute to someone who claims that they like or dislike Mr. Bush? And what interests? For those genuinely interested in politics, there already are Wikiprojects which they can join, as well as templates for coordinating project activities. Anyone who's not interested in politics and simply wants to tell the world about their opinions on Mr. Bush is free to start a blog elsewhere. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Whining about the "intrusion of real-life partisanship" on Wikipedia (and I take it, the "intrusion" of real life) does not make Wikipedia any less tied to real people and real issues - because, no matter how much you may wish it were true, we're not zombies or robots who work merely to stoke Jimbo and a few of his admins' egos.
  • You want to talk about the intrusion of partisanship onto Wikipedia, then write a letter to the members of Congress who dispatched their staffs to vandalize their Wikipedia entries telling them to go Cheney themselves. I take it you haven't, because that was never your real agenda to begin with. --Daniel 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep delete - divisive and inflammetory --Doc ^ask? 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on TFD. Not unnecessarily divisive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete disclosing POVs keeps people honest and accoutable for their edits on subjects they have a POV on. Userboxes like this one allow users to do this voluntarally. accoutability is a good thing. FREE THE USERBOX!Mike McGregor (Can) 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted'. The only thingthis helps to do is to transmit political sentiment around the wiki--that is not going to help to write an encyclopedia, and will most probably seriously hinder it. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - When it can be argued whether a userbox falls under T1, let the damn thing go through process! Don't speedy because you feel like it. Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, CSD T1 is active, if restrained from widespread use. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is a legitimate opinion which, if allowed to be expressed, will help editors understand each others' points of view and thereby lead to a better, more neutral, encyclopedia. The userbox deletionists are exactly wrong about the effects of trying to eliminate people's expression of their opinions. --James S. 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete People need to stop over stepping their position and arbitrarily deleting things. Janizary 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Because I dislike George W. Bush. --Greasysteve13 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm sure there's a pro-Bush userbox, and I bet its not up for deletion - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and permanently block these divisive and inflammatory admins. --Revolución (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete a lukewarm statement like x dislikes y is hardly divisive. In fact, it's very polite. --Dragon695 05:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1. NSLE _(T+C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - This whole mess is getting ridiculous. Now we're wasting lots of people's time with unnecessary deletion reviews. --Cyde Weys 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Content was: A userbox containing a sad smiley with the text This user is pissed about admins ignoring policy.

Template was listed on TFD and closed on February tenth as NO CONSENSUS by User:Splash. However, User:Tony Sidaway saw fit to delete it as T1 after this decision was made. I recommend that this template be undeleted. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:UUB and related discussions, I have created User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• And Tony Sidaway has deleted this attempt at compromise, once again violating policy. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Agreed. Speedy deletion is not a toy, especially after a decision has already been made (or not made). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Needlessly inflammatory/divisive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see your point, that speedy deleting this template was needlessly inflammatory and divisive, but I only half agree. I was needlessly inflammatory, but not actually divisive -- I think it actually had the opposite effect, of bringing the community together to condemn this sort of arrogant high-handedness. Herostratus 09:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostly harmless. User:Adrian/zap2.js 06:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't see how this is a T1. NSLE _(T+C) 06:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Bky1701 06:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete deleting stuff without consensus is disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as CSD T.1 (divisive). If the "us against them" mentality expressed by this template isn't divisive, I don't know what is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  Surely, this template divides normal users and admins who follow policy from admins who don't follow policy. I think almost everyone agrees that the second group should be ideally empty. In a sense this userbox restates Wikipedia policy that admins abusing their powers are a bad thing. Wikipedia:Administrators tells the same thing! Do you propose deleting it as well?  Grue  07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  Moreso, if someone finds this template offensive I recommend them to voluntarily step down, so the template doesn't apply to them anymore. This will help us to write a better encyclopedia.  Grue  11:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  "If the "us against them" mentality expressed by this template isn't divisive, I don't know what is." I do! Engendering that mentality in the first place! That was an easy one. Herostratus 21:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Although I can certainly see User:MarkSweep has a dog in this fight. Lawyer2b 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A definitive abuse of template space. --Tony Sidaway 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This template does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 10:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. More borderline than some. However, ultimately it's not helping write a better encyclopedia. If you have issues with an administrator I strongly recommend raising it with them, or on the relevant noticeboards, or through an RfC/RfAr process. A 'I am pissed off' template does nothing but raise the remperature of the encyclopedia. The Land 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per 1. WP:TfD templates must be NPOV, 2. WP:NOT a saopbox, 3. WP:CSD T1 'divisive or inflammetory, 4. Jimbo's requests. --Doc ^ask? 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and keep. If a substantial number of people choose to display this template, this may lead to a new process for checking up on admins who abuse their authority. If such a process reduces said abuse, this could significantly improve Wikipedia. StuRat 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia thrives on discourse, compromise, and progress, not passive-aggressive bumper stickers. I understand how someone could be upset at the perception that an admin is abusing their powers, but they should talk to that admin about it, or bring it up in the proper forum instead of letting their frustration foment. This isn't a useful template, it's a screed-in-a-box. JDoorjam Talk 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as an excellent application of T1. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yet another template just to complain...either propose policy, don't complain or get out of here.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Trödel&#149;talk 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Wikipedia may thrive on compromise. But working to silence the opposition is not compromise. It is coercion. --Daniel 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This does appear to be a growing problem, and one deserving of an opposition. Sarge Baldy 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Valid point, userbox is needed, process is important. Larix 09:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Its a valid point, and is true, proved by the fact that this very userbox was speedied! Recent weeks seem to be the worse for admins ignoring policy. People should have their admin powers removed if they continually do this, its bad for the community, and admins dont seem to be doing themselves any favours by speedying everything - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete Voices legitimite concerns about what seems to be selective use of process and gaming of the system.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn legitimate protest --James S. 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete - Wikipedia is run by consensus - not admins that know think they know what's best for us.--God of War 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted userbox userboxes being used for activism. Also meets criterion T1 for speedy deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete This userbox is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Its deletion was both divisive and inflammatory. --Daniel 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry; I was not clear. I meant userboxes which are being used for activism of any sort, and have corrected the statement. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • That is a load of rubbish. There is never going to be an objective way to say a userbox is "activist" or not. Better to allow people to be honest about their views and organize above the table, than to have to deal with covert under-the-table activism. --Daniel 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Divisive. David | Talk 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted very clearly divisive.--Alhutch 04:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Its the admins that are being divisive in the community, this userbox is just a response to it. Why should admins be allowed to speedy everything, and not go by policy? They shouldnt, and we should be able to respond, and this is all we have seeing as nobody is doing anything to discipline little dictator admins who dont do their job properly - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You already 'voted' Undelete above. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, as a sockpuppet of a banned user, you don't get to voice your opinion at all. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jdoorjam. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - "divisive and inflammatory" is what admins achieve by deleting harmless userboxes. Open POV is the key to NPOV in articles. Admins acting unilaterally helps no one. Deano (Talk) 17:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - especially because of TS' actions. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this was a valid deletion per T1. JYolkowski // talk 03:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and permanently block all these divisive and inflammatory admins. --Revolución (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, restore history - It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Dragon695 06:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. You know, they may honestly think that deleting these templates is a good idea. You misunderstand what "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" means. It means "don't do things that no-one could justify in order to make your point", not "don't do stuff that some people might not like". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I really want to, but nobody has fully explained why the normal process of TfD can not happen. If they think deleting the template is a good idea, then send it to TfD. There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, to rush it to deletion. The only purpose it serves is to piss off the people who use the template. It isn't a copyvio and it isn't libel, so I see no urgancy to be delt with in such a manner. The only logical conclusion is that they don't like the results of TfD. Those on my side have been accused of vote stacking and other bad faith activities. Seems only fair to assume that they have some alterior motive as well. --Dragon695 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Because of the sudden addition of CSD T1,it's not that the TfD process cannot happen, but only that it does not have to happen. Let me be clear that I am not advocating for this point of view, but only laying out the policy ramifications. By Order Of Jimbo, suddenly it's alright to speedy delete templates regardless of where they are in other processes. Administrators can now delete a n article template if they feel it is divisive, whatever that means. Unfortunately, CSD T1 is very vague, and that ultimately has been the root of the controversy, not the deletions "out of process". For instance, it is not controversial that an administrator can also speedy delete a nonsense or non-notable bio article that's in AfD without waiting for consensus, too. If I went and wrote a King JDoorjam article and someone sent it to AfD, an administrator could immediately delete it, even if I was vehemently arguing that it was relevant, because the admin would be guided by WP:BIO, which lays out precisely what is needed to verify notability or non-notability. Here, there is no such guidance. This is why, IMHO, Jimbo (blessed be His beard, or whatever) made a mistake in pushing this very open-ended policy on the community, and then saying, "here, incorporate this into your community values." Again, the controversy isn't the concept (I think we all agree that, at some level a userbox can go too far), or, again, the speedeletionation of templates, but the completely vague meaning, or lack thereof, of CSD T1. If we all (or any of us) had some idea what we were actually talking about, there would be far less strife. I'm not sure that exactly answered your question, but I hope it was somewhat helpful. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, this is very helpful indeed. I don't fully agree with what you said about the guidelines being too vague, and would also like to point out that T1 doesn't apply to polemical articles, but you're absolutely right on the process issue. The comparison to AfD is a good one: what happens there quite often is that someone will nominate an article on AfD, its creator will argue for keeping it, then somebody else comes along and points out that the article violates certain policies and is in fact a speedy deletion candidate. In such a case, the article will be deleted and the discussion closed, even though there may be keep votes. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that you can understand, however, that people could rationally make this judgement. In any case, in lack of evidence of bad faith, good faith should be assumed. You are assuming bad faith in the absence of good faith. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll work harder to AGF, then =).
• Undelete. This needs to be settled through political concensus and not individual interpretation. If some are so opposed to userboxes then perhaps there needs to be a Wikipedia wide poll to settle the issue once and for all. Of course, Jimbo can by right make a dictate if he so chooses but others trying to divine his will are doing everyone a disservice. --StuffOfInterest 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. helohe (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as above MiraLuka 05:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kinda funny how the admins keep deleting anything critical of what they do? I say undelete the userboxes and delete speedy deletion of userboxes, since it's just a tool for admins to abuse. The Ungovernable Force 07:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is divisive and not conducive to the creation of neutral encyclopedic content. enochlau (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete JSIN 12:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and perhaps have a friendly chat with Tony... Halibutt 18:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete If you want to stop people saying that admins are being irresponsible, you should stop wasting your time trying to stamp out those who are saying it, and actually create some more standardized methodologies for admins. Karmafist 19:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostly harmless, the userbox actually asks for the enforcement of WP policy and that's got to be a good thing, right? Mostlyharmless 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete 1) on principal 2) deleted out-of-process 3) seems pretty unexeptionable anyway -- who can be against adminst following process??? I do however, wish that people would make these in their userspace and not in template space.Herostratus 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, change the word "pissed" into "annoyed" (so that nobody can ever qualify it as T1). Misza13 ^(Talk) 21:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)