Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep Hiding talk 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts
Votestacking pages are antithetical to consensus. Currently being used to break WP:TFD. (Of course, using a consensus-based process to delete a page whose purpose is to subvert a consensus-based process is probably futile, as the hordes of users who think Wikipedia should be MySpace will shortly prove.) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep
 * 1) Firstly, Wikipedians with userboxes DO NOT believe that Wikipedia should be turned into MySpace, Livejournal, or whatever. That is simply nonsense.
 * 2) Secondly, what is wrong with letting people know what is being considered for deletion? Is it any different then leaving notices on people's talk page if something they created is being considered for deletion?
 * 3) There's no evidence that this involves "votestacking." There is no solicitation to vote "Keep" for a userbox that could be deleted. I wish this userbox debate would stop. A non-formal consensus appears to dictate that userboxes should be allowed as long as they do not attack others. Now if you'll kindly excuse me, I have an encyclopedia I need to help write. -- D -Day 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No evidence? Are you really disputing that? &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Whatlinkshere for the alerts page and found only 1 person linking this from a TFD page as a possible stacking. This out of hundreds of userbox TFD discussions is hardly evidence.--God of War 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatlinkshere, last I checked, does not show who has watchlisted a page. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This page has been around for awhile and has undergone a number of modifications. I think the name alerts in mis-comprehended. This page was created because both sides felt like they were missing out on the userbox debates as some would be speedily deleted and then reversed at Deletion Review. As you can see from this quote:


 * ... in fact I put it on my watchlist because I oppose most of the POV userboxes."
 * That's a misrepresentation of what I said, God of War. I watchlisted the page after it came into existence, I did not ask for it originally. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * People that seek to eradicate userboxes use this page also.


 * This page is not an attempt at vote stacking. It only chronicles the deletion of userboxes in a neutral fashion so that everyone can have a more enlightened view of the userbox debate. It is an extension of the logs page WikiProject Userboxes/Logs showing discussions in process on both the Deletion Review page and the TFD page. I view this box as helping to keep wikipedia processes more transparent and open so that everyone can be more informed while the debating the merits of the userbox project.--God of War 19:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no violation of Wikipedia policy in having a list of a subset of pages currently being considered for deletion. So far, attempting to delete userboxes seems to have caused more disruption than the boxes themselves. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per D-Day. &mdash;Andux 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I'd dispute that "(t)his page was created because both sides felt like they were missing out on the userbox debates" - it was created as a subpage of the Wikiproject and used by them primarily to warn users about votes. Since Wikiproject:Userboxes users are more likely to vote 'keep' (I can compile the evidence if it's really needed, but I have better things to do), this could be seen as votestacking. However it has since evolved into something more neutral, and may be worth saving. Both/many sides of this debate are playing dirty pool, with a lot of points being scored/made. I don't personally care if it stays or goes, but I didn't want it to be misrepresented. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly why there is a proposed move right now here...Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes/Alerts--God of War 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If you want to know what's up for deletion, watch the deletion pages. --Doc  ask?  20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be great if it were that simple, however userboxes are frequently and unfairly speedily deleted. This page lists the deletion review discussions for those boxes as well.--God of War 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to know what's up for review, watch the deletion review pages. --Doc ask?  22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is an obvious attempt at vote stacking, which violates WP:POINT. That said, it's been proven in the past that any serious attempt at vote stacking can stack votes against their own deletion, so this remark is likely moot. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I'm sorry if you don't like the results of TFD, but denying people the right to be informed is not the way to rectify it. BTW, I might point out that this could just as easily be used by the anti-userbox extremists. --Dragon695 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Informing people who have experesed an interest of relevant discussions is not agaisnt policy, nor is it bad, and describing it as "vote stacking" does not make it so, IMO. DES (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely agree with DES. Larix 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is vote stacking, sort of, and normally not to be countenanced, but in this case... what did you expect? Herostratus 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Definitely seems like an attempt at votestacking to me. It's pretty much impossible to get any template (even a blatantly offensive one) deleted because of this centralized votestacking effort.  And frankly, I think being accused of being a fascist because of these views violates civility.  -- Cyde Weys  10:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Djadek 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with tracking deletion, undeletion, debate and whatnot in a single area. Sysops have three noticeboards for their purposes. This page isn't partisan; I could if I wished to pop it on my watchlist and go around voting delete on lots of userboxes. I do think we've got a problem with vote stacking, or rather unconscious skewing of deletion debates on userboxes, but I don't think it's due to this alert page, which I'm sure many people who vote on tfd and the like are completely unaware of.  No the reason why we have this skewing is that people with userboxes spend a lot of time on their user pages and they're likely to notice if one of the boxes has been deleted or listed for deletion.  My own research suggests that only around 10% of all active editors have any poliical or religious userboxes on their pages, but the deletion debates disproportionately feature high proportions of those very people. And that is unavoidable, and nothing to do with this page, whose maintainer is to be commended for maintaining a very well organised and useful resource.. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:TFD was broken far before this. The userbox war is over, or at least dying down, this mfd seems like nothing but another attempt to start it up again.  Karm  a  fist  16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Karmafist and per Tony Sidaway. The project itself does not promote the views expressed in any particular userboxen, and it's functionally no different than any other "deletion watch". &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  17:08, Jan. 31, 2006
 * Speedy Keep hardly vote-stacking or any other practice, as all Wikipedians can use it, and anyway TfD is a discussion not a vote. I think it should be moved out of the project namespace though. Ian13|talk 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. We saw what this sort of thing did to the "debate" on schools: it's no longer possible to delete an article about a school. --Carnildo 09:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I rarely agree with Tony on template deletions, but I am happy to see he is in agreement in this case.  This template should be kept as a resource for all parties with an interest in the ongoing purge of userboxes.  --Dschor 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page is not much use for poll stacking, since it is well known and bookmarked by many people on both sides of the argument. It has a valid informative role, and I see no case to delete. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should say that, on second thought, the page does have utility as a poll stacking page. Consider a page that attracts 20 people to vote for and 20 people against a motion.  Such a page would be counterproductive considered as a poll stacking operation to delete, since it would tend dilute any delete vote below the 2/3s threshold, but by the same token it would be successful as a poll stacking operation to save pages from deletion, as is the case with the userboxistas.  Nonetheless, I think the informational value of this page exceeds the poll stacking harm. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per D-Day. --Aaron 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. -- getcrunk juice  contribs 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the number of people polling here, compared to the rest of MfD, is indicative of some kind of imbalance inherent in this kind of project. However that being said, Pandora has opened the box and I'm not sure sweeping it under the rug is the best way to deal with this situation. Still not keep/delete vote from me. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely useful, organizes information. Vote stacking, if it exists, would work both ways. --F a ng Aili 04:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm ambivalent about userboxes, but it's important to have some place to keep track of this information so that people know what's going on.  The template is equally accessible to all Wikipedians regardless of their opinions on userboxes. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 08:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is very useful, as i check it daily to see what templates are up for deletion - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 20:14, 8 February 2006 (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.