Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived

This area of discussion is frequently a locus of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

-

Userboxes are sometimes deleted by administrators if there are thought to be valid reasons for their removal from Wikipedia. However, some userboxes may be inappropriately deleted. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates considers appeals to restore userboxes that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Before using the Review, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.

Category:User undeletion lists a number of administrators who are prepared to honour good faith requests for the restoration of deleted content to your user space, for example if you want to work up a more encyclopaedic article. This does not require deletion review, you can ask one of them directly (or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard).

Purpose

Userbox debates Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless: They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question (this should be attempted first - courteously invite the deleting admin to take a second look); In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be. An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

This process is about userboxes, not about people. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting userboxes prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators.

If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier:

{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~

Similarly, if you are a administrator and a page you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Please take general discussion to the talk page.

Speedy deletions of templates can be done by administrators under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion if the template falls into this category (often referred to as T1): Templates that are divisive and inflammatory. The following is a proposed T2, but has not become stable: Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. (as of 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

May 12, 2006

Template:User atheist

AtheistThis user is an Atheist.

Mackensen deleted this page. And while I have read Jimbo's statements on the userbox situation, I feel not only is he wrong, but deleting the template is harming Wikipedia. In the words of Grue: "... banning expressing people's opinions would actively harm building a neutral and objective encyclopedia."

Here's my personal reasoning: pages under the Wikipedia namespace (such as Wikipedia:Deletion_review, etc.) don't need to be NPOV, according to what I've read around the site. Why, then, do pages within the User namespace need to be NPOV? Deleting userboxes on the sole reasoning of political correctness harms the individuality of Wikipedians. Therefore I believe it should be undeleted. ^The True _Sora 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• User namespaces don't need to be NPOV. The template is in the Template namespace. The two are not the same. And while Grue may be right, getting this stuff out the template namespace is in no way "banning...opinions". Keep deleted, of course. I can make the code available if someone wants to subst the raw code onto their page. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion per CSD:T1. Keep Deleted. For the record I have had this one subst'd on my page for some time. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Everyking 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why? Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. T1. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — It would be very helpful and diminish conflict, if this template remains deleted, if someone would use a bot or whatever to subst' it onto the user pages in which it was previously transcluded. That way users who haven't been following the userbox debates as closely as the people on this page won't feel that the template removal is an attack on their beliefs (or lack thereof). In fact, I strongly feel that this should be standard operating procedure for deleted userboxes. (I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to make a bot or whatever you'd use for a repetitive task like this.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, I believe Cyde had proposed doing this last week, but the idea was rejected. I think it's a lovely idea myself. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'll do it if the template is kept deleted or if I get around to it before then. Kotepho 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. We should not continue going down the road which leads towards censorship of userspace. Friendly Neighbour 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Absolutely right. How is Template:User atheist in the user space? Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Most of the debate is now about the userspace. Therefore, I expect a Step Two: forbidding "POV" in userespace. And that would be plain political censorship to me. Friendly Neighbour 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  This template is only being transcluded into userspace; other transclusions (except perhaps a Wikispace list) would be improper. In that sense, it is only in user space. (I do not make this argument, I explain it; but I wish both sides in this would try to recognize that the other has legitimate concerns.) Septentrionalis 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I don't think the userbox is particularly devisive or contravertisal. The wording is fine, "X is an Atheist" is neutral enough phrasing, even for article space. However, this may be moot, as you may or may not be aware, someone just nominataed *all* the religious templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 12#Userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. Regards, MartinRe 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please note that T1 was recently revised. Although I had no input in this revision, I support it. The revised wording is this: "User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory." -- Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I am aware of T1's revision, which is why I said I though the template wasn't particularly devisive or controversial, and hence does not fall under the T1, even revised. I think you're intrepreting T1 far too broadly, with a broad intrepretion you could equally justify delete the babel boxes, as they "divide" users into speaker and non speakers of a language, and so are devisive (as well as language being a controversial topic to some). I think the speedy deletion of neutrally worded boxes such as this, to be more devisive than the original template ever could be. Regards, MartinRe 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.  Grue  19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Obviously. --MediaMangler 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What's obvious about undeleting it? Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete naturally. Larix 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, inappropriate speedy, meets no portion of criterion T1. Angr (t • c) 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, it does. Please read the speedy criteria. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -lethe ^{talk +} 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete until Template:User Buddhist, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Jewish, and every other religion-based user template is deleted. Let's be consistent in our crusading at the very least. — BrianSmithson 20:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to speedy them all. Do you actually have an opinion on this one? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  My opinion is that all or none of the religion-based templates should be deleted. I'm pretty anti-userbox, though I have a couple of Babel ones on my userpage, but it's highly annoying to selectively enforce a new "policy". — BrianSmithson 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Rather than speedying them all, why not create a class action TfD? Be better than having 20 different deletion reviews, right? -lethe ^{talk +} 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, no more reason for speedying this template than for approximately 2538 others (give or take 1000). Deleting all of them is one thing, going at it one by one is arbitrary, not to say POV. IronChris | (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to speedy them all. Do you actually have an opinion on this one? Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There appear to be many people voting here who want all the religious boxes deleted. Such a course would be inline with T1, with Jimbo's utterings on the matter, and would be fair to boot. Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, nothing decisive or controversial about this. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The conversation on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion makes me feel that T1 lacks consensus and should not even be a criteria for deletion, much less for speedy deletion. This particular user box is not divisive or inflamatory. GRBerry 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and keep Deleted - look Jimbo discourages the use of such things - having in the template space does the opposite. If folk feel they must have this on their pages, they can copy the code from another. Otherwise, they can just type 'I am an atheist'. Actually, whilst humbly declaring your POV, so others can point out if your bias slips into you editing, may be a helpful thing - proudly sporting uniform bumperstickers is not. --Doc ^ask? 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, even though T1 is applicable here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues. Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions. This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking. If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so. --Cyde Weys 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm this close to writing an automated KD voting program. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete What is the problem with users stating their opinions on the matter of belief? In years to come, academics analysing WP will want to know about the make-up of the beliefs of the contributors. Knowing the numbers of people who were athiest, agnostic, Christian, Islamic, etc will be vital, to allow academics to analyse how beliefs impacted on editing. As an academic I have to say removing templates like this is the equivalent of destroying an archive. It is crazy, ill thought-out and misses the bigger picture. The issue is not the beliefs of users but their ability to be NPOV. Some of the best NPOVcontributors on religious papers happen to hold clear personal definitions on religious matters. Why shouldn't that be openly stated? Do we want people to hide their views but still be influenced by them anyway? Surely being open about beliefs would be more healthy. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Stressing beliefs and opinions of users undermines the ability to be NPOV, and distracts many users into thinking this site is primarily for social networking. Recent history has shown that introducing strongly-held beliefs into WP (especially in the form of templated Userboxes) has not been healthy at all. Nhprman 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Everybody's edits are impacted upon by their beliefs. You can go into denial and pretend that doesn't happen or you can be honest and let people admit what their beliefs are. The most dangerous POV-warriors are those in denial about their viewpoints. Those who can categorise and define their beliefs, as psychiatrists repeat over and over again, are more likely to be able to be neutral because, having had to define their beliefs they are the ones most likely to think, in this case for example, "I am an athiest. Is that colouring my editing of Mother Teresa of Calcutta?" The main POV warriors are those who delude themselves into thinking they are neutral and end up blinded to their own beliefs and the impact they have on their editing. Your comments above show the problem that causes. You hold a view. You belief it is NPOV. But your edits suggest a distinct POV, one that repeats your view as a mantra you believe is neutral but on the evidence of your comments isn't. Psychiatrists and psychologists stress the fact that the best way to achieve neutrality is to analyse and define your views and then compensate for the bias you realise you have. Userboxes achieve that. Pretending you don't have a view, which is what the policy of deleting templates is all about, produces self-dillusion, not neutrality or objectivity. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 00:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let's keep the self-analysis of people's biases in editors' own heads. We don't need to be starting fights here that have existed outside of Wikipedia. No one should care about whether an editor is Catholic or Protestant or athiest or Buddhist here. An editor's edits should be enough to know whether they are biased, and each edit should speak for itself, without the announced bias sowing suspicion in other's heads. The "expose your biases" argument is a recipe for conflict, as we've seen already on WP. - Nhprman 03:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nhprman, I agree, and I'd add that the more users are encouraged to engage Wikipedia at the level of their political and religious beliefs, the further we move from the ideal of what it is to write an encyclopedia - a neutral, authoritative resource that is utterly above partisanship. If we're not above politics, we're crap, and we suck like the rest of the internet. Since Wikipedia wants to be an authoritative source of information, every special interest group would kill to control what we say. The job of an encyclopedist is to defend against those forces, not represent for them. I'm proud to check my personal beliefs at the door here, and if we aren't teaching new users that ideal, then we need to figure out how to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. Nhprman 03:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete along with all other religion-related Userboxes. Divisive, inflammatory and has nothing whatsoever to do with editing a NPOV encyclopedia. Nhprman 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted due to reasoning not being based on any grounds for overturning deletion. "While I have read Jimbo's statements on the userbox situation, I feel not only is he wrong" - sorry, Jimbo happens to own this site. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, T1, unencyclopedic, not what public transclusion is here for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Why was T1 revised to kill off all religious or whatever userboxes? Homestarmy 00:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, under CSD T1. These sort of userboxes do not belong in the Template namespace. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment T1 has now been divided: T1 is the old T1, T2 is the expanded version. Let's keep it that way.Septentrionalis 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on TfD. Uning the new distinction, this is not (the old) T1. T2 is not supported by consensus (or by Jimbo) and should not be used until it is. Septentrionalis 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  The first is debatable; the second assertion surprises me. Go back and read what Jimbo has said on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  The first is debateable, and I agree that this is a close call; but that's why we're debating this. What Jimbo has said is at WP:JOU. I see no evidence that Jimbo cares what mechanism we use. Septentrionalis 13:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Unencyclopedic. --Tbeatty 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per new TX. Metamagician3000 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, meets the speedy deletion criterion for templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Full and frank disclosure is a key element to help work toward balance in editing articles. Repressing acknowledgement of POVs is systematic bias. Rfrisbie^talk 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Then, if "Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." becomes policy, move this template to {{user atheism}} (the template currently there is an obscure and poorly-designed one that we don't need and can be moved to atheism2 or similar if necessary) and change the contents to "This user is interested in atheism.", since atheism is a valid philosophical position and cultural movement and a major subject of religious and theological study, and thus a valid interest-expressing userbox (and significant interests are clearly highly relevant to Wikipedia even if beliefs aren't) just as much as "This user is interested in theism." (or simply "This user is interested in God.") would be. And there's no need to scrap perfectly good edit histories and userbox layouts (thus wasting everyone's time even more on this crap, which is surely something noone wants) for such a move, so deletion is clearly unnecessary even if the new T1 designation becomes accepted. If the new T1 designation isn't accepted, then undelete and, if someone thinks this userbox is unacceptable, nominate it at TfD for discussing deletion, because it clearly isn't "inflammatory", which is a requirement for current T1 speedy-deletion. -Silence 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do with this one whatever is done with Template:User Christian - If you vote for or against one, you ought to have the same position on the other, as well as on one administrator's war against religious userboxes BigDT 17:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If the boss says so, do it. I'm afraid this is too controversial. subst. --Pilot|guy 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone explain to me how calling yourself an atheist, Christian, or a member of any other religious persuasion falls into the category of "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory"? This deletion, and that of the Christian userbox below, are both being defended as in line with CSD:T1. A userbox that says, "this user isn't going to hell, like the rest of you pathetic heathen are" is inflammatory. A userbox that says, "this user is a [insert denomination here]" is not. If these two userboxes were not "divisive and inflammatory", they should not have been speedied and thus, anyone who is unbiased would have to agree that they should be restored and given their day on TfD. BigDT 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted As Alan Partridge once said...."Classic T1" In any case, they do us no good and can be harmful. As said above, we're supposed to be a neutral, authoritative resource for people to use. Our customers are people who are not involved in policy debates and have no backround on issues ongoing between editors. Folks reading an article about Christians or religion or whatever are 2 clicks away from some editor with a silly "I am a atheist" bumpersticker on their userpage. What are they going to think? How many of them are going to wonder exactly how neutral and authoritative we are when they see editors proclaiming a POV loudly and proudly on their userpage? Userboxes do nothing to help us build Wikipedia and they can be harmful. They aren't going to spend time reading these debates reading that somehow displaying a POV somehow guards against writing a POV...they'd think that's crazy and they'd be right. Rx StrangeLove 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have queried the developers, and there is no such thing as userspace categories or userspace templates. All categories and templates are "omni-space", they are used in all namespaces defined in a *pedia. Please do not confuse syntax (Category followed by colon and Template followed by colon) with policy. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- experts in religious beliefs and ethnicities help build the *pedia. --William Allen Simpson 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete What reason do we have to censor people based on their religious beliefs. Using CSD T1 as a reason is not the best option as it is currently being discussed on the CSD talk page. Also, the article namespace IMO is the only space which requires NPOV. Templates, although used in the article space, are in no way restricted to it. Ansell 06:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete You all seem to be complete hypocrits. We can have user wiccan and user satanist and we can't have user atheist? We can have user Catholic and not atheist? What the fuck is going on here? --mboverload@ 08:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  All those others need to be removed as well - removed from template space only. You'll still be able to use them in userspace. Metamagician3000 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  Templates are part of "omni-space". Templates are merely transclusions. If there are objections to substance contained in templates, then the same substance should be removed from User:space. If there is no objection to substance, then there is no reason to remove the transclusion of that substance. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 15:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Missing the point. The discussion is over where the Userboxes are housed on the server. Frankly, the issue of their substance is an important one, but secondary to their past misuse as Templates - an issue which can't be ignored or covered up. Nhprman 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- this template is only used in user space --T-rex 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --pgk^(talk) 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:CSD and current practice. Nandesuka 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Userboxes detailing biases can only benefit Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 20:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

May 11, 2006

Template:User Christian

This user is a Christian.

Gmaxwell and Cyde began replacing the simple statement "this user is a Christian" with longer and longer formulations of what it might or might not mean to call oneself a Christian. By the end, the template was more than one screen long (on my screen, at least), complete with footnotes, references, and a spinning crucifix. Their stated justification for doing this was to make the template NPOV, since different people mean different things when they self-identify as Christian. However, they went to such ridiculous extremes that (in my view, at least) they violated WP:POINT.

Anyway, when people noticed that their user pages now had a massive essay with a spinning crucifix instead of a little userbox with an ΙΧΘΥΣ symbol, they understandably got upset. This caused some edit warring and flaming (some of which you can see at Template talk:User Christian). And then Mackensen deleted the template, saying that it was "clearly divisive".

However, the template wasn't divisive before Gmaxwell and Cyde's antics. It (along with all the other religious userboxes) survived a previous deletion debate, and sat harmlessly on hundreds of users' pages. Gmaxwell and Cyde provoked an argument, and Mackensen deleted the template because they had started a fight over it. As I've said elsewhere, this is analagous to seeing someone who's been pushed into the mud and condemning them for being dirty. If the template is not restored, this sets a precedent that anyone can start an edit war over a template and get it deleted under T1. Do we really want to endorse that tactic? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, I'm afraid you have completely failed to understand WP:POINT. I found the alterations I made personally to the userbox to be a clear improvement. It is a shameful violation of NPOV for our templates to claim to declare what a Christian is with a single line and attachment to a single person, and the hurtful attacks made by those against me here and elsewhere are a clear demonstration that this template can be divisive. Although, I think we'd be better off demanding users discuss rather than pull out the pitchforks instead of deleting it... But that might be too tall a request. The hostility of the response I've had is a perfect framework for demonstrating the POV flaws of this template: If we believe this templates claim (that the users are Christian, rather than merely claiming to be Christian, or rather than that they associate with a vast indefinable collection of beliefs) then we must conclude that that Christians are the kind of people who assume bad faith, speak with maximum hostility, and send threatening emails. On that basis, I'd advise the we prohibit Christians from all participation in Wikipedia. ... But I suspect that the template is just flawed, and that the people behaving so reprehensibly towards me claim to be Christians but are currently failing in that endeavor. --Gmaxwell 21:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. While I'm not happy with the circumstances leading to its deletion, I have no doubt that religious templates are divisive and can be provocative and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's the core and ultimate principle. Users can write "I'm a christian" and put any picture they consider suit on their pages. Having this on template namespace is unneded and not improving the encyclopedia. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  also if people don't want their userpages to be modified by 3rd parties, they shouldn't be using unsubsted shared templates. since that's precisely the point of templates. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  But should this tactic (starting a fight with the intention of causing division, and thus justifying the removal of a template under T1) be endorsed? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Certainly not. Septentrionalis 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  However DRVU is not about the tactic itself. It's about wether restore it or not. Admins behaviour is discussed at other places, don't mix things. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I trust it will be discussed in other places; but one way to discourage misbehavior is to make clear that it will not get the desired results. Septentrionalis 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'd appreciate a pointer to any of the places where the users' behaviour is being discussed. Cyde at least has apologized for the disruption he caused, and even blocked himself, showing that he's willing to direct his humour at himself as well as those he disagrees with. Gmaxwell, on the other hand, hasn't apologized or even responded to a polite note I left on his user page; it seems he hasn't been back on the 'pedia since yesterday. I hope he hasn't left the project, but if and when he does come back I'd like to see some recognition that this wasn't the way to go about making a point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• List on TfD This is not inflammatory; it's even pastel. Not properly speedied, and I cannot consider the antics involved evidence of real divisiveness. If it is divisive, the users it divides will vote to delete. Septentrionalis 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Alternatively: rewording is perfectly acceptable, probably desirable, encouraged by Jimbo, and infinitely better than the sort of conduct which led here. Septentrionalis 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is a clear undelete. I'll never have this userbox on my page, but what went on today pretty much amounted to WP:POINT. I understand their frustration at not making much progress on the polemic userboxes, but we're not Uncyclopedia and can't use their methods. Incidentally, I think Mackensen made the right call deleting the box when he did. The situation was starting to get out of hand and at the time I think the deletion was the only way to nip it in the bud and force everyone to take a step back. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - T1 now clearly provides for the deletion of such userboxes. However, that does not excuse the disruptive behaviour from people who should know better and, as admins, are supposed to set an example of civility. If this deletion sticks it should reflect acceptance of the expansion and clarification of T1, not of disruptive tactics to make a WP:POINT. Metamagician3000 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you don't mean to encourage the circular reasoning: "This box should be deleted because the new T1 says so; and the new T1 is approved because this box has been deleted." Septentrionalis 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or Strong unprotect/undelete and Reword to "This user is interested in Christianity." That would not necessarily define the user as a Christian, but it could be helpful for someone using what links here / user cats to find resourceful individuals to help out with articles on Christianity. In its current form, however, it could easily be used for ballot stuffing purposes, which should be discouraged. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a bad idea (the rewording). We don't need a template to advertise our religious beliefs, but one that says "I can help you understand/edit articles on Christianity" (or Islam, etc., even Scientology for that matter) would be clearly useful, and not at all as problematic as the current crop of "Wikipedia as webhost" templates. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That always seemed like an obvious solution to the problem to me, but I didn't know if it would fly with everyone else. I might post a note on the Village Pump suggesting this and see what the reaction would be--who knows, maybe we can stop this ridiculous war and get back to editing yet. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to undelete and reword. I had no idea how horrible this WP:POINT was. After looking through edit after edit after edit of crap like this, I am going to support undeleting the template and allowing the involved users to reword it as I above proposed, simply on the principal of the thing (though I suppose that could be deemed making a WP:POINT as well). If Cyde and Gmaxwell think this horrible abuse of Wikipedia is going to fly, they're simply mistaken. If they continue in such fashion, I would propose that they both be desysopped and/or prohibited from editing userboxes. Luckily, Freakofnurture and Tony Sidaway were there and acted in the manner expected of administrators, or else who knows what could have happened here. If Cyde and Gmaxwell were not administrators they would likely have been indefinitely blocked for trolling and vandalism; instead, they got, what, 24hrs?! I expect to see a lengthy apology from both of them, and I pray that they never attempt anything like this again. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed back to keep deleted or reword. After a long internal struggle, I've concluded that a WP:POINT to counter a WP:POINT is nonetheless still a WP:POINT. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Not useful to the encyclopedia. It's probably time precident was set that these things be transcluded, anyway. --InShaneee 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't give a fig one way or the other about userboxes but I am concerned that keeping this one deleted will ratify Cyde and Gmaxwell's antics and set a precedent whereby previously noncontroversial userboxes can be turned into controversial ones through a fake edit war that unnecessarily stirs up bystanders who aren't in on the joke. Thatcher131 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's my primary concern as well. I support the subst'ing of userboxes, but I find this a very unpleasant precedent to set. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As stated above, this discussion is only about the userbox, based on its own merits. This is not the place to decry the actions of an administrator. --InShaneee 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's paranoid fantasy. The edit war was incredibly immature, but it wasn't started as a pretext to delete the box, and the very fact that some of you are silly enough to suggest such a thing reflects badly on your sanity. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:One argument for deletion, however, was to end the revert war. This is, while understandable, fallacious. It should have been protected. The argument that the revert war proves divisiveness does not convince me either. Septentrionalis 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Not a valid speedy T1. Nothing wrong with the template, nothing particularly decisive about it and useful in context. However I find it very disturbing, both that admins edit war over the wording, when none of them even use it, and others suggest it should be transclued, when they don't transclue any of theirs. MartinRe 02:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, then yell at Cyde a lot. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Although Cyde characterised me as being on a "high horse" and "holier than thou" (as if!) about his antics I totally endorse a stern talking to for him and Gmaxwell, both of whom should know better. That should be elsewhere though, not here. Keep Deleted under the newly clarified CSD:T1. Users should start userifying any of these that they're keep to keep around. If the changes to CSD:T1 stick there will be many of us supporting deletion of a lot of political, religious and philosophical userboxes. NB: Keeping this deleted does NOT in any way endorse what these two did. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Discuss first. Discussion and research really needs to happen first before silly situations like this; one doesn't speedy an article that's been vandalized, for example. I think users also need to have a shot at improving the template to address concerns - speedy deletion of an article while it's been vandalized is the extreme case of people not having such a chance, and this situation, while less consequencial to the project as a whole, feels dangerously close to that extreme to me. I think the speedy deleters should try to slow down before deleting under T1. --AySz88^-^ 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm tired of incessant whining about tiny boxes. Go out and write an article. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Novel idea. Hopefully I'll get User:Sean_Black/New Kamen Rider finished :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - WP is not the place for religious debates. Religious bumperstickers are divisive and don't help accomplish WP's mission. - Nhprman 03:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Cyde and Gmaxwell, you guys made Wikipedia a less pleasant place for me today. I'm kind of disgusted. Everyone subst your userboxes already, and you'll have no more reason to look at the train wreck this is becoming. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the new T1. In case anyone hasn't seen this ridiculous version, a few minutes before revision the template read: "This user claims to be Christian." TheJabberwʘck 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd also like to throw in that I feel the userbox should not be deleted, but rather it should be preserved in its current {{deletedpage}} form and protected. Given the highly controversial edits to this template, I feel the history is quite relevant and should not be deleted in case similar situations arise (as those of us non-sysops are unable to peer into the vast recycle bin). Thoughts? AmiDaniel (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If this userbox is divisive, so is half of the rest. Unless we intend to ban userboxes in general, there is no reason not to allow people to say they are Christian, which is less divisive than saying they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. And the procedure used to delete it is dangerous to Wikipedia's future. It seems now that a small group of users can disrupt any template or article and then claim it's divisive and should be deleted. We have witnessed a cynical misuse of WP rules. Friendly Neighbour 06:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Couldn't agree more. Seeing as userboxes are probably on the way out, but you've always been able to discuss your beliefs on your user page in your own words...I guess I don't see the problem. Granted, you will have to spend a little more time describing yourself. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  See the reply by Blanning to my worries about userspace freedom of speach (below). If he has his way, the hands-off policy to userspace will soon end. Friendly Neighbour 06:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, per everyone else. However, the silliness prior to deletion was, well, silly. Don't do that, it doesn't help.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and block Cyde and Gmaxwell for disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jimbo's desires and emerging community consensus. All of these things are unencyclopedic and divisive. We did keep the Communist one deleted, so fair's fair. --Doc ^ask? 08:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete so long as there's not a category attached to it. No one would have complained or cared if the ridiculous edit antics on that template had never taken place. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per everyone. Apparently some editors have not only forgotten that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but, judging by the massively uncivil and ABFing respones to Cyde's revisions to the template, they have also forgotten that anyone can edit it. Why are they here? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete religion is an important characteristic of editors. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  So is the size of one's penis, but you don't see many people waving that around their userpages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Somehow I doubt the size of one's penis effects how one edits. On the other hand, one's religious affiliation most certainly would. In any case, I voted undelete because in the form above its a relatively harmless template and the way in which it was eventually deleted was ridiclous. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  We are required to write from a neutral point of view. If your religious affiliation is affecting how you edit, you're not doing it right. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Few can ever claim neutrality. There will always be a hint of POV no matter how one may try to cover it. At the very least, this template gives an idea of where a user is coming from. Also, I seriously doubt that having or not having this template will affect whether or not someone writes with a bias. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 09:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  This utterly bogus argument needs to be countered every time it comes up. We don't need to know where editors are "coming from" through the use of little boxes on their user pages. We know this easily enough through their edits. But a box on their page DOES create a very strong impression that they are biased in one way or another, leading to suspicion and an erosion of assuming good faith. The use of Templated Userboxes is also a sly way to turn this into a purely social networking site, and frankly, through your efforts of relentlessly creating categories of users, you've contributed to tribalism and factionalism on Wikipedia, and I think you personally have a lot to answer for. Nhprman 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  This discussion dangerously drifts towards suggesting political censorship of userspace. Friendly Neighbour 14:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech, anarchy, democracy, or seeing how many times we can reinforce the commonly-held outside image of a Wikipedia editor as an opinionated extremist drama queen in a single day. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Things like your nationality, sex, religion, native tongue, and profession are useful for you interactions with the community. Stuff like your penis size isn't. I don't think people should put their penis size on their userpages. I do think they should at least be allowed to put broad characterizations of themselves. It doesn't mean "these are my attributes that keep me from NPOV editing". Rather, it means "these are the basic attributes which define what kind of human being I am". No one begrudges people who identify their sex or profession, so why disallow religion? -lethe ^{talk +} 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and apply some penalty to these pranksters. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior. Everyking 08:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What, like a hit on the head with a comedy foam mallet? Userboxes are not one but two steps removed from the encyclopaedia, do you honestly think anything done to them justifies action? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes—they disrupted the user pages of many editors, and did so in a particularly insensitive way. Everyking 09:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. One's religious beliefs are not that important for the Project that they'd warrant a precious space in Template: and the servers' resources needed for transclusion. You have the code above. Just put it on your page directly - it'll have the additional benefit that your page won't ever get vandalised by a few people having a good time while violating WP:POINT. Misza13 ^{T C} 09:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What precious resources? Are you living in a separate Universe? The template has 649 bytes (plus 740 bytes for the graphics but no one claims so far that WP should be graphics free) and as long as it was a template, there was only one copy of it. Substing the template on every userpage takes resources, not making them a template. To make it even more ridiculous the template was only four times the length of your signature (158 bytes) you leave with every comment you make. BTW, this discussion was 20,194 bytes long (enough for 31 such templates) even before this comment of mine. Friendly Neighbour 10:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What resources? Those whose lack cause Wikipedia to "have a problem" every now and then. Also, I think you err here limiting the notion of resources to just the bytes occupied (disk space is cheap compared to processing power). Let's assume that a userbox takes up 1000 bytes. My understanding is that it is easier on the servers to fetch a 100'000-byte user page containing 100 substed boxes than query the DB 100 times for each individual box and applying parameters to them (they're templates after all!). But, as you suggest, I might as well be living in a parallel universe, so let's leave the judgement of my l4m3ne$$ to someone compenent. Misza13 ^{T C} 12:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• List at TfD Will (^E_@) T 10:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Let's be clear about something. User Darwinist and User Communist were recently kept deleted. There is precedent, therefore, for this kind of template to be kept deleted. I would argue that conceptually the template was divisive before anyone started altering it. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The underhanded, disrespectful way in which this userbox was vandalized should not be rewarded. If there really is an "emerging consensus" to delete all userboxes, then why not actually go through the established process to accomplish that goal? --MediaMangler 11:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the revised T1 criteria. Nandesuka 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete posthaste and file an RfC or whatever is necessary on all religious templates. We still have Template:User Protestant, Template:User Catholic, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Jewish, Template:User Buddhist, and probably many others that I don't know about. It's a gross WP:POINT violation that the Christian template was chosen for deletion while the others were left alone. I cannot see any other logic behind Cyde and Gmaxwell's actions. — BrianSmithson 12:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm willing to tag all of those for speedy... they all fit the revised T1. However when I went to edit one, it was icky because the "deletebecause" is way too big. Does someone have an example of a userbox that was marked for deletion that isn't huge and intrusive on pages where it is transcluded? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  You can use {{tfd-inline}} and run them through normal deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and make sure its the normal, simple version. If people wish to self-identify as a Christian, there's no reason why Wikipedia has to write them an essay trying to put their beliefs in a box for them, let people do that themselves by maybe using a different Christianity-related box (I.E. Protestant, Catholic, whatever), or just let it alone. Besides, if the text they want isn't in the box, all they have to do is subst the box code onto their userpage and write their own text, I did. Homestarmy 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  If people want to self-identify as Christian - they can write an accurate description in their own words on their userpage. Why should wikipedia supply words for them at all? --Doc ^ask? 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  As far as I know Wikipedia supplies words up to however many userboxes their are, but not all the words at once, which is what all that hubbub over the template sounded like. For anyone who considers themself a Christian, "This user is a Christian" is excellent, whether they be Mormon, Jehovah's witness, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Oneness Pentecostal, it doesn't matter. If people don't wish to write an essay about their beliefs, then this userbox seems like just the thing. Homestarmy 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  What legitimate service does this template provide to the user that he cannot achieve for himself by typing "I am a Christian"? It's even shorter and easier to type than {{user christian}}. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well, this can be put in neat looking box form and it has a picture. What legitimate service do Babel boxes provide that someone cannot achieve by typing "I can sort of speak spanish"? :) Homestarmy 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  They enable editors to locate other editors with relevant language skills. For instance I have a Latin languages babel box, and I have sometimes been contacted by someone who knows no Latin, to provide English translations of obscure Latin quotes. This is legitimate because possession of language skills is non-controversial and non-divisive. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Even language can be controversial to some people, witness Chirac's reaction when someone spoke in English.[1], a latin babel box divides people into latin speaking and non-latin speaking groups. I'm not saying that babel box's are T1's, just pointing that "controversial or divisive" can be interpretted broadly, depending on who's doing the interpretation, and very broad rules can lead to chaos. Regards, MartinRe 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I left a comment earlier today on the {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} stating a similar sentiment. The template is divisive by definition by dividing users into admins and non-admins and therefore should be deleted under the recently changed T1. Not that I think it should be deleted, rather that the change was not fully successful (to use an euphemism). Friendly Neighbour 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Undelete, then reprimand, block, desysop, or any combination of the above to Cyde and GMaxwell. These actions are setting a VERY POOR example to new users. Since nobody has come forward with any evidence saying that userboxes are divisive, that comment should be considered invalid. SPEEDY DELETION IS NOT A TOY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Two questions: do you ever get tired of calling for de-sysopping, and do you ever get tired of being warned about your behavior on this page? Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Larix 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mackensen above and revised T1 - expresses 'personnal beliefs' on a 'controversial issue'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Gmaxwell and Cyde proved beyond reasonable doubt that you can make anything a 'controversial issue' using a small determined group of pranksters. Friendly Neighbour 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Religion, like politics, is by its nature a controversial issue. The template fit the new criteria for T1 before even before it was changed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - all userboxes to do with religious (or otherwise) beliefs are inherently divisive. James F. (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current version, violations of WP:POINT should not be rewarded. (Note: "current version" means the version with the Ichthys picture and the text "This user is a Christian".) Angr (t • c) 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The conversation on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion makes me feel that T1 lacks consensus and should not even be a criteria for deletion, much less for speedy deletion. This particular user box is not divisive or inflamatory in the version refered to by the Angr. GRBerry 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, even though T1 is applicable here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues. Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions. This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking. If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so. --User:Cyde 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted but block the WP:POINT violators. Cynical 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete What is the problem with users stating their opinions on the matter of belief? In years to come, academics analysing WP will want to know about the make-up of the beliefs of the contributors. Knowing the numbers of people who were athiest, agnostic, Christian, Islamic, etc will be vital, to allow academics to analyse how beliefs impacted on editing. As an academic I have to say removing templates like this is the equivalent of destroying an archive. It is crazy, ill thought-out and misses the bigger picture. The issue is not the beliefs of users but their ability to be NPOV. Some of the best NPOVcontributors on religious papers happen to hold clear personal definitions on religious matters. Why shouldn't that be openly stated? Do we want people to hide their views but still be influenced by them anyway? Surely being open about beliefs would be more healthy. User:Jtdirl|(caint) 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Stressing beliefs and opinions of users undermines the ability to be NPOV, and distracts many users into thinking this site is primarily for social networking. Recent history has shown that introducing strongly-held beliefs into WP has not been healthy at all. However, your comments about academic studies in the future are intriguing. I wonder if the same goal might be accomplished by having all users sign up and adopt a user name (a good idea on its own merits, I think) and have them fill out a demographic form as they do it. It would be anonymous and used simply for the purposes you suggest - academic curiosity as to the social/religious/political make-up of WP. Would that satisfy this particular need? Nhprman 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Everybody's edits are impacted upon by their beliefs. You can go into denial and pretend that doesn't happen or you can be honest and let people admit what their beliefs are. The most dangerous POV-warriors are those in denial about their viewpoints. Those who can categorise and define their beliefs, as psychiatrists repeat over and over again, are more likely to be able to be neutral because, having had to define their beliefs they are the ones most likely to think, in this case for example, "I am an athiest. Is that colouring my editing of Mother Teresa of Calcutta?" The main POV warriors are those who delude themselves into thinking they are neutral and end up blinded to their own beliefs and the impact they have on their editing. Your comments above show the problem that causes. You hold a view. You belief it is NPOV. But your edits suggest a distinct POV, one that repeats your view as a mantra you believe is neutral but on the evidence of your comments isn't. Psychiatrists and psychologists stress the fact that the best way to achieve neutrality is to analyse and define your views and then compensate for the bias you realise you have. Userboxes achieve that. Pretending you don't have a view, which is what the policy of deleting templates is all about, produces self-dillusion, not neutrality or objectivity. User:Jtdirl|(caint) 00:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  Sure beliefs impact edits, and no one truly holds a NPOV. But I don't need to see a Userbox to know that an article edit was biased. I will know them by their works, so to speak. Announcing beliefs creates tribes (by using Templated Userboxes) and sows suspicion of bias among those who jump to conclusions about what affiliations like "User is Christian" means. We don't need any of that here. And all of the self-analysis about a user's bias can occur in our own heads before we start editing. - Nhprman 03:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - non-encyclopedic.--Tbeatty 02:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious speedy undelete - (1) the only argument brought forward for deletion was "unencyclopedic" or "POV", both of which have been refuted as being irrelevant to userboxes; (2) there is no difference between this userbox and any other such as "This user is X years old" or "This user is from country X" or "This user's hair colour is X". — Timwi 10:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and discuss - (1) I agree with Timwi, no difference between this userbox and other userboxes; (2) The user is a Christian is a simple and clear sentance. After those joke editings I think it should be reverted to what it originally is, not speedy delete. (3) I remember we should have a vote for deletion if someone think it's something disputed. To speedy delete this userbox without any votes is not necessary and should be reverted. (4) To have this userbox it can help to category Christian wikipedians to work on Christianity articles. I still cannot understand why you guys think it should be deleted. --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your last statement is precisely the problem. Using a category 'Christian wikipedians' to identify editors to work on a Christianity article is gaming the system. There may well be atheists, agnosticcs, muslims etc who are very knowledgeable about Christianity-related subjects and would help to ensure a balanced article. (Equally, there will be some Christians who are clueless about the subject) It would me much better if categories and userboxes identified people by editing interests 'Users interested in Christianity related articles' and left POV to one side. --Doc ^ask? 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I got your point. I agree some Christians might be POV on some articles or categories, but not all Christians will (at least I will try not to do that). If people want to make the userbox to be NPOV, just discuss in the talk page and modify it base on the discussion, not speedy delete. --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 16:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Full and frank disclosure is a key element to help work toward balance in editing articles. Repressing acknowledgement of POVs is systematic bias. Rfrisbie^talk 16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Then, if "Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." is policy, move this template to {{user christianity}} and change the contents to "This user is interested in Christianity.", since Christianity is a major world religion and a hugely important topic for Wikipedia to cover, making a similar template to this a valid interest-expressing userbox (and significant interests are clearly highly relevant to Wikipedia even if beliefs aren't). There's no need to scrap perfectly good edit histories and userbox layouts (thus wasting everyone's time even more on this crap when we have to start from scratch, which is surely something noone wants) for such a redesignation, so deletion is clearly unnecessary even if the new "T2" CSD becomes accepted. If the new T2 designation isn't accepted, then undelete and, if someone thinks this userbox is unacceptable, nominate it at TfD for discussing deletion, because it clearly isn't "inflammatory", which is a requirement for T1 speedy-deletion. -Silence 17:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete and raise a user conduct RFC on the administrators who were involved in vandalism. I am shocked at the bad faith with which this whole affair occurred. The fact that administrators were involved in blatant vandalism of a widely used template says to me that there needs to be some easier method of removing administrators. The fact that they spent two days playing with the language says to me that they were just trying to make a WP:POINT. The fact that it was removed without any kind of effort to notify people using it says that it was in bad faith. Shame on all of you who were involved in this process. BigDT 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and sigh The bottom line is it was played around like a toy without explanation. Let's just bring it back and put this particular box behind us. Rest assured, we will never, ever satisfy everyone in the case. Let's make that clear. --Pilot|guy 21:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. I was trying to work with users to discuss improvements. Rexmorgan and I made some progress, but that progress was obstructed by POV impassioned users who responded with maximum hostility. The whole point of NPOV is that there usually is some representation that everyone can agree is acceptable. --Gmaxwell 21:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I guess. The template is highly POV, more so than many POV userboxes, as it stood because it implies that the user speaks for all Christians through the use of the word "is". When I applied an improvement suggested by User:Rexmorgan which came out of discussion and compromise, to change the template to 'claims to be' which dramatically improves the neutrality of the template, I was viciously attacked by another user with claims of 'vandalism'. By preserving this template we'd only be rewarding users who attempt to assert ownership of the template namespace. The response from many was outrageously passionate and emotional, but with all that energy behind it I've yet to see any of them make a single objective criticisms of the text I wrote. It appears to me that these folks seem to be able to comment only about the somewhat over-the-top-with-sillyness animation which cyde added and which I never restored, which they use to justify their calling for my blood. The violence and hostility of the users attacking me is shameful, and clear proof that this userbox is incredibly divisive. If this is restored I will continue to argue for the use of NPOV language. I refuse to be frightened away by the attacks of the religious POV pushers. --Gmaxwell 21:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a comment on your situation, it would seem to me that "This user claims to be a Christian" may take an overtly skeptical tone to people who are trying to use this userbox as self-identification. It almost makes it sound as if everyone who uses it could be lying, and although I am of the personal opinion this is indeed the case for some people, my personal opinions don't dictate who wants to use this userbox by whatever standards of "Christian" they please. Therefore, "claims to be" may very well seem rather negative in a way. Besides, if users wanted it to say "I claim to be a Christian", then well, they can just subst the code and write that themselves. Homestarmy 22:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The claims to be text was proposed as a less verbose alternative by Rexmorgan, I don't claim that it is ideal. I too see the risk of the claims to be text potentially seeming too cynical when placed in this context. Instead I prefer the verbose route which makes it clear that any such assertion is necessassarly vague.

In any case, users are currently permitted to make assertions, even incorrect ones, on their userpages. We should not, however, have templates which violate NPOV. So if we are to have both POV and NPOV representations of this used in the Wikipedia userspace, it is the 'user is foo' (POV) form which should only be used directly (not a template), and that should ideally take the form of a signed comment rather than something that looks like a system provided label speaking in third person. The form 'X claims Y is Z' as a replacement for 'Y is Z' is a very common method used to achieve NPOV on Wikipedia, which weakens the argument against that form. --Gmaxwell 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, I agree that the box as is needs to go, but you and Cyde really undermined the case for reasoned discourse, regardless of how much POV pushing might be going from others, when you pulled that stunt. I had expected better of you, at least. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pulled what stunt? I believe you are attributing actions to me which were not mine. Lets start at the beginning. What, exactly, is offensive or inflammatory about this edit? and what aspect of this undermines the case for reasoned discourse? Please be specific.--Gmaxwell 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the combination of all those edits which is largely unacceptable. You turned a simple userbox into a page-long list of varied denominations and then deleted it which lead to its eventual deletion. It would have been far more simple (and appropriate) to include a variable option that would allow a user to input their specific version or no variable and remain as a simple Christian. Instead, you dragged it out to a ridiculous extreme and then deleted it because that extreme led it to and easily speediable template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By failing to be specific you have given me cause to doubt that you've actually examined my actions with any care what so ever. How am I view your response as anything but yet another baseless attack when you can't even get the most simple facts correct (and then deleted it)? If you'd taken the time to comment on what actually I actually performed, rather than on what you imagine I performed, you might have observed that I was making every possible effort to discuss the changes with the user who had the (at the time it was just Cyde, Rexmorgan, and myself in the active discusison) minority view that the changes should not be made. --Gmaxwell 23:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll be more specific. That first edit you mention, though adding to the overall detail, turns the userbox into a small essay rather than a simple description. It's wholly unnecessary to go into such detail for such a simple template. I don't know why you added that talk page link. There's nothing inherently wrong with a comment. However, let's move on from there. From your initial edit, you and Cyde (mostly Cyde, it would seem) go on to extend the template with multiple see also links, references, and even longer description, and even a spinning cross for some reason. Like I said, it's the fact that you continued on that path that makes what you did largely unacceptable. Common sense should have kicked in at some point. What user template could possibly need to be a page long? "This user is a Christian" is fine for what it is meant for. Adding a denomination option would make it slightly clearer. It certainly doesn't need to be an essay. I also fixed my earlier comment with different wording. "And then deleted it" doesn't accurately describe what happened. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking a userbox that is five words and turning it into a monstrosity that contains a dissertation on what you think the word "Christian" might be considered a stunt. Then, you threatened User:Rexmorgan [2], whose only crime was reverting the blatant vandalism of the template. That any of those involved in the vandalism defend it as somehow "improving" the template is patently silly. "Improving" a template that you yourself don't use and presumably have no desire to use by making it gigantic is hardly something that could be done in good faith. It is reprehensible conduct. BigDT 00:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my actions. I didn't make a threat. I did not vandalize anything. Please do not be uncivil, it disrupts polite conversation. Rexmorgan is a good user whom I found to be quite friendly once we started discussing, I wish more of the people here had his qualities. --Gmaxwell 01:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to say this but I did go through the diffs to the box. It was a box. Not an essay. Edits like this: [3] and this [4] (both yours if I am not mistaken) and others, strike me (at least, and I think others as well) as making a point disruptively. The edits may have been done in a civil manner, and may have been discussed in a civil manner at the time, but they were nevertheless disruptive, because userboxes are not essays. You could have linked to an essay text, but changing the box itself to make it not fit neatly with all the rest of the pithy little POV statements was being disruptive, in my view. It truly pains me to say this, as I have a great deal of respect for your long and wise service to the 'pedia, and some considerable respect for Cyde's potential value add as well, but I am deeply disappointed that you guys chose to make a point this way. What bothers me the worst is that you're right about the goal. These boxes have to go. But your methods interfere with the ends, you've made it harder to achieve this needful goal, in my view. Again, I am sorry. The ends do not justify the means. But that's how I feel, you've made it harder for others to try to accomplish this needful work. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the things I hate most in conversations is when someone picks one or two little points out of my post and responds only to that, so please accept my apology for doing that to you right now. :) In particular I wanted to question your selection of this difflink. In the prior two edits Cyde had added a reference section, so I was merely adding refs to the statements of facts in the text. How on earth can you find anything specifically wrong with that edit? Did you just include that diff to add force to your comments with the expectation that no one would read it? I don't wish to be rude, but I'm completely baffled by your selection. As for the other diff you included, Rexmorgan had simply reverted to the prior version of the template with the only provided justification being that it was in use by users. I allowed hours to pass but Rex made no attempt to discuss his changes. Since the mere use of a template doesn't confer control of a page I believed his action was misguided. I invited people to participate on the talk page, and took a guess at improving it. I didn't just robotically revert to my preferred version. I'm sorry that my actions hurt your goal of deleting the boxes, as I didn't have any intentions along those lines. --Gmaxwell 01:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you asked for specific edits, so I gave you some. But it's the bigger picture here that matters, regardless of what specific edits did what.. start scrolling through the diffs from the begnning and what is apparent is that you and Cyde were taking a userbox and turning it into something else. Something that wasn't a userbox and that wasn't appropriate to be in with a collection of userboxes, because it was a long essay. I won't ascribe motive to your actions then, but I will ascribe appearance. It gave the appearance of POINT. I'm just a newb here and you're much more experienced, so I'm surprised that you're not seeing that, or not admitting it, as it seems aw'fly clear cut to me. Further I'm surprised that you're surprised that people on the other side are upset about it, and people on your/our side are dismayed at how you carried out making your point (or whatever it was you were doing... what WERE you guys thinking? And why did Sam Blanning say this ??? Read that barnstar text and then think about why people on the other side might have been annoyed.) Sure it's a wiki. But really, I expected better of Cyde and especially of you, and I'm quite disappointed. I won't belabour the point further, I've made it enough times I think and you either get it, or you don't. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• LOL. Wow. I suppose you could always say something like "this user affiliates with christianity". Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly my point. How is such an elaborate template necessary for the simple purpose of a user saying that they are Christian? This would likely have been a far more successful debate had all that never taken place, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone explain to me how calling yourself a Christian, atheist, or a member of any other religious persuasion falls into the category of "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory"? This deletion, and that of the atheist userbox above, are both being defended as in line with CSD:T1. A userbox that says, "this user isn't going to hell, like the rest of you pathetic heathen are" is inflammatory. A userbox that says, "this user is a [insert denomination here]" is not. If these two userboxes were not "divisive and inflammatory", they should not have been speedied and thus, anyone who is unbiased would have to agree that they should be restored and given their day on TfD. BigDT 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll bite. Reason 1) Because Templates are put into categories, and then are often used to "rally" troops to support this or that edit or this or that box through vote stacking. 2) Because Userboxes spawn other boxes ("User hates Christians" "User against Fundamentalist", etc.) that are far more inflammatory and they become distractions from the mission of Wikipedia (editing an encyclopedia.) 3) Wikipedia is not a place for social networking. It should not matter what religion you are here. 4) Advertising your biases makes it likely your edits will be challenged for bias. Even if you disagree with 3 and 4, you should consider using this box (and others like it) as TEXT ("Subst'ed") on your own home page, and not as a template. That would help end vote-stacking and tribalism here on WP, and these debates will go on (and on and on) as long as Templated Userboxes exist. Hope that clears things up. - Nhprman 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You make four valid points. They would be very good points on a TFD, but they fail to answer the question about a speedy delete as they have nothing to do with being "divisive and inflammatory". (1) If people are using userboxes to rally the troops, that's the problem, not the userbox itself. (2) If people are making inflammatory userboxes after viewing someone's non-inflammatory userbox, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the first one. (3) The social networking issue is not one of divisiveness or ... umm ... inflammation. (4) Nor is a user being challenged because of his or her biases. BigDT 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think Templated Userboxes are inherently divisive, and even inflammatory, and fit under T1 (and definitely T2, which is being discussed and decided here, too.) Templated userboxes have been used as a social networking tool to unify and organize various political and social groups. And I have to say it would only serve to verify suspicions if I saw a questionable POV edit, say, on a Christian-related page, then went to the Userpage of the editor and saw "Opposes (insert subject of article he was editing)" as a Userbox. Even without the "negative" comment in the box, they are still divisive. In an article on the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland, I wouldn't want to know who is Catholic and who is Protestant among the editors. That breeds distrust and tribalism here. Also, groups have used the Templated Userboxes to rally each other to support or defeat a Userbox in this review process, and elsewhere. Yes, these are inherently divisive, and they breed discontent. That's not the mission here at WP. Am I saying the problem will go away if they are Subst'ed and made into text? No. But the social networking angle will virtually disappear overnight. That would be good for the project. (RxStrangelove said it just as good, if not better and shorter, just below me here!) Nhprman 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Sometimes we forget why we're here....we're producing an encyclopedia that our readers can use...and trust...as a neutral and unbiased source of information. It does us no good for our readers to see that a contributor to a topic they are interested in proclaims allegiance to a POV related to that topic. It turns what should be a critical reader into a suspicious reader. Rx StrangeLove 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have queried the developers, and there is no such thing as userspace categories or userspace templates. All categories and templates are "omnispace", they are used in all namespaces defined in a *pedia. Please do not confuse syntax (Category followed by colon and Template followed by colon) with policy. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- experts in religious beliefs and ethnicities help build the *pedia. The bad faith admins that edit-warred should be desysop'd. --William Allen Simpson 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete What reason do we have to censor people based on their religious beliefs. Using CSD T1 as a reason is not the best option as it is currently being discussed on the CSD talk page. Also, the article namespace IMO is the only space which requires NPOV. Templates, although used in the article space, are in no way restricted to it. Does this template directly inflame, or is it just another reason trolls use to start edit wars? The latter does not mean that religious divisions are inflammatory, the user who uses them as a justification for being inflammatory is in the wrong. Ansell 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• No one is being "censored" here. (On the other hand, please see WP:FREE.) I think it's common sense that religious divisions have always been inflammatory, on and off the Internet. Wikipedia is not about religious divisions, or creating communities of religious (or anti-religious) people. That will end when Templated Userboxes are moved to Userspace. - Nhprman 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- this is fine for user pages, and ban Cyde and Gmaxwell --T-rex 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted quite why anyone feels the need to stuff themselves into ready made boxes is beyond me, certainly doesn't belong in mainspace. --pgk^(talk) 16:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Sarge Baldy 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist

This user is probably going to Hell.

This user is the Ideal Dictator.

This user is an elitist.

I deleted these three userboxes under criteria T1. "User Hell" seemed to me to be the definition of "inflammatory", and the others are almost by definition polemical or divisive. I don't actually want these undeleted, but these are the first userboxes I've deleted under T1, and I figured this was the appropriate place to put them up for review so if people think that I'm off the rails on these they can educate me. Nandesuka 11:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, what was in them? :/ Homestarmy 12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note I've temporarily restored User Hell as it just surrived a TFD here Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 30. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's my opinion that "this survived a TfD" is not a reason to undelete a speedy delete -- I view the criteria as somewhat disjoint. Inflammatory and divisive userboxes should be speedied, but it makes sense to send userboxes to TfD if there is not consensus that they are inflammatory and/or divisive. All that being said, I'm happy to let the debate continue here, and if the consensus is that it should have been kept deleted, I'll ask another admin to re-speedy it. Nandesuka 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note the "temporary" line in my statement above. If consensus is for deleting this here then deleted it should be. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that the claim that Template:User Hell is inflammatory and/or divisive was thoroughly debunked in that TfD discussion. I encourage you to read it.  Grue  15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Hell was very recently (May 6) kept on TfD by overwhelming majority. It should be undeleted ASAP. Don't know about the others though.  Grue  12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently someone restored it.  Grue  12:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also undelete the other two: they look completely harmless.  Grue  12:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I took a look at these and I think User Hell is a bit different than the other two. Totally support CSD1 on that one, it's divisive all right. The other two I think maybe ought to go through TfD as they seem more like jokes than seriously divisive and therefore do not, in my view anyway, qualify under CSD T1. I'd end up supporting deletion, I see no reason for them to be in templatespace, but I think process is appropriate and should be used, in the interests of fairness. Perhaps we need T2-Tn to cover some of these sorts of things because really, they have little value as templates. Until then, though, I'm opposed to speedying them... PS, full marks for bringing this here on your own without prompting, Nandesuka! (PPS I did not know it went through TfD already when I wrote the above. Still think it qualifies under CSD T1 though) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• These aren't T1's, but they're rubbish, bilge, nonsense, crap. Delete/keep deleted/whatever. All three --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD. I will then vote for deletion, because they are a frivolous use of template space. However, they are not T1's (even the Hell one looks more like a joke than an attack on religion) and I am not going to apply WP:SNOW with these; they might well survive the proper process. Metamagician3000 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all deleted. Not useful in writing an encyclopedia. Misza13 ^{T C} 13:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Agreed, but that is a reason to vote against them in a TfD, not for speedy deleting them under T1. Metamagician3000 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete All then send the last 2 to TfD, (The hell one looks like it already ran that gauntlet) -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted abuse of resources, restoring useless things to list on TfD would also be a waste of everyone's time. --Doc ^ask? 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You could save yourself some time by not visiting this page anymore.  Grue  15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand, I'm happy to visit it. But if people agree with these being deleted - voting to relist them for reasons of procedural nicety are wasting my (and your) time, --Doc ^ask? 15:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If they weren't deleted in the first place, that would've saved everyone's time. As it is, people who used these templates should wait 5 or so days until they are undeleted, and vote in different places to get their templates back. That's what I call waste of time.  Grue  15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If they weren't created in the first place, that would've saved everyone's time. If people didn't insist in reviews of every deletion of such unencyclopedic crap (we don't do that for articles) that would save everyone's time. To have to go through xfD is just more paperwork - those processes are designed to protect against the hasty deletion of encyclopedic content not to protect myspace nonsense. --Doc ^ask? 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • • Listing something on TfD takes two edits, which should take two minutes. What's the problem? Septentrionalis 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Actually, a TfD debate will involve much more than two edits, and by many different users. We delete most unencyclopedic stuff by speedy - why should userboxes enjoy any special status? --Doc ^ask? 13:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list the last two on TfD, where a case can be made that they are divisive: if editors actually do object to something, like the late Nagorno-Karabakh box, TfD will delete it. Septentrionalis 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted more junk --pgk^(talk) 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, don't belong as templates, and could be divisive. --Cyde Weys 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, irrelevant to building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User:Hell, Delete the 2 others. Comments:
  • How can we vote for 3 userboxes at a time? Completely unrelated userboxes should be discussed one at a time.
  • User:Hell just survived TfD at 29 keeps to 4 deletes (!!). I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy and all, but speedying a template that was kept at over 7 votes to 1 is ridiculous. Particularly since (let's be honest) if a userbox makes it onto this page it has a 99% chance of being deleted simply because it is always the same anti-userbox people voting. NOTE that I am not an absolute userbox enthusiast, and I am in favour of deleting all religious, political and non-encyclopedic userboxes, but going at it one by one and disregarding previous TfDs etc. is bound to hurt or at least annoy some people, and it certainly doesn't show Wikipedia under its best light. Please consider the TfD and restore User:Hell.
    • Comment: Three of those delete votes were the original nominator voting several times. The ratio was actually 29 to 1. -- Rocketgoat 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of energy and time is spent (wasted?) by many users here. Why isn't this effort put into creating a sustainable policy regarding userboxes? Something like User:Misza13's proposal (User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll) seems like a much more worthwhile effort, and it also has the potential of hurting much less sensitivities than this tiresome one-at-a-time deletion process. --IronChris | (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    We are putting this energy into creating a sustainable policy regarding userboxes, right here. The way we find out what that sustainable policy will be is by deleting a bunch of userboxes, one by one, seeing what sticks, what doesn't, and why, and applying what we learn here to an eventual rewording of the policy to match the best practices we discover through experience. It's an organic process, and this is how it's supposed to work. We don't just guess what a good policy will probably be and then vote on our guess. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    • comment what if what sticks is the desire by editors to keep these userboxes? Mike McGregor (Can) 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list the last two on TfD. The first one was kept after a TfD vote and can be used to show a user's legitimate views. Just because someone might use it as a joke doesn't mean it's not legitimate sometimes. Would you delete the gay userbox just because someone could use it as a joke? -- Rocketgoat 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list the last two on TfD per everyone else. The first one seems quite divisive and iflammatory to me, but if it recently survived a TfD then there can be no justification for speedily deleting. The other two appear completely harmless. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Something surviving a TfD does not mean that there's no justification for deleting it. If a group at TfD decide to keep something in violation of policy, then they're wrong, and they get overruled. That's built into the system. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  The approved way to overturn consensus is to produce overriding consensus the other way, either by persuading the members of the first consensus to change their minds or bringing it to the attention of more eyes, as Wikipedia:consensus recommends. Ignoring consensus is divisive and inflammatory, as this page should have made clear by now. Septentrionalis 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. I'm a firm believer that community consensus trumps all, and saying that any admin can unilaterally act against the decisions of the community because of his own interpretation of how T1 applies is, IMO, dead wrong and just an invitation to begin wheel-warring. Wheel-warring, especially over something as insignificant as userboxes, is among the most counterproductive behaviors and should be avoided at all costs. I'll look over the TfD, and if there's anything fishy about it, I may change my opinion. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, that's not correct. What if consensus says, "let's go ahead and violate copyright"? What if consensus says, "let's forget about writing an encyclopedia and use Wikipedia as a free webhost"? Then consensus is wrong. Not even WP:Consensus supports your idea that "consensus trumps all". -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Consensus established and supports those policies in the first place. If there is ever consensus to forget about the encyclopedia, WP has failed; and in that counterfactual case, we might as well make it a free webhost, and if necessary go looking for computers to replace Jimbo's. The queston of fact (is this a copyvio?) is also settled by consensus when debateable; the TfD seems to quite clearly show that deleting the Hell template is divisive. Septentrionalis 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  In your hypothetical argument that the community would vote to violate a copyright, that's when WP:OFFICE comes into play. By "trumps all," I only meant that it trumps the whim of one admin. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and bury them deep as per GTBacchus, Cyde and Doc. Consensus cannot be allowed to overrule common sense, and it's clear that consensus is going against templated userboxes at this time anyway. We need a new definition of "template" if "I'm an elitist" and "I'm going to hell" are considered proper template messages. - Nhprman 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all, they are humorous and not inflammatory. Crumbsucker 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete there is no T1 criteria that applies to humorous, harmless, and non-divisive, non-inflammatory, non-polemical boxes such as these. Speedy deletion particularly troubling in light of the recent TFD on User Hell. --Dschor 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is now. Nandesuka 11:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• strong delete and seal with concrete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's the core and ultimate principle. Wikipedia is not an entertainment place. Any process, policy, rule etc that doesn't take part on that principle should be ignored. Anything that it's implied by that core principle is not wrong. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and get to the "pedia" part of Wikipedia. Ral315 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all Most of all the "Hell" template... With a 29-1 vote in favor of keeping just days ago - why are we here again? Why aren't all religious userboxes deleted? Just absurd. SKELETOR666 04:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because Wikipedia is not a democracy.. Nandesuka 11:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all to encourage following of process. TheJabberwʘck 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for all as a complete waste of space, as well as political and divisive. move to user space if you want them. -User:AKMask|User_talk:AKMask 05:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User Hell, keep deleted the other two. User Hell seems like more of a joke than anything inflammatory. I agree with the assessment of the other two. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all of them. Everyking 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the last two. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all three deleted. Particularly note that under the new T1, all three qualify as speedies. Nandesuka 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see, unbeknownst to most people, some individuals stealthily changed the policy to promote their own viewpoint. Good show, folks. Very smart. User:Grue''' Grue ''' 11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It was especially tricky the way they invisibly discussed the issue on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion and how they silently and quietly announced the changes on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), thus guaranteeing that no one would discover it. Those perfidious sneak-thiefs! Nandesuka 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, those nefarous, sneaky Rouge Admins must be stopped! Er wait... I'm the one that first tried to get the change to stick this time. And so far it is sticking. As others say, the change documents what the emerging consensus here seems to be... all of these sorts of things need to not be in template space. The old T1 admitted of too much wiggle room. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually I'm not sure that these do qualify as speedies under the new T1, but we'll find out. The new, lovable, praiseworthy T1, bless its drafters, isn't necessarily going to deal with every dumb userbox. It's just going to solve the pressing problem of what to do about political, religious, etc., userboxes - if its sponsors can make it stick. Er, I'm one of those of sponsors. I've gone rouge already. Metamagician3000 13:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first one, and sure undelete the other two aswell. Does nobody have a sense of humour? --Falcon9x5 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above Larix 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete "It's a joke Joyce." Avalon 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (all) - none of them serve an encyclopædic purpose, all are (to an extent) divisive, and yet further process-wonkery (a "proper" deletion "debate") doesn't, either. James F. (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, watch it buddy. Process==goodness and Policy==goodness, when used appropriately. That's why getting T1 changed is the correct action... "Out of process deletion"=="loads of annoyed editors" ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (a process wonk)
• Keep the first two deleted - they have no value for the preparation of an encyclopedia. GRBerry 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T1. Cynical 21:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted T1 (2/3 at least - the other one's just useless), unencyclopedic, certainly unsuitable for Template namespace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted unencyclopedic.--Tbeatty 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete All These are intended to be humorous and as far as the unencylopedic claims the Userboxes are for use in your User Page and not in an article.--Lzygenius 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first one, and the last two, Open a moderated discussion reviewing their contributions to humour. I just recently dealt with a Bad Faith Nom of User Hell, which resulted in a week long debate that passed without questioning that it was not due to be deleted. Now I return to Wikipedia and I find that another user has deleted the box without discussion again, citing similar reasoning as the first bad faith nom. I'm saddened. The debate [seen here] clearly states that the template in question was NOT offensive to the majority of wikipedians that took the time to vote. I'm serious, this is really silly sometimes. I don't use userboxes as a way to judge a person, and no one else seriously should either. Some aren't even meant to be serious. I was considering the "Living in a Cave" box for my page, until I saw this. Now I guess it'll be deleted as "Dividing those who live above ground from those who live in caves". Analogies only, my friends. I'm only tired of dealing with a lack of proper research and debate. Logical2u 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete All and list the last 2 on TFD, the first one was already there. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all. Rampant deletion of userboxes is wasting everyone's time and worse for the encyclopedia than the boxes themselves, which are harmless. Sarge Baldy 19:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• The User Hell template must be kept as it doesn't harm anyone, who wants to include it in its page includes it, who dosen't want doesn't include it. Where's the problem? For the other two, do what you wish. --Hard Rock Thunder 09:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Supporting deletion and Subst'ing does not harm these boxes. It simply moves them from Template space to User space. People can still include them on thier user pages if they wish. Supporting "keep" simply means they will be in Tfd over and over again because these are not appropriate as Templates (tools for building an encyclopedia.) - Nhprman 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• The only time User Hell was in TfD was when one user decided that it was "blasphemous" and nominated it (out of process, I might add). No one else cared. In fact, until recently, there were maybe one or two a day. Saying it'll go there over and over is flawed unless one or two people decide to nom them over and over. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• undelete none of these ever met T1 or the new t2 thats being rammed through...Mike McGregor (Can) 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete of course - this is just common sense. All are funny and can't harm anyone who doesn't have an extremely bloated ego. Mrmaroon25 19:42 PM, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2

• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• Template:User Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)