Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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·t05:42, 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. -GTBacchus05:53, 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. -GTBacchus07:07, 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 StrangeLove06:04, 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 Weys16:14, 16 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! StrangerInParadise09:38, 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·t19:50, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. StrangerInParadise20:56, 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·t22:03, 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. —StrangerInParadise22:24, 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·t22:40, 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? —StrangerInParadise23:15, 16 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? Avalon09:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep both deleted. "Kill them, kill them both! Yees precious!" I feel that T1 applies in this instance. -- Banez16:02, 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 Sidaway16:12, 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 Weys16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Objectivism causes strong emotions. endorsing or opposing it does likewise. Why should we allow factionalizing bumper stickers? Michael Ralston18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Objectivists and their nonsense They've been an ongoing disruptive element on Misplaced Pages, and in real life. --Daniel19:20, 16 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.) -Silence17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted as unencyclopedia and per policy Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Misplaced Pages 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). --Doc17:09, 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 --pgk17:57, 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" --pgk19:32, 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. Misza1317:58, 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_wnrEsc19:56, 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 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
??That template is useful to the project of creating an encyclopeia - this one is not. Clear difference. --Doc23:55, 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?Geni01:16, 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. --Doc01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't TFD. The deletion was not within policy. Userboxes may or may not turn[REDACTED] 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.Geni01:43, 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? Jf we can keep those, then by golly, we can keep this one as well.(This is not a vote, by the way) --D-Day) 10:53, 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. --JWSchmidt16:40, 16 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 Ralston18:25, 16 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>? --Doc10:53, 14 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. --pgk10:55, 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 Black13:19, 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 Weys14:44, 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. Cynical15:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This is basically the proposed new policy that, unlike articles, categories, images and other templates, userboxes are so precious to Misplaced Pages, 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. --Doc16:17, 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? :] --CBDunkerson17:25, 14 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 Weys01:26, 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 War05:00, 15 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. Avalon05:52, 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 StrangeLove06:14, 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 Misplaced Pages. TruthCrusader15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Such templates do nothing to help the encclopedia and they waste our time. If you want to play games with templates, go to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt16:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted as above, again another editor had tagged for deletion so wasn't unilateral. --pgk10:55, 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)
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 Weys14:44, 14 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 Weys01:26, 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. StrangerInParadise01:39, 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.--Doc09:26, 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? StrangerInParadise10:21, 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 War05:00, 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. Avalon05:52, 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. TruthCrusader15:42, 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. --JWSchmidt16:42, 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 Weys17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
nathanrdotcom 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
