Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ezekiel53746 vandalism warnings

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete all by clear consensus. The main arguments for keeping them, apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, were (a) that users should have freedom to experiment to see whether the standard warnings can be improved on, and (b) that Ezekiel could, without contravening any policy, have used these manually, and could continue to do so if even if these are deleted. As regards (a), there is agreement that these particular warnings are not an improvement on the standard ones, and in reply to (b) it has been well argued that if he made a practice of using these warnings, sooner or later it would be noticed and he would be asked to stop, which is effectively what has happened here. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ezekiel53746 vandalism warnings


These vandalism warning templates created by Ezekiel53746 are inappropriate for warning vandals. Some of them are uninformative, all of them are unprofessional. He has been warned about their use (you can see a collapsed section on User talk:Ezekiel53746 entitled "Ezekiel's Warning Templates AND Over-Humorous Personality Critics") but continues to use them. He insists that they are okay and just a product of his "overly humorous" personality (a personality which seems to be guiding him towards a block...). These warnings have no need on Wikipedia, especially from an inexperienced user who is not being very productive. either way (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree; there is no need for these. Vandalism warnings should be professional-sounding, and there already are warning templates. There would be no point in keeping these, even if they were more appropriately written.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then why are userspace templates allowed? LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:OSE. The fact that there are userspace templates does not automatically mean that every single template someone decides to make should be kept.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. They are his templates. He shall do as he pleases with them. He understands that his over-humorous personality will eventually lead to a block on him. Also, from what I understand, the deletion policy does not apply to templates in userspace, from what I know. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does the deletion policy forbid such deletions? This certainly falls under the deletion policy for reasons such as "Redundant or otherwise useless templates" and "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace."  These warnings are immature, inappropriate, and do not reflect the tone that is needed for vandalism work.  Sure, they are "his" templates, but "his" templates need to align with Wikipedia policy and standards.  As it stands, they do not.  Also, what part of the speedy keep guidelines does this meet?  A simple "keep" is more appropriate.  either way (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it falls under "Redundant or otherwise useless templates", then why do we still allow users to make their own custom userspace warnings? Why do we even have warnings in the first place? Also, "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace." is null and void here, as userspace can be used for almost anything. That means that users can have warning templates in their own userspace. They are not immature or inappropriate, as I see no NSFW content or inappropriate content in any of them, nor any curse words. (nor censored ones for that matter) Also, may I request a link to the page that gives guidelines on userspace templates? LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Immature and inappropriate as in the language used in them are not professional and correct for this kind of situation. See Fluffernutter's analysis for exactly what I mean.  either way (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't linked me to the place where there are guidelines on userspace templates. Also, may I reference this? LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. I'm part of WikiProject templates, and those are my entries. You can't delete them! The old warnings seem...stale. D: Okay? Let's just forget about this and move along? PLEASE :( Ezekiel!  Talk to meh. See what I'm doin'. 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you are a part of the project does not mean we cannot delete them. either way (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete poorly worded (e.g. "Please, improve instead of doing nonsense") and completely unnecessary. These add no extra clarity or explanation. Use the approved warnings templates please  Jebus989 ✰ 20:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. I'll fix that noticeable point. Anything else? Ezekiel!  Talk to meh. See what I'm doin'. 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this right here is what we need. We need to try using aalternative to deleting first, before simply resorting to MfDing these. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain, from the perspective of the recipient, how these templates improve upon existing ones. And why, given some uses here clearly would rather you didn't use them, you are so keen to do so?  Jebus989 ✰ 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * English please? Anyway, just because these may not be as good as the approved warning templates, doesnt mean that WP:REDUNDANT applies here. Again...
 * "If that is so, then why are userspace templates allowed? LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)" LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Allowing userspace templates does not mean any and every template someone sticks in their userspace is immune to deletion. Also, the language I'm using is English  Jebus989 ✰ 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know; I just didn't understand what the crap you said is all. Also, I quoted my own comment since it seemed you based your delete off WP:REDUNDANT. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redundant to the standard templates in intent, greatly inferior to them in content. "I don't wanna" anything doesn't belong in semi-official communication - we speak English here, not txt - calling new users "friend" can sometimes be offensive in its informality, and all those exclamation points need to go back to the exclamation point farm, where they can be adopted by someone who's not hoarding them. Our standard warning templates have been calibrated through research and trial-and-error to be appropriate, inoffensive, and non-threatening; these templates are not, and if I received one of these warnings as a new vandal, my reaction would probably be "lawl, lookit these jokers, *I* speak better English than that!" and not "Oh, this is a professional project that actually cares that I'm doing nonconstructive stuff, maybe I should stop." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Also, in response to "these are mine, you can't delete them" and "he can do what he pleases with them"...no. He can't. This is Wikipedia. If he wants to have his templates somewhere where he has sole control of them, their content, and their existence, he needs to make his own wiki, because on Wikipedia, even userspace belongs to the community. Although we're more lenient about what is allowed in userspace, and how much control a user has over its content, users do not and will never have sole control or the ability to veto the community about what belongs in their userspace. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDUNDANT. Standardized templates already exist. Srobak (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again:
 * "If that is so, then why are userspace templates allowed? LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)"
 * And I'm not sure if this is in violation of the ANI resolution, but I don't think it is. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Something to consider: If he keeps the templates in a swipe text file on his computer, can he add them to talk pages from there? Sometimes I will personally go to a user's talk page and issue them a warning for some specific one-off thing, and I'm sure I've done so and made mistakes in my grammar and in my content. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course he can. There is nothing that can stop him from doing so. (aside from a block) However, that doesn't nessecarily mean it will stay there. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it happened. Ezekiel!  Talk to meh. See what I'm doin'. 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He can, but he would likely be blocked for subverting a deletion decision by doing that. either way (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fluffernutter said exactly what I was thinking. The standard templates work, and they work well. The templates listed for deletion here are both informal and unprofessional. Additionally, the use of these "new" templates will prove to be bothersome when attempting to warn a user with a tool such as Huggle. MJ94 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Fluffernutter et al. -- Klein zach  03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing admin – Please note that this was canvassed here. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 03:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here too, if it wasn't already obvious from the above comments  Jebus989 ✰ 06:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep none of those templates are uncivil or would be reverted if he typed them out by hand. So we're telling him he can keep them in a .doc file and paste them onto pages, but can't use a template?  I just don't see the harm here.  HominidMachinae (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of them would be reverted necessarily, but eventually, others would notice the content of the warnings and talk to him.  That is precisely what happened here; he was using them and other users came along to ask him to stop.  No one is telling him he should copy them into a Word file and just use them from there, however, there are some telling him he can.  either way (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * delete This is the 2nd go-around about these templates. See my comments at: User talk:Ezekiel63745 from October 2010. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Useless, and the wording is bad.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: Ezekiel53746 was indefinitely blocked last night for disruptive editing. Whether that has any bearing on the handling of this MfD, I don't know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly written, redundant, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G5 Ezekiel53746 is indefblocked for disruptive editing. nymets2000  ( t / c / l ) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. G5 only applies when the user made it in violation of their block or ban. In this case, the user made it before they were blocked. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Laughably, is also indefblocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant and rather silly copies of the user warning template series. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of us have such personally adapted versions also; I keep my own as keyboard macros in TextExpander rather than as templates, but the effect is the same. Nothing he says in them is against policy. It's not as if out standard messages were so perfectly appropriate and friendly that anything else should be discouraged;  experimentation with variations, rather, is something that  should   be encouraged  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Warning #5A is the most inappropriate warning to use. That warning is used to shout at other users such as yelling out, "Stop RIGHT NOW!!!!". If anyone shouts repeatedly on this wiki, the shouters may be blocked from editing. Very impersonating warning and must be deleted. StormContent (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant versions of the uw series. In addition to that, the wording is unprofessional, and warnings going from 1 to 5 assume too much good faith. -- Σ  talk  contribs  20:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – These warnings are redundant to the normal ones, the level 5 warnings are extremely unprofessional, and Huggle (and other related vandalism-reverting tools) would likely have difficulty recognizing them (if they were indeed used). — mc10 ( t / c ) 05:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant, unprofessional and borderline offensive warnings that give harm Wikipedia's reputation and do nothing to help our vandalism problems. --Slon02 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.