Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User likes Moops

 __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The result of the discussion was:  withdrawn. BusterD makes some good points. Just to be clear, I never meant to imply that MasterMatt12 had done anything wrong. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 13:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:User likes Moops

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Moops has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so this template does not seem appropriate. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 14:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure if my opinion counts but I agree -- Grapefanatic (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. I really liked Moops. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a likable editor is a useful quality when working on Wikipedia. Almost all of us endeavor to be civil. Many dedicated disrupters have this in their toolbox, as well. My point below is that it's perfectly okay to have liked working with an editor who made errors, even gross ones. On the merits of the offending opinion (they like Moops), it's not my business. BusterD (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete there’s no “political” aspect to the block (sock puppetry is objectively wrong and universally condemned) so any respectable user would no longer want this. If you’re okay with supporting a sock master then you’re either incompetent or clearly not here to contribute productively. Dronebogus (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete if for no other reason than that annoying fly GIF which some people like to stick on their Talk Page because it's supposedly funny. I could see an argument for this being a honeytrap for future sockpuppets, but there would need to be evidence that actual socks have been caught through this template. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: Does the pagecreator User:MasterMatt12 (and only transclusion) get any say in this? I see this template was nominated 8 March, but MasterMatt12 announced themselves on brief wikibreak on 22 February. Are we extending full AGF to MasterMatt12? This userspace template is of a piece with several others at the bottom of their userpage they've created honoring a number of wikifriends in good faith. Should we be in the business of telling other wikipedians what wikifriends they should have made and commemorated? If this process closes as delete (without comment from the page creator) this discussion is literally deciding who one wikipedian's friends should and should not be. Imagine you yourself coming back from wikibreak and discovering someone you know has been forcibly "unfriended" by the community. We do not always vanish bad actors or signs thereof, and this user's pagecreation honors the actual relationship experienced and IMHO, is none of our freakin' business!!! Shall we forcibly delete the new page patrol training pages where User:Atsme was assisting her student in good faith? What does it say about our community that minority, dissenting, and sometimes historical or mistaken views are not allowed in our own userspace? Refactoring history is a mistake often made. I respectfully suggest we suspend this process until which time the only possibly offended party might express how they feel about it. BusterD (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless there's some evidence MasterMatt12 is somehow involved with bad activity, and I'm not seeing it. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Coming back from a WikiBreak and seeing Moops banned is saddening to me, and I hope that when possible he can get unbanned. I appreciate BusterD's insight on not forcing people to unfriend others because they are banned, and I think a simple "This user likes Moops and his fly" can't do much harm. It's not like we're starting a protest saying something like "This user wants Moops unbanned". As for the honey trap idea, I don't think it makes much sense. Moops is somewhat well known by the community, and I'm sure many people like Moops simply for the work he has done, and want to put the userbox on their userpage. Banning every person who put that userbox on their userpage doesn't make much sense. Also, as for the "If you’re okay with supporting a sock master then you’re either incompetent or clearly not here to contribute productively." people with this userbox may not support him being a sock master, but may like him himself and his contributions to Wikipedia. If this does get deleted though, I think it should get undeleted if/when Moops gets unbanned. (I have no connection to Moops other than Wikipedia, I don't know anything about him that he did not put on Wikipedia, and have done no paid editing or COI editing at all.)  MasterMatt12  💬 ● 📝 22:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep; This template was created 2 months ago, well before Moops was accused of any mischief. User:MasterMatt12 has done nothing incorrect or against policy. This is purely a matter for a currently active user, who has lots of latitude for how they maintain their own userspace. What they decide to do is entirely their own business, and what we decide here should err on the side of the user's wishes, not the asserted but unproven "inappropriate" content. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per BusterD. These userboxes are entirely subjective and should not be taken to have any meaning outside an individual's personal feelings, and therefore it makes little sense to judge them by objective criteria. —Alalch E. 08:33, 10 March 2023 (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.