Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rogue 9/Userboxes/Delete deletionists

 __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:  keep. The slightly unsettling wordage has been removed, closing as keep per apparent consensus. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Rogue 9/Userboxes/Delete deletionists

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Do we really need a userbox attacking/threatening(?) another group of Wikipedians, which is basically designed to inflame destructive user infighting in the name of stopping WRONGness? Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral/leaning keep on the user box. I don't know what our normal practice is regarding userboxes but I don't know how much reach this one has or how much anyone cares whether or not it exists. Seems relatively harmless if not really well-intentioned. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it’s fairly harmless, but at the same time it’s undeniably rather belligerent and I can’t see it as being anything resembling WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not super familiar w/ recent practice vis a vis userboxes, so my opinion might be out of step with that. I also don't know how widely it is copied. If the "what links here" tool reports transclusions and links accurately then this is a bit of effort for a userbox with a use count of one. I remember seeing this userbox more than one place before but that was years and years ago so either folks have ceased using it or that tool isn't where I want to go to measure usage. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This userbox, like most of the ones on my page, is an artifact of the 2012 consensus (which followed the 2006 controversy, which boiled up again that year) that resulted in the proper course of action for userboxes being to move them to the user space as a subpage of your own userpage, so naturally this resulted in many copies of it, and hundreds of others, being spread around. Because of this, there is no central tool to measure usage because they're not all from the same source.  Rogue 9 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep What's with this out of nowhere vendetta?  Rogue 9 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not remotely a vendetta. If I see a disruptive userbox, I look at who’s using it since they might have more disruptive boxes. I had no idea you existed until today. Dronebogus (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly I find that difficult to believe, since the only way you'd have found this one is by going to my userpage to begin with, and it was the first thing you nominated. I certainly want to assume good faith, but the facts on the ground in the form of the timestamps show that it's highly improbable that you found this elsewhere, since it's linked nowhere else. Rogue 9 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn’t I just say I look at who’s using it, i.e. you? Dronebogus (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you know I was using it? That's what I'm saying, the literal only link to this template is my userpage; the only way to find it is through my userpage. There was no way to simply stumble across it independent of my userpage. Rogue 9 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. —Sundostund (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - A literal reading is that the user favors killing editors who have a different encyclopedic philosophy. A more plausible reading is that the editor favors banning editors based on their encyclopedic philosophy, and we don't need that.  Maybe the userbox doesn't mean anything, and we don't need it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh. Probably weak keep regardless, but ditch the "violent" and I think we're good here. Saying "I don't like deletionism/deletionists" is pretty standard fare on talk pages, and personally, I find this hard to take as a real desire for violence, but not everybody reads things the same way (or has the same level of familiarity with English). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The word "violent" was removed, which I believe is good enough for WP:UBCR. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 20:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not seeing a real reason to delete this. --Bduke (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Deleting the deletionists" is not threatening given the context. I am fine with the userbox now that the word "violent" has been removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least in its current state. Harmless, imv, even kind of funny as a cynical view on the deletionist–inclusionist tensions. Ovinus (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2022 (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.