Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Listroiderbob/tagging

 __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 No conensus to delete - Default Keep. This discussion has strayed away from the main topic: Is this userbox disruptive to the project? To that question, consensus has not emerged that it is, and WP:AGF goes a LONG way. Additionally, the box links to WP:TAGGING, which covers how tags can be used constructively, and when they should be avoided--users that support the message of that essay. — xaosflux  Talk 03:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Listroiderbob/tagging


This is going to be a fine line but I think userbox crosses into WP:POLEMIC territory. I think we already have a problem with looking like we attack new users with the tagging stuff. It's not the best part of the project and I think we should move to policing and removing more of it. I don't know if editors posting that they "enjoy" "tagging" pages, not "fixing or correcting" but purely "tagging" which I think is something that doesn't generate good will here. We do have some userboxes that contain policy mentions like these (Template:User inline citations, Template:User wikipedia/No personal attacks, Template:User Apostrophe Abuse, Template:User RV War and Template:User nolinkspam, User:UBX/zero-tolerance) but I'd say they aren't so direct as this one. We have some that are clearly more satirical, humorous and clearly aren't meant to be divisive (Grammar "nazi" with Template:User Grammar nazi for example or being out to "bite" vandals like User:RadicalOne/UBX Design/BiteVandals). I don't know, if it was something closer to "looking for", "identifying" problems, I'd be ok but seeing that on the page of a user who I'm not happy about or confused about just seems to be against collegiality. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I only examined this template following a request here. I don't know why I was asked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is potentially damaging to wikipedia. It encourages incompetent editing and for editors to essentially vandalise articles and irritate newbies and established editors by slopping lots of tags on them instead of making the necessary improvements. Any user who professes to enjoy adding tags really should not be permitted to edit period. It's pretty much the same as "I enjoy vandalising wikipedia and poking fun at its content". It's our duty as editors to try to ensure that most articles are not tagged and free of issues, not encourage a climate of tagging as many of articles as possible and boasting about it. I have a sense of humour, but not on subjects which encourage incompetence which is already prevalent on the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, Ricky, it is a fine line, but this goes beyond it as far as I'm concerned. It's not an attempt to be humerous or to show a positive attribute. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are two problems. First, tagging can be helpful, each of us cannot always fix every problem we find, tagging helps other people find problems to fix them, maybe some people are proud of articles they wrote but if a problem is found, pointing to the problem is not vandalism. Second, this is just a userbox, not the activity, even if we wanted to stop the activity, deleting the userbox will not deliver that, if we deleted User wikipedia/RC Patrol would everybody stop RC patrol? If somebody deletes User Loves Minecraft will my niece stop wasting all her day with Minecraft? Spumuq (talq) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No editor on wikipedia should be boasting about enjoying tagging articles. We may as well have a userbox entitled "I enjoy vandalising wikipedia" then based on your perception of the situation.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagging is not vandalizing. Tagging is pointing to a problem, some people enjoy finding problems and it helps problems get fixed, this is not vandalizing. But even if tagging was vandalizing, you do not explain why deleting this userbox will stop people doing it. If somebody deletes User Loves Minecraft will this stop my niece wasting all her day with Minecraft? If you think tags are so bad, try to delete the tag templates themselves, then other people will explain to you how the tags are useful. Spumuq (talq) 15:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Often it is though, we work in an environment where lazy editors can't be bothered to fix issues themselves and enjoy plastering tags on articles. They create a mess and do nothing to fix the problem. If an article has a very minor issue and rather than simply adding a source or something the editor will happily add 3 or 4 tags on it instead then that for me constitutes vandalism and makes the article aesthetically far worse. Ziguinchor Region for instance was tagged nearly 6 years ago. Had the person who originally tagged it simply added a source and a bit the article would be improved and without the tag. They're really not helpful. The user box basically says "I enjoy picking holes in wikipedia", it's a bad reflection of the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is to say you enjoy "tagging" which is not necessarily considered a positive. If I put up a userbox that said "I enjoy nominating shitty pages for deletion" or "I enjoy deleting new pages that aren't ready", it's in line and useful to the encyclopedia but terribly inappropriate. Again, "I enjoying identifying problems" with a link to tagging I think we can live with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, it's the "enjoy" tagging part I have a problem with.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – Spumuq's thoughtful points are admirable, but on balance I think what seems the cynical nastiness of the page is a bad reflection on Wikipedia and should be dispensed with. We get quite enough flak from the press, and pinpricks of unpleasantness like this do WP's reputation no good at all.  Tim riley  talk    16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not a constructive userbox nor can I believe how anybody can enjoy tagging pages other with the intent to annoy good faith editors. Anybody with a userbox like that cannot be taken seriously with useful abilities such as content building. There would be many more benefits out of deleting it rather than keeping it. ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - assume good faith. Honestly when I started out editing Wikipedia years ago I did enjoy tagging articles with cleanup tags. It is an elegant way to notify readers and other editors of potential problems with a page, and/or attract more experienced editors to fix problems. Of course, I learned with experience that actually fixing the problems is much better and much more appreciated. Still, that doesn't make someone who uses cleanup tags a vandal or an unwelcome user. Someone tagging gratuitously would be considered disruptive and we might cluebat them, but I don't think this userbox implies a penchant for disruption at all. Ivanvector (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Elegant? Slopping tags on an article is about as elegant as a janitor emptying the contents of a Shank public toilet into the soup of a guest at the Ritz! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, elegant. A cleanup tag is a clean, consistent way to highlight issues in an article, and adds to hidden maintenance categories that interested users can watch. Actually fixing the problems is of course better. Ivanvector (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Is this an MfD on the userbox or an RfC on whether we should continue to use cleanup tags? Concensus on Wikipedia is that cleanup tags are constructive, so if a user enjoys adding them, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to advertise that fact any less than they should be able to advertise any other editing they do around here. True, simply adding them and not ever improving anything proabably helps less than making changes to the article, but doing away with the userbox on these grounds is assuming a community-wide concensus that tags are bad that I don't think can be achieved in this MfD. &#160; Discant X  09:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most (decent) editors I know find people who slop mass tags on articles without making an ounce of effort to improve them lazy and annoying. I'd hardly call that a community-wide "concensus" as you so wonderfully spelled it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not arguing that adding them without making improvements is desirable. I'm saying that adding tags to Wikipedia articles is a type of editing that exists here. It seems like deletion of this userbox would be based off of feelings toward a certain style of editing, rather than the contents of the userbox itself. &#160; Discant X  10:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Blofeld's argument is the No true scotsman fallacy. A lot of editors use tags, and tags point to improvements we can make, but according to Dr Blofeld "Decent" editors hate tags, this is a fallacy. Spumuq (talq) 12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the user box read "This user tags articles for problems" I'd have no qualms about it. But it's the "enjoy" part I object to, we're here to try to build the best possible encyclopedia, not have fun proving how crap it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have changed your mind, and now you think tagging is important but editors must do it with sadness and regret, that still does not answer the question, how you will achieve that social change by deleting this userbox. Spumuq (talq) 14:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't twist my words. I've made myself quite clear.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That still does not answer the question, how you will achieve that social change by deleting this userbox? Spumuq (talq) 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think listing articles for deletion is productive as well but that doesn't mean announcing that I enjoy getting rid of articles is encouraging to others. Adding tags is a productive way to improve articles; the userbox can focus on the improvement not the tagging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ricky81682, (enjoying) listing articles for deletion can be encouraging to others. It means you care about pointing out flaws in this encyclopedia and looking for ways to cut out the cruft. I think I would feel the same on this as a 'regular' user of Wikipedia who sees a tag would, in that every time I see a clean up tag I know that I should look at the article slightly more dubiously, and that someone has taken their time out of their day to mark it so. &#160; Discant X  10:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But is a userbox announcing it encouraging? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But I'm not too sure that it matters. It's not destructive to the project to be advertising it, and we have plenty of userboxes that aren't encouraging to many (ie religious/political affiliations, declarations of their love of beer, etc). So long as a user isn't blatantly declaring their intent to purposefully disrupt Wikipedia, I don't see that it matters that they advertise something like this. I feel like someone who would use this would be doing so in good faith; regardless of whether or not anyone here personally would use it or subscribes to that particular editing style, someone does, and I don't see that it causes any harm. &#160; Discant X  09:30, 4 March 2015 (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.