Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/HatesUselessTaggers


 * 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 noting that there is strong support and actual activity to change the original wording to alleviate concerns at least partially. Renaming is still an option. Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:UBX/HatesUselessTaggers
Antagonistic and in breach of WP:AGF. Accusing other editors, even unspecified ones, of vandalism isn't something we should be encouraging with userboxen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Week Keep The text does not include "hate" in it. "Mindless tagging without doing any editing is a form of vandalism" is the text, and is certainly a discussible issue. As it accuses no one (in my opinion, an "accusation" must have some sort of target, while this userbox seems only to target an activity),  I fear that this is not the best example of a userbox to delete. Collect (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even when it's being used as one? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even there. Heck, I have had far worse stuff directed at me now, and I just ignore most of it.  So when this sort of thing appears, ny view is - is it really important? And it is not. Collect (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any editor would be offended by this userbox, as its sentiment is too generalised to be applicable to anyone in particular. It is a bit innocuous really, a bit like saying "property is a form of theft" or "bad spelling is an indicator of general dim-wittedness". If it was a little witty or attractive, I might even have considered putting it on my own user page. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (sits back, munches popcorn) erm, as most folks know I agree with the sentiment, but when I proposed as much it sunk like a lead balloon, hence I take it to mean my view is way off community consensus. As such, I feel a bit like I can't swing one way or t'other on this one, so may as well sit back and let the fireworks start. Chris has some points, why can't Chris and Tiki God just play paper, scissors, rock to avoid the wonderful five-day slanging match that will ensue....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can sympathize with both the nom and the userbox statement, and while I recognize the value of hyperbole I would never choose to express it in this way. Thing about this is, I just don't see it as being sufficintly prima facie incivil to merit its deletion.  The specific usage of the userbox may be problematic and incivil, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not at all in sympathy with the sentiment expressed, as I have undertaken to say more than once, but the theme is one that might reasonably be advanced, and so even as I recognize that the style is a bit more direct than that employed in most of the Userboxes/Wikipedia/Views userboxen, perhaps less-than-optimally so, I'm rather in line with Jclemens here. Joe 21:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of existing userboxes, the wording should be changed to "This user believes that mindless tagging without doing any editing is a form of vandalism". This explicitly shows that the comment is an opinion rather a declaration of fact. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its purpose is to accuse good faith users of vandalism. How can that possible serve our purpose? Hesperian 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the most relevant policy here is WP:NOTFREESPEECH: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." Hesperian 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A more helpful guideline is at "Userboxes". In my opinion, the wording is not uncivil or divisive. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Please rename the template itself though, to something less venomous.) It has always been valid to express one's opinions about Wikipedia policy and procedure on one's user pages (think of all the people describing their exclusionist/inclusionist tendencies, for example). There is nothing different here. – Outriggr § 05:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Used on a user page it just expresses an opinion about editing styles and does not violate any of the content restrictions. It's not directly attacking anybody. Bill (talk 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as this fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I agree with Hesperian, and I think the creator should go to the village pump and state their case, rather than building soapbox-type userboxes. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs to be edited to say something along the lines of "This user believes that...". As it stands at the moment, this is a statement of fact rather than just a personal opinion. Also, the word "vandalism" should be altered, as per Sjakkalle below. Bettia   (rawr!)  11:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but change "vandalism" to "disruption". The word "vandalism" implies bad faith, and is an attack at integrity, the word is overused and should be used only when the thing is truly vandalism. The word "disruption" is just as effective in getting the point across without being so personal. Anyway, the sentiment that mindless tagging is a rather useless (and in many cases, actively harmful) activity is a fully valid viewpoint, completely relevant to Wikipedia editing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep since when is expression of an opinion on a user page verboten here? What's next? removal of all the I use Linux boxes because the Mac and PC people don't like them and find them to be offensive?  Go after the faith-based boxes next?  As far as opinions go it is harmless and there is nothing here or in the box itself to merit this drama. WP:NOTSOAPBOX does not apply here since stating thios opinion is not in violation of eitehr the spirit or letter of the policy.  Web Warlock (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Outriggr and Sjakalle that it should be renamed and possibly reworded. The box does refer to "mindless tagging without editing" rather than thoughtful and considered use of the tags as a warning to readers and a collegial reminder for other editors of where an article needs work.  No problem with that, but it's not the behavior in question.  Would perhaps be helpful if someone wrote and linked an essay about the differences between beneficial and actively harmful tagging. --JayHenry (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made a couple of changes to the userbox so that it now starts with "This user believes that..." and it includes a link to WP:OVERTAGGING.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but replace vandalism with disruption per Sjakalle in the spirit of WP:OVERTAGGING.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and amend per Sjakkalle. Glass  Cobra  16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - accusing taggers of vandalism is a pretty blatant failure to WP:AGF. (And I have to ask: if people who tag articles supposedly aren't contributing anything to the encyclopaedia, then surely those who spend their time making antagonistic userboxes like this are contributing even less?) Terraxos (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the wording could be improved. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (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.