User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes – The result was overturn and restore. There is a consensus that these deletions are not uncontroversial and therefore should be discussed at an appropriate venue, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarcho Syn (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Lib Soc (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Darwinism (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Roma Indep (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/SAC (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Taste (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/UBX War (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Clearly inappropriate speedy deletions. Previously restored through this venue, see here. These are also transcluded on many userpages. Discussed here. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] I'm not seeing a speedy criteria stated as a reason for the deletion. And I don't see how waiting for MfD would be harmful--these have been around for years I believe. overturn for now, but I'm open to the idea that there may be an applicable speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the rest of these deletions by me. As a Quaker I find the sentiments expressed in the No Gun Ctl and SAC templates totally abhorrent. However as a Wikipedian I say that since both these templates are used by several users, they should be allowed to remain. It simply does not matter who created them. Same principle goes for all the others. I have not restored Anarcho Syn, Lib Soc and No Darwinism because my deletion of these was done in response to speedy tags placed by Legacypac. All the others I deleted without anyone else's suggestion. I have left Taste, UBX War and Userboxes deleted because they are only minimally used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Several of the deletions cited U5, which I don't think is actually unreasonable. The author has 153 contributions, all to user or user talk space and almost entirely to userboxes, particularly those associated with contentious political or philosophical views. I suspect that a lot of them were created to make a point about Wikipedia's stances on userboxes, which were controversial at the time. If an editor made only this type of edit now and didn't make any attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia then I think they would probably be deleted under U5 and that wouldn't be questioned. Yes, they were discussed at DRV in 2006, but that might as well be ancient history now, the deletion policy has changed since and the discussion was about whether they met criterion T1 (which was repealed ages ago). I'd be happy with restoring any that someone wants to claim as long as they are moved into that person's userspace. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. There may be a need to discuss these, but that should be at MfD , not here. Speedy is for use in uncontestable deletions, not for those which "may not be actually unreasonable", which is much to low a criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Unless my detective work is mistaken, these all survived their most recent deletion discussion. So, speedy deletion is not allowed except where WP:CSD explicitly makes an exception. None of the exceptions apply here. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Leave deleted I tagged a few U5 because the user had zero controbutions outside their own userspace and no interest in developing Wikipedia. Crating a Nazi userbox is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. It is a good example of using wikipedia to host stuff no one needs or wants. U5 is used for a lot more possibily useful but unused random pages then these "userboxes" no one is using or needs. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] I recommend an RfC on userboxes for social-political expression vs editors’ declaration of biases vs POLEMIC. XfD and DRV are ill-suited for developing community consensus. It has been a very long time since the userbox wars, there is no rush. In the status quo, there is nothing wrong with User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl on a userpage, and tranclusion of userboxes is probably better than a proliferation of altered substed userboxes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn all, not speediable, very far from IAR justifiable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Grudging overturn. These userboxen don't help us build an encyclopedia, so I agree they should be deleted. I also don't think the prohibition against CSD for pages that have survived XfD should have force if the XfD was 13 years ago. And, looking at TMoT's contributions, it's pretty obvious they are/were a WP:SOCK. But, the real bottom line on CSD is that it should be for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that this has generated controversy should be enough to overturn. There's no rush. After all this time, a week at XfD won't hurt. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes – The result was overturn and restore. There is a consensus that these deletions are not uncontroversial and therefore should be discussed at an appropriate venue, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Clearly inappropriate speedy deletions. Previously restored through this venue, see here. These are also transcluded on many userpages. Discussed here. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a speedy criteria stated as a reason for the deletion. And I don't see how waiting for MfD would be harmful--these have been around for years I believe. overturn for now, but I'm open to the idea that there may be an applicable speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the rest of these deletions by me. As a Quaker I find the sentiments expressed in the No Gun Ctl and SAC templates totally abhorrent. However as a Wikipedian I say that since both these templates are used by several users, they should be allowed to remain. It simply does not matter who created them.

Same principle goes for all the others. I have not restored Anarcho Syn, Lib Soc and No Darwinism because my deletion of these was done in response to speedy tags placed by Legacypac. All the others I deleted without anyone else's suggestion.

I have left Taste, UBX War and Userboxes deleted because they are only minimally used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the deletions cited U5, which I don't think is actually unreasonable. The author has 153 contributions, all to user or user talk space and almost entirely to userboxes, particularly those associated with contentious political or philosophical views. I suspect that a lot of them were created to make a point about Wikipedia's stances on userboxes, which were controversial at the time. If an editor made only this type of edit now and didn't make any attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia then I think they would probably be deleted under U5 and that wouldn't be questioned. Yes, they were discussed at DRV in 2006, but that might as well be ancient history now, the deletion policy has changed since and the discussion was about whether they met criterion T1 (which was repealed ages ago). I'd be happy with restoring any that someone wants to claim as long as they are moved into that person's userspace. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There may be a need to discuss these, but that should be at MfD , not here. Speedy is for use in uncontestable deletions, not for those which "may not be actually unreasonable", which is much to low a criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Unless my detective work is mistaken, these all survived their most recent deletion discussion. So, speedy deletion is not allowed except where WP:CSD explicitly makes an exception. None of the exceptions apply here. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted I tagged a few U5 because the user had zero controbutions outside their own userspace and no interest in developing Wikipedia. Crating a Nazi userbox is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. It is a good example of using wikipedia to host stuff no one needs or wants. U5 is used for a lot more possibily useful but unused random pages then these "userboxes" no one is using or needs. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend an RfC on userboxes for social-political expression vs editors’ declaration of biases vs POLEMIC. XfD and DRV are ill-suited for developing community consensus. It has been a very long time since the userbox wars, there is no rush. In the status quo, there is nothing wrong with User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl on a userpage, and tranclusion of userboxes is probably better than a proliferation of altered substed userboxes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all, not speediable, very far from IAR justifiable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grudging overturn. These userboxen don't help us build an encyclopedia, so I agree they should be deleted. I also don't think the prohibition against CSD for pages that have survived XfD should have force if the XfD was 13 years ago. And, looking at TMoT's contributions, it's pretty obvious they are/were a WP:SOCK. But, the real bottom line on CSD is that it should be for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that this has generated controversy should be enough to overturn. There's no rush. After all this time, a week at XfD won't hurt. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.