Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section''

Description
As most of Wikipedia's community knows, there is a dispute about userboxes going on. Some don't want to have POV on userpages, while other's insist that it is essential for the community Some feel so strongly about the anti-userbox war they find it necessary to speedy userboxes. That's what MarkSweep and Doc Glasglow did. On the days of February 15 & February 16, 2006. Both of them engaged in a series of speedy deletes on userboxes. The most common reasons they gave for this cause of action was "T1"(referring to the new speedy deletion policy), "divisive", and "inflammatory", among others. Intrestingly enough, most of those userboxes didn't even meet criteria for speedy deletion. MarkSweep in particular has also taken the action of leaving messages on user talk pages warning users to "Please stop disrupting DRV. This is your only warning. ". Not only that, MarkSweep apparently is trying to make decisions by himself only, and does not look to consensus. He has also closed Tfd debates for userboxes with statements such as "The result of this debate was intresting. This userbox has been speedy deleted. Doc Glasglow has been civil towards other users, but has participated in mass deletions.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14) Deletion_review/Userbox_debates
 * 15) User talk:Physchim62
 * 16) *response at User talk:Guanaco
 * 17) -Mike McGregor (Can) 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) more documented actions at WP:AN/I Mike McGregor (Can) 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Template deleted by MarkSweep after removing it from many users' pages. Reason given for deletion is "orphan" - he in fact made it an orphan, justifying it's deletion (in fact even then, there is no policy to delete "orphaned" templates). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete?user=MarkSweep&page=&limit=100&offset=303 shows that he deletes a lot. Note the link isn't even the first page, there's many hundreds of deletions by him, but he seems very opposed to userboxes mainly.
 * 20) After the majority voted to undelete PREVIOUSLY ALREADY here on Deletion Review, the template was then:
 * 21) Listed on TfD by a neutral party to gain additional consensus for keeping . The result to keep was unanimous.
 * 22) Template restored as it passed both DrV and TfD with community consensus.
 * 23) Deleted by Kelly Martin completely unjustifiedably, out of process, no policy cited only "we don't need this".
 * 24) Kelly Martin's activities reported on the Incidents subsection of the Administrators' Noticeboard as abusive activity. No action taken against the former arbitrator.
 * 25) Template restored again.
 * 26) Mackensen this time deletes, again totally ignoring everyone except the small group of administrators pressurizing for this template to be deleted.
 * 27) Template restored by Grue, who is then blocked by, someone who has engaged in userbox deletions on a mass scale with Kelly Martin previously.
 * 28) then deletes the template yet again, totally ignoring the previous DrV and TfD's  here  and  here.

Applicable policies

 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 2) What Wikipedia is not
 * 3) Criteria for speedy deletion
 * 4) Use common sense
 * 5) Ignore all rules
 * 6) Civility
 * 7) Deletion policy
 * 8) Undeletion policy
 * 9) Wheel war

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) There's definitely a dispute. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) —Guanaco 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Misza13 (Talk) 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Rogue 9 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Cynical 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Stifle 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Based on the fact there is a dispute. M o e   ε  03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Grue   11:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Mike McGregor (Can) 18:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) CPR Instructor 17:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Response by Doc glasgow and MarkSweep
--Doc ask?  01:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC) --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Kelly Martin (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Bratsch  e talk 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Interiot 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) pgk( talk ) 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. You have no excuse for your actions. Please resign before it's too late.  Grue   11:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this response
RfCs are meant to be a method of acknowledging and resolving disputes through an open dialogue with everyone involved. RfCs do not normally lead to administrative action; they are simply meant to lay out a dispute in such a way that we can understand everyone's opinions. Ignoring your own RfC is, in effect, flipping the bird to the entire Wikipedia community. Ashibaka tock 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional (and final - well sort of) response by Doc glasgow
OK, not responding was perhaps a bit rude, so here is my statement. I will not debate it further, as it will do no good:


 * I applied the WP:CSD T1 policy as I interpreted it, as civilly as I could, and in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Some users interpret the policy differently. Some users dislike the policy.

--Doc ask?  14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) —Guanaco 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC) I'm certain you were acting in good faith.
 * 2) Johnleemk | Talk 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Hell yeah. I disagree with your interpretation of the policy, but I don't care whether political userboxes stay or go, so that's irrelevant to me.
 * 3) This, on the other hand, is much better, and I think I can agree with your statement. Ashibaka tock 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I feel that I must reply to the comment that Doc glasgow acted in good faith. He made numerous bad faith edits to userboxes before they were deleted. While most of those userboxes he repeatedly altered to intentionally spark conflict were later speedily deleted by himself or others, one, at least, survives. The offending edit, the only I can find that was not purged, can be seen here. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. WP:AFG only goes so far, and after all the conflict that the mass deletions of userboxes have caused, and after Jimbo's numerous statements that he did not support deletion sprees (or wheel wars), I cannot honetly assume that any mass deletion to userboxes could be considered in good faith. When Kelly Martin did it, sure. It was a mistake - an exceptionally disruptive one - but I am convinced she acted in good faith and in what she believed where Jimbo's intentions. But when it happens time and time again, by numerous other admins... I cannot continue to assume good faith when, knowing what reaction it is bound to cause, they still persist in disrupting the project by going on deletion sprees. (And Doc, it's not just you, so don't take it personally) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If folk find it hard to AGF then perhaps they should try a little harder. Painting the other side as the horrible men in black is the easiest thing to do. I could give you plenty of diffs of personal attacks, and ad homium aguements used by some of those opposed to policy (T1). Sure editing userboxes (which I think I did twice) was a little provocative (I quickly stopped it), but so was the behavior of those who created general templates and then insisted that there meaning could never be changed (see WP:OWN). This is a wiki. As evidence of my good fair, and attempts from the begining to reach a solution, I offer this . A proposal I made on January 13th (and which forms the basis of the proposal, adapted by Pathoschild and myself, currently being widely supported at Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll). I would respectfuly suggest that the only reason that Jimbo required to create T1, and admins took to mass deletions, is that the other side were uninterested in compomise, and more interested in getting folk to vote in TfD and DRV along the lines of 'OMG its a userbox - keep'. (You say that perhaps Kelly acted in good faith, wow, but where were all the pro-box people suggesting that during that horrible RfC?) There seems to be many warriors who have a vested interest in characterising this as a battle between reaonable people and fascist bad admins - well it really isn't true. For one, I've never actually been opposed to userboxes, or to free expression. My only opposition has been to divisive and partisan userbox templates - because there give the impression that wikipedia is a soapbox were the object is to defend your political/religious stances. I've always believed that what you do on your userpage is your own affair, and that quietly admitting a bias might even be useful. --Doc ask?  16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not say that others are not guilty of personal attacks and bad faith actions. However, bad faith actions by your "opponents", if you choose to see them that way, do not justify bad faith actions of your own. Furthermore, WP:AGF does not extend to the point of ignoring all bad faith actions on your part or on the parts of others. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, I am assuming good faith and I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith actions. Nor have refered to any as my 'opponents' (so I don't know why you put that in quotations as if it were my words). That's the whole problem, that people seem to want to assume bad faith and cast others as 'opponents' and make this into a 'war'. Let's avoid all of that please. This isn't black and white, there are no good guys and bad guys, just, I hope, a bunch of volunteers trying to write a good encyclopedia. Now, please assume good faith, and we can do this much easier. --Doc  ask?  00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. I respect you a lot, Doc. I usually trust your judgement. You are one of the admins who I think is a valuable resource to this project. However, it is important to realize that such deletion sprees are fully capable of leading to such disrupting lynch mobs as the one that started this mess - WP:RFC/KM (to be fair, the userbox issue had been going on for a brief while before this, but the deletion spree both angered the community and ignited an overwhelming interest in userboxes. The minor issue that userboxes were before this was nothing compared to the raging battleground they turned into after it). To engage in such deletion sprees, in spite of this, shows exceptionally poor judgement. You are correct in that I should assume good faith, but nonetheless, I do hold that such sprees are much more polemical and inflammatory than the userboxes themselves, It is true that we are an encyclopedia first, but we are also a community. When the community is running around defending userboxes (or, conversely, deleting them and subsequently defending their deletions), they are not editting articles. To be fair, both parties are at fault - the anti-userbox crusade as well as the pro-userbox crusade. But it is far more useful, both to the community and the encyclopedia, to, instead of waging war on userboxes (or on the userbox deletors), engage in civil discourse and try to reach a compromise. The proposed policy strawpoll is a step in the right direction, thankfully. But it took over two months of inflammatory debates, userbox creations, deletions, recreations, re-deletions, undeletions, deletion review debates, TFD debates, more speedies, and several missing wikipedians to accomplish this goal. When Wikipedians wage war on Wikipedians, the losers are Wikipedians. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As someone who has speedied only two userboxes in my whole life (both of which were blatantly divisive, one painting DRV/TFD as a war, and another a factionalist userbox), I find it absurd that all admins who have ever deleted a userbox are tarred with the same brush. Not everyone who supports deleting templates under T1 has the same interpretation of it. People are making a mountain out of a molehill with this. The only reason people would want a template for their userboxes is because they want uniformity, which, in certain cases, can lead to factionalism. I take a stricter interpretation of T1 than most (I only speedy/support speedying templates which are blatantly factionalist), so I find it upsetting that in the fight to eradicate factionalism/individualism/fascism on Wikipedia, we have ended up more farther apart, less individualist, and more "oppressed" than ever before. Both sides have left no room for compromise at all in this dispute; either you support T1 and intend to speedy anything where there could be more than one opinion in a heated debate, or you oppose T1 and the jackbooted fascists enforcing it. People who take the middle ground (which are a silent majority, IMO), such as (ahem) me, tend to be ignored, if they speak up at all. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this, but this is just what I have to say. (Hm. Maybe I should have added this as another outside view.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Either way, I do endorse it. Very insightful. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Drini
I see no dispute nor breaching of the policies mentioned on the summary. This RFC has no basis and thus should be dropped. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)  Bratsch  e talk 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  Jtkiefer T   03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Cyde Weys  04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) pgk( talk ) 08:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Alhutch 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) cesarb 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) -Colin Kimbrell 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Trödel&#149; talk  02:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Rx StrangeLove 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Kelly Martin
There is nothing here that demonstrates either that there exists a conflict or that any attempt to resolve it has been attempted. Nor is there even any evidence that anything was deleted... and nothing relating to Doc Glasgow at all!

No, this is an attempt to attack those who enforce existing policy against inflammatory or divisive userboxes. This policy is supported by Jimbo Wales, by the Wikimedia Board, and by a substantial portion of administrators and editors. It is objected to strenously and loudly by a small minority of noisy users, who (having already lost the debate) wish to obstruct the implementation of a policy which clearly enjoys broad support and which is clearly the right thing for Wikipedia.

This RfC is a waste of time and should be peremptorily closed. I'm not quite at the point of recommending that its authors be blocked for attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, but they're really close to the line.

Kelly Martin (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this outside view (sign with ~

 * 1)  Bratsch  e talk 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Jtkiefer T   03:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cyde Weys  04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) pgk( talk ) 07:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Alhutch 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) -Colin Kimbrell 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Midgley 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Users not endorsing(sign with ~

 * 1) UNK 10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
With all due respect, I do not believe that many people adamantly disagree with T1. The issue comes with the interpretation of T1 - it is, as written, a highly subjective criterion. Some people (myself included) believe it should only be used when the template is cleary and irrevocably divisive and of no value whatsoever to the project. A handful of templates that are deleted under T1 actually meet this much stricter interpretation, and few people actually disagree with their deletion. Then there are the people who believe that any userbox that expresses an opposing viewpoint is automatically a T1, but supportive viewpoints are considered acceptable. To which I respond, what of user supports Hitler? It would be supportive, but it would also clearly be divisive and of no value to the community but to divide it. And then there are those who take an even looser viewpoint and suggest that any template that can possibly be considered divisive by anyone has to go. To which I respond, why not empty the template namespace and block the ability to transclude? Any template could potentially be divisive. My point is that the criteria, although a good idea and certainly a common sense policy, is so subjective that opinions differ widely on what it actually means. It may be a good idea to try and hammer out a consensus on when T1 should be applied before unilaterally applying it on a universal scale. I feel that this would help alleviate a lot of the tensions and issues that are present. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by AzaToth
The major problem is that some administrators don't want to follow policies and consensus. That's rather logical from a physcological point of view, they are a small "elite" group, that have the power to ignore, to remove what they don't like, and block people they disagree with. Lately in Wikipedia there have been a shift from that administrators is ordininary users with a whip and a bucket, to a user with golden multipass.

An administrator that is abusing the community must be desysoped, and this is clearly a major abusive event. → Aza Toth 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this outside view (sign with ~

 * 1) Agreed. —Guanaco 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed Cynical 09:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed -- D -Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 11:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed. Misza13 (Talk) 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Yup. Stifle 13:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. I'm really tired of admins overriding clear concensus. F a ng Aili 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Agreed. --Aaron 14:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) I suppose mirroring some votes on userboxes to the effect of kill them with fire would be inappropriate, even though the irony would be delicious, so I won't. Nevertheless, agreed.   Rogue 9 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Desysoping could be a bi extreme, but on the whole, agreed. Ian13/talk 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Animal Farm, anyone? Mailer Diablo 22:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support this statement. M o e   ε  03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Spot on. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) You've hit it on the head. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14)   Grue   11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Agreed - although if DocGlasgow and MarkSweep are so convinced that they are NOT acting in bad faith, then require them to reapply for adminship [as opposed to simply desysopping them outright] (with the usual 75%+ support requirement), and let the community decide Cynical 16:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) CFIF (talk to me) 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) agreedMike McGregor (Can) 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Do not agree with AzaToth's psychology, but Cynical's suggestion is fully warranted. I would probably vote for Doc Glasgow, however. Septentrionalis 21:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Noisy | Talk 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Agreed. Flamarande 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Agreed, per Cynical.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 00:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Agreed, incoroporate the basis of this comment into policy. --JimmyT 10:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Agreed Discordance 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) The conflict in a nutshell.  Wh e  re  (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) --Localboy 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Agreed -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) UNK 02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Amen, my brutha.  Can I get a witness from the congregation? Lawyer2b 04:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Agreed. Larix 22:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) CPR Instructor 18:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Totally concur. Coolgamer 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by David Newton
I agree with AzaToth that we have a serious problem here. MarkSweep has been making veiled threats to people by telling them that it is their "final" or "last" warning. This goes beyond the problems with T1 being over-broad and over-vague and into the realms of a power trip. Ironically Drini who posted above has a userbox on his user page which could quite legitimately be speedied under T1 as it currently stands and Drini is very much against userboxes. The problem I see with this RFC is that the dispute resolution process has not been followed, but then there are those who say that Wikipedia is too much of a bureaucracy already.

Regardless of whether or not this RFC remains active serious questions need to be asked about the conduct of quite a number of administrators during this situation. Wheel warring, threats and gratuitous speedy deleting are serious abuses of power and should be dealt with accordingly by desysoping. David Newton 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and delete it, I don't mind at all. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this outside view (sign with ~ )

 * 1) Stifle 13:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) F a ng Aili 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC) MarkSweep needs to be held responsible for his threats. These are not the actions of an administrator.
 * 3) Agreed. --Aaron 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree M o e   ε  04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Blu Aardvark | (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  Grue   11:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Cynical 16:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) CFIF (talk to me) 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Sweep's actions call for some sort of sanction against himMike McGregor (Can) 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Septentrionalis 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Ashibaka tock 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12)  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Flamarande 11:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) JimmyT 11:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15)  Wh e  re  (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) UNK 11:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) CPR Instructor 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Larix 12:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) There is no excuse for abuse of power. Coolgamer 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by Android79
This project is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and last I checked, it isn't done yet. Let's find something more constructive to do with our time. android 79  03:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting userboxes is drawing users away from articles that they should be editing. —Guanaco 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It cuts both ways ... creating and defending userboxen is also drawing away users from articles they should be editing. So neither side can use this argument.  -- Cyde Weys  04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Users are going to create userboxes. That will not change unless you let the fad die on its own. Once admins, who have more important issues to deal with (why not clear out a few backlogs instead?), start deleting them, the users get angry. And why shouldn't they? Their creations are being destroyed based on flawed logic.
 * You declared war on people who like userboxes. People on both sides got hurt. Whose fault is that? —Guanaco 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, you go on using this argument all the time, hoping that no one will notice. Rogue 9 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, just recreate some of the userboxes in user namespace instead of causing riots --Jaranda wat's sup 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would solve this problem. Of course it would also prevent certain admins from having an excuse for power trips. Cynical 09:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What an unnecessary, unhelpful, and snide back-door attack. -- Cyde Weys  08:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was simply observing (as diffs posted on this page have shown) that some admins seem to be using T1 as a pretext for something entirely different - deleting items they happen to dislike and threatening users who dare to disagree with them, and that a userbox compromise policy would remove this pretext. Cynical 16:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Midgley 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Inside comment by Guanaco
I am not really opposed to getting these out of template space, if that is what the Wikipedia community as a whole wants. There have been numerous compromise proposals, which have mostly been ignored. If we could agree to stop speedily deleting userboxes for a while, we could more readily enact a policy that deals with userboxes rationally and is supported by consensus.

Few want to ban userboxes entirely; most want to keep them in either the Template or the User namespace. Jimbo has made statements which he feels reflect consensus; now people are making statements to reflect Jimbo's opinion.

This is really no different from other issues on Wikipedia, like article disputes. We discuss it until an acceptable solution is found. Like in article disputes, edit warring is bad. Even if you are right, and userboxes that express an opinion are inherently destructive, shouldn't we handle this properly? It has always worked in the past. —Guanaco 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss general userbox policy there are many places to do so. Opening an RFC against a few specific individuals is not the way to do it.  -- Cyde Weys  05:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If these users aren't willing to abide by the consensus on TFD, what makes you think that they would feel bound by a new policy? The focus of this RFC is their use of admin powers in spite of consensus. —Guanaco 05:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks as if consensus is now in favor of those wishing to do away with userboxes. The relative frequencies of Keep and Delete have shifted drastically on WP:DRV/U.  Also, considering that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, not everyone's vote is equal.  Jimbo's stance on this issue is pretty unambiguous now and I'd hesitate to guess how much his say is worth (some would say his say is the only thing that matters).  -- Cyde Weys  05:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by Cyde Weys
I only have one thing to say so I'll just come right out and say it. I think all admins involved in this dispute were acting in good faith and what they considered to be in the best interests of Wikipedia as a whole. This is a contentious issue and has already ruffled quite a few feathers. I would hate to see these admins punished with such draconian and unnecessary measures as desysopping. Whatever else happens, I and anyone else endorsing this message believe that none of the actions committed in this dispute were so unlawful or injurious as to be cause for such a serious punishment as desysopping. -- Cyde Weys 06:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC) mark_sweep might have gone overboard, and I take a more stricter interpretation of the polemical template rule. I think only those that exist solely to promote factionalism should go, so I don't see a real problem with ideological userboxen -- whether they go or stay, I don't care. But anything existing only to promote factionalism, whether it's an ADW, AIW, AMW, UDUIW, or what have you userbox has to go. Real world ideology userboxen can (and sometimes are) used to promote factionalism. But I find those based directly on some sort of Wikipedia organisation, whether this organisation is ADW, AIW, UDUIW, or the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia, exist only to promote factionalism, and need to go. (The same might be said of CVU userboxen, but then again, who really hates vandal-fighting? We may disagree on how to do it, but we don't disagree that vandalism needs to be reverted.) Having said that, while I obviously disagree with the actions of mark and Tony, I see no reason to desysop them. They aren't fascists, or even close to it. And Doc_glasgow? Let's not even bother with *that*.
 * 2) Agree wholeheartedly.--Alhutch 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -Colin Kimbrell 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Stifle
I'm not calling for any admins' heads. I'm not even saying that speedying some userboxes is wrong. But I'm saying that in the case of some templates, the rush to speedily delete has gone too far  , and in a few cases has ignored an actual consensus. It's no wonder that WP:DRV has a subpage for userbox debates. And finally, this deletion was way out of order. Stifle 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with ~ )

 * 1) -- D -Day  Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC) You are 100% correct.
 * 2) --F a ng Aili 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC). I would be satisfied, at this point, with MarkSweep apologizing for threatening other users.
 * 3) Agreed. --Aaron 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Rogue 9 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Ian13/talk 18:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) —Guanaco 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Agreed  M o e   ε  04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree → Aza Toth 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9)   Grue   11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Yep. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) I would be satisfied with his stopping. Let other people speedy; if it needs to be done, someone else will do it. Septentrionalis 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Agreed. - Flamarande 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) JimmyT 11:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Agree. - Except I would call for some admin heads (i.e. they should be "deadminned" for a time) Lawyer2b 04:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Fang Aili
I tried to communicate with MarkSweep on the Deletion Review page when he unilaterally decided that all discussion on GWB debates was finished and that GWB templates would not be recreated. I asked him how he had decided that, and he answered by deleting my question. He then engaged in a revert war when other users (including myself, once), restored my question and other comments. I then asked him again on his userpage, but he answered by threatening people , , and deleting more templates that were under discussion. I offer this as evidence that users have indeed tried to resolve these issues before creating this RfC.

I am tired of the userbox war, and with the way things are going (mass deletion of every template that might hold a "polemical" view), I do not call for the recreation of any template at this time. I only wish for an acknowledgement that unwarranted threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia.

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with ~ )

 * 1) Ian13/talk 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This was the primary reason why I called for this Rfc. -- D -Day  Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I had not heard about this before, but that is absolutely outrageous. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree  M o e   ε  04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5)   Grue   11:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Cynical 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) CFIF (talk to me) 19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) please also see, , for similar interactions by MarkSweep towards myself. Mark has now taken to deleating material from my userspace (userboxes he dosent like, citing t1, and no g4). This guy need his admin privlages removed before he can do any more damage to the 'pedia with his unilateral policy decisions and vendictiveness.Mike McGregor (Can) 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Stifle 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) JimmyT 11:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) UNK 02:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12)  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree. MarkSweep should be "deadminned".  Period.  Lawyer2b 04:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Larix 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Moe Epsilon
Well, this RFC was inevitable. I noticed a disturbance a few days ago when deletion of userboxes was in progress. While I agree that this RFC wasn't the way to go and it does take away time from the other editors from making an encyclopedia, but this RFC is justifiable. I agree with David Newton that the wheel warring, threats and speedy deleting is abusing admin privileges, is it not?

I also noticed anon IP addresses tagging templates under TI which the said userbox was deleted anyways, despite proper tagging of the template, and the fact the only edits by the anon IP was tagging userboxes for deletion. It seems that any userbox that wasn't in the "right" eyes were deleted, speedied too, without any consensus with the Wikipedia community at all. And of course this, is the probable, final straw as described by a few.

I'm not for the desysopping of users, but for the undeletion of the userboxes. I feel if a userbox should be deleted, then you list it the proper way and get consensus on it rather than abusing admin rights and speedy deleting them.

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with ~ )

 * 1) This should really be a bit of a no-brainer. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 18:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Grue   11:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Sort of endorse. Everything other than suggestions that this RFC wasn't the way to go. It was. Stifle 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I endorse this, however I think that they should be desysopped and that this RFC was the proper thing to do. CPR Instructor 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Users not endorsing

 * 1) Need to reverse that penultimate sentence. Deletion of userbox templates don't bother me, abusive admins do Cynical 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Second that on the dollar. It doesn't matter if they're userboxes or articles, ALL admins must follow protocall. -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 15:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All I was saying in the opening sentence that it was distracting other editors from thier normal routine on Wikipedia. And the reason were holding this RFC is discuss the actions of admins on the userbox situation, not just these admins in general. M o e   ε  22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by bainer (talk)
How about everyone just grows the fuck up and writes some damn articles? Try to stop wasting everyone's time with these pointless debates and actually go out and make the encyclopaedia better.

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with # ~ )

 * 1) bainer (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - and I don't care if I'm being uncivil, this whole stupid mess is really pissing me off.
 * 2) Misza13 (Talk) 12:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per that's basically what my above "Inside view" is saying, without the profanity of course :-D M o e   ε  19:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Users not endorsing

 * 1) Just to have it Jimb0wned? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) We can't write an encyclopedia if admins can threaten people with impunity Cynical 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly disagreement with Thebainer's 'carelessness'. --UNK 11:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly oppose. Admins should be accountable for their actions.  CPR Instructor 18:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose. Nice way to express your ideas. Let me know when you wish to be civil. Coolgamer 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Splash
An RfC regarding userbox deletions is a refreshingly original approach to a new problem. It is is bound to work well, and fix everything. Since it's not been tried before, noone could know in advance whether it was likely to succeed or not.

Users not endorsing this outside view (sign with # ~ )

 * 1) Splash talk 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed; this should be taken to the arbitration commmittee. 71.248.205.50 18:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with # ~ )

 * 1) Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Cynical 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if RfC is the place for a WP:POINT violation Cynical 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You've fallen into the trap of reading the abbreviation rather than the article tite, which is Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I did not disrupt Wikipedia (it seems to be function ok, from here), using the definition given in POINT, and so I am making a point, not a POINT. -Splash talk 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One example given was reverting exactly three times in every 24-hour period i.e. doing something that is ALLOWED, but disruptive and not in the SPIRIT of the rules - clearly RfCs are supposed to be used for comments on the conduct [or article, for an article RfC] in question, not to post sarcastic critiques on the merits of the RfC process without attempting to debate any of the issues raised in the RfC itself Cynical 21:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding comments to outside views on RfCs is, according to the rules (which in this case are written down, unlike the one you appear to be trying to cite), only supposed to be done on the talk page. Are you making a POINT? Moreover, if I were being disruptive, I would be expecting a block. If you can't persuade an admin to block me for my comment, then I'm not being disruptive. Why not give it a whirl on AN/I? Besides, someone agrees with my outside view, so it can't be all that bad. -Splash talk 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Being sarcastic to make a point is different from disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. RfC is serious, but not utterly solemn :)  — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ding dong, the horse is dead. Ashibaka tock 03:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryanjunk
I feel that this RfC has gotten a bit derailed onto the general userbox issue. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian and stumbled into this whole mess by seeing MarkSweep deleting valid discussion in the DRV. This seemed inappropriate to my new-Wikipedian eyes, so I reverted it, only to be chided and told "This is your final warning." I don't care about userboxen. They probably should be put into user space or done away with or whatever. On the other hand, I think they can be fun and useful. I don't have a strong opinion either way. But I was struck by MarkSweep's unilateral actions, threats, removal of discussion, etc. Since then he's banned two users that disagree with him (God_of_War and CFIF) for 48 hours as an initial time period (even obscenity-laced repeat vandalism only gets 24 at the start). I comment here not on userboxen but only because these actions seem questionable from an Administrator.

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with # ~ )

 * 1) Sure. Userboxes have nothing to do with this, it is the conduct of administrators in question that is worrying.  Grue   17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Got it in one. I don't use boxen, I don't like cluttering my userpage, but I strongly object to administrators being allowed to block people without consequence for the heinous crime (sic) of daring to disagree with them Cynical 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Blu Aardvark | (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Stifle 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Mike McGregor (Can) 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I have no userboxes. Absolutely agree. Septentrionalis 20:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) For a supposed newbie, that's pretty darn smart. Good comments! -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 13:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely agree. Flamarande 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) JimmyT 11:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) It is MarkSweep that should be banned.  Wh e  re  (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) UNK 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

View User:Alex Law
Inside, outside, how divisive...

I'm pretty neutral on the whole Userbox thing, I'm not a big fan of bumper stickers (especially clearly divisive ones like those supporting the War in Iraq). However, they do have a purpose. Anthropology and Sociology are (at leasst in some places) abbandonning the myth of objectivity and moving toward full disclosure.

I have a languge userbox, and use Categories to indicate my affiliations and biases (even whimsical ones tell people things about me in that I chose to use them).

MarkSweep emptied (by editing userpages including mine) several of those categories and then deleted some of them as orphans. You can't get a clearer abuse of process than that. I think that clearly speaks to the issue of deletions of userboxes.

I have contributed to (and indeed created) several articles that are from the other side of one or more fences, and those clear indications of my (potential) bias are useful to anyone who questions my POV (I try hard to be neutral, but...).

Categories and other subcommunities are useful because they tie users together, which while it can be abused, can also be useful. For example they offer the opportunity to ask others with a similar viewpoint to check ones POV, especially if an article is potentiall controversial. This is especially useful if a heated discussion breaks out, how much is genuinely a Big Endian viewpoint, and how much is just personal involvement...

Alex Law 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with # ~ )

 * 1) JimmyT 11:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 12:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  Wh  e  re  (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Mike McGregor (Can) 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Cynical 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I have no userboxes to defend, and yet I agree. Septentrionalis 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree.  If MarkSweep isn't desysoped/deadminned for that the action you describe, I will seriously consider suspending my monthly donation to wikipedia.  I will not pay for a service that allows that kind of abuse of its users/customers. Lawyer2b 04:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) UNK 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Where
I think many other people did a pretty good job of pointing out the facts and stating principles (especially AzaToth), so I'm not going to reiterate those. However, I would like to add that I urge the affected parties to take their case to the arbitration committee if abuse continues. We cannot go on in a "wikiWar" forever. Somebody needs to definatively rule as to what is acceptable behavior for administrators and what T1 means, so we can stop fighting and get back to writing and maintaining an encyclopedia, and the only people with the authority to rule on this are the members of the arbitration committee. I think that by now we all know that this conflict cannot be solved any other way. In addition, if arbitration committee does end up ruling the way we want it to on the issue, we should all just accept the decision and go on with our lives, whether we agree with the decision or not.  Wh e  re  (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Users endorsing this outside view (sign with # ~ )

 * 1) Good points. -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: this endorsement was made before a correction was made to the above view (which is discussed under the first "users not endorsing" entry).  Wh e  re  (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Users not endorsing

 * 1) Contradicts itself. 'We need a definitive ruling on this issue to stop a wikiwar' and 'if the arbcom chickens out we should accept it' don't sit well together Cynical 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I meant to say 'if the arbcom did not rule the way we wanted it to we should accept it', rather than saying 'if the arbcom did not rule at all we should accept it.' My bad; I fixed the wording to convey my original intent.  Wh e  re  (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Escalation
This was escalated to arbitration and dealt with at Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al, which is now Closed. Guanaco is permanently desysopped, and MarkSweep is banned from userboxes. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.