Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User autoreview

Closing instructions 
 * 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 keep.--Aervanath (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:User autoreview

 * Since moved to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer

This is a rather unusual nomination as far as userboxes go. This userbox is not derogatory or anything like that. However, it does encourage a view about autoreviewer that we should avoid; people should not care about having this "right". The entire point of the  usergroup was to help New Page Patrollers out as they patrol articles;it's an entirely "behind the scenes" thing. If users did not even notice that it was added to their account, it would not matter at all. There is no conceivable benefit to having this userbox, as it is easy to identify users in the  usergroup through other methods, and it is best to avoid   being seen as a status symbol or an extra hat to collect. NW ( Talk ) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Something we don't need is more users trying to collect these flags as status symbols. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to userspace. This would be akin to a userbox that said "this user is autoconfirmed": this tool is granted with one specific purpose, and is even granted without the knowledge of the recipient in some cases. This template seems a bit pointless to me. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, although this seems self-promoting, we have a rollback template that is similar to this, and that is on many user pages. I know that this might seem unnotable, but why not have a template concerning your userright. As long as we don't have anybody being affected, there is no need to get rid of it. I agree that it is at the level of the autoconfirmed users, but not everyone can be confirmed as an autoreviewer and rollbacker. This is just like having the administrator template. As I said before, this isn't harming anyone and can be useful in a short notice on the userpage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per PeterSymonds' reasoning. - T'Shael,  Lord of the Vulcans  01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that we have Template:User rollback, I don't think it makes any sense to delete this UBX but not that one. This isn't to say I don't disapprove of the two (and maybe more, similar) boxen, but I don't support deleting one and leaving the other, since they're the same thing, just a different permission. ÷seresin 06:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe the nominator put it perfectly: that we don't need this to be another hat to collect. And while the admin userbox is similar, it can be useful for Wikipedians to know whether a user is an administrator or not when it comes to asking for help with certain tasks, etc., especially for new Wikipedians who may not know where to find admins otherwise (I know that I stumbled across an admin with a userbox long before I ever encounterd WP:LA). I also agree that Template: User Rollback should have the same fate as this userbox, whichever way this MfD goes. – DroEsperanto(talk 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It serves to advertise a project ion functionality, and doesn't hurt.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Advertise a... what? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Advertises Autoreviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the argument about avoiding "status" impressions, but that doesn't seem like a real issue for this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer for consistency and clarity. (✅) I realize that some editors like to collect these rights like shiny coloured baubels, but that's not the userboxes' fault. –xenotalk 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Violates nothing. And unless we prune down the total number of userboxes, barnstars and the like,  removing it proves little. Collect (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Users are allowed and at times even encouraged to display their roles within the project. In this instance, among other things, users with questions about any new autoreview functionality might be assisted in knowing whom they might ask. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per NYBrad's rationale - I feel that such encouragement is bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So when someone posted the tags on my userpage that I had been chosen as an administrator and later an arbitrator, I should have reverted him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should you have? Well, it depends on what kind of image that you want to produce. If "being an admin is no big deal", which meant that it doesn't give you a special status, then why would you feel the need to display that status in some kind of fancy manner that seems more like collecting decorations than anything else? If our primary concern is to edit an encyclopedia and not be myspace, why have any such things? You can see from my own user page where I stand on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, Why do you feel that such encouragement (of role display) is bad? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I spend a lot of time working on a very large to do list in 18th and 19th century literature that are completely ignored but have tons of sources that are easy to get a hold of. There are major authors that could have 100-200 pages added to Wikipedia with hundreds of sources to use for information that aren't being completed because we just don't have people willing to put forth the effort. But we do have people willing to decorate their user page. We are an encyclopedia, no? Then lets ban the myspacing and encourage people to help me. I want an encyclopedia, and Literature articles are barely up to 1% of content completed, if that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, largely as per Editors matter, because harassing editors who fuss and fiddle in userspace is likely to drive good and potentially good editors away from wikipedia completely, and because I don’t believe that it will encourage the fussing fiddlers to take an interest and develop aptitude in serious literature. On the contrary, I think your interest would be better served in attracting interested editors if your userpage did contain focused userboxes and other links to wikiprojects.  These things catch the eye of casual visitors who take an interest in your activities.  As it is, your userpage strikes me as reflecting a person who knows what he is doing and who likes to work alone.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is busy with their user page, they are not busy with article space. Their priorities are completely backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per that line of reasoning, your priorities could be declared similarly "backwards" because you could have been working on an article rather than commenting here. But, as we all know, there's more to Wikipedia than simply the articles themselves. Providing incentive through some fun side activities can't do anything but encourage participation and collaboration. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. By pushing for a delete, the loss of time here would be countered by the even greater gain of people being left with one less myspacing option and thus pushed towards editing an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why not eliminate userpages altogether? No fun, only work here at Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because user pages are able to accomplish what mine accomplishes - help in working on various items. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone shares your all-business, no-frills philosophy. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence why people like you are supporting these boxes. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Hurts nothing. Most userboxes are relatively useless, when it comes down to it. Until those are pared down to identifying only the quality of a user's contributions or some other similarly businesslike purpose, there's no reason to selectively restrict which kinds of interests or characteristics contributors are allowed to display. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurts nothing is not a valid keep. There are many things that "don't hurt" that are specifically not allowed here. See WP:NOT. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but no argument I have read here in favor of deletion convinces me at all. The default is to keep the status quo unless deletion is convincingly advocated. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And playing the WP:NOT card is a very weak justification for deletion. What specifically about this template is prohibited, in your opinion? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Attention!- Guys, stop arguing about who is better. I don't think that we need to war over this on a deletion page. We all have our likes and dislikes, and no user is better than another user, as we all share a same goal. Please show a bit of maturity here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite opposite, there are definitely users who are better than others, otherwise, no one would ever be banned nor would people become admin. There is no egalitarian society. This is a meritocracy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about you two saying that the each had a better view on what the ideal editor was. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (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.