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 Nominator withdrew Acalamari 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt[edit]

Inflammatory userbox, created because User:Matt57 was apparently blocked 1 month. • Lawrence Cohen 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note; the Userbox appears to be a response to this old ANI thread where this user is blocked for harassment. Two other userboxes this person made before were deleted for being inflammatory: User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate & User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman. More are located at User:Prester John/Userbox • Lawrence Cohen 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination in hindsight, and based on the comments below. I'm sorry if drawing attention here caused any issues. • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of Free Hat. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move on Keep and move on - Most likely intended as a harmless tongue-in-cheek expression of dissatisfaction with admin decisions, but likely to be read as giving the finger to wikipedia community and due process. Remove it and move on. regards --Merbabu 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect I'll change my vote in light of the more considered of the comments below; although I think its creation was not constructive, it is an ultimately pointless box and causing a stink about removing it ain't helpful either. Let the baby have it's bottle. ;-) regards --Merbabu 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Pathetic Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Ha ha – what, admitting a change in heart is “pathetic”? I have no problem with doing so - and it is much more constructive to the project, rather than clinging doggedly to a position no matter what. Your comment is very telling. ;-)--Merbabu 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to change one's mind is very important. I think referring to other wikipedians as "babies" is what he was referring to as pathetic. Arrow740 07:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as out of process. The editor in question has already requested unblock and may appeal to ArbCom via e-mail. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a simple userbox with two words in it be out of process?? EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 08:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a request for unblock outside of normal channels while normal channels are available. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't Russia anno 1980. He did not create it himself hence it is not in violation of anything. Other editors, regardless of whether you like them or not, are allowed to speak their mind. Censorship at best, process wonking at worst. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep It is not going to change anything, it is a harmless template that won't make any difference no matter how many people may have it in their userspace, what harm does it do to the project to allow it? Yahel Guhan 04:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People should be allowed to express disagreements with community process or policies on their user page so long as it civil and does not become disruptive. —dgies^t_c 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this particular expression implies to a casual reader that Wikipedia has perverted justice and no other mode of protest exists. This is not the case; he may appeal to WP:RFAR - and so may any of you on his behalf. That you insist upon this method in lieu of standard channels gives this the appearance of a WP:POINTy attempt to undermine trust in policy enforcement and dispute resolution, and your own actions demonstrate that you don't expect to win this argument on its merits. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it a particularly eloquent form of protest? No. Is it an effective form of advocacy? No. Does it actually cause harm? No.
      And you may with to rethink your usage of the pronoun "you"; I don't think I have done any of the things you imply. —dgies^t_c 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appeal to RFAR? Do you seriously conflate the common-sense recognition that this is unlikely to be effective with an acknowledgment that one "can't win this argument on its merits?" Not every decision made on Wikipedia - either on ANI or at RFAR - is fair and reasonable. I used to think a little better of ANI - it was more transparent, and had at least to maintain the pretense of fairness - but with the rise of IRC-based decision-making, that's no longer the case. By the time the thread appeared, Matt57 didn't have a chance. The proof of that is in the two blocks which preceded it, in which Matt57 was accused and punished for things it turned out he didn't actually do, with no apologies from his accusers (honorable exception: Chaser,) who proceded to condemn him as if nothing had happened, proving at best that the community is more concerned with never saying it's sorry than getting it right, at worst they were arguments of convenience to begin with.Proabivouac 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Nothing wrong with this. It is hardly disruptive. Do posters on the wall of your office distract you so much you cannot work? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not all expressions of dissent are inflammatory. Hesperian 06:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe it should be allowed to disagree with a decision and a block imposed by a couple of administrators, and to express ones opposition to it in a descent way on the user page. That is what I have done in this case. -- Karl Meier 07:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no policy against disagreeing with a block. Durova, it says Free Matt. No one is saying that justice was perverted. How did you reach that conclusion based on the two words Free Matt? Wikipedians are allowed to disagree with you without having to ask for your approval first. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete As it currently stands, It doesnt link to anything that implies what matt needs to be freed from, maybe he's been transported to some gulag on the siberian steps or under house arrest in burma but there may also be the possibility he's on a Caribbean Is. Policy wise its border line disruptive most critically its fosters an atmosphere of admins vs anti-islamic editors. I would like to think that given other editors have objected to it, the creator and editors displaying it would remove it just to foster harmony within the community. Gnangarra 12:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement "I would like to think that given other editors have objected to it... remove it..." would seem to imply that anything more than 1 person objects to should be deleted. Is that really what you mean? If not, could you clarify why this particular viewpoint should be suppressed? —dgies^t_c 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I said is I would like to think that given other editors have objected to it, the creator and editors displaying it would remove it just to foster harmony within the community please dont refactor my comment to imply some other context, the comment is only in relation to this UB/MfD. Whether others want to foster harmony is up to them I'm just pointing to an opportunity that I see as been presented in relation to this UB. Gnangarra 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You can disagree with a block if you want. Carbon Monoxide 17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep disagreement should not be silenced. It is akin to a barnstar though it could also be seen as borderline forum-shopping if the topic is open to review and input in future.--Tigeroo 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Nice colour scheme. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep( see petard) Stifling disagreement with admin decisions is a bad thing, as it reduces accountability, which is a snowball effect sort of thing. Better to see this as PJ agitating instead of speaking in a logical, clear manner, and let PJ continue to be hoist upon his own petard, as they say. He's doing it to himself, and the more he acts out, the less people will regard him seriouslty. Leave his giant 'look at me' behaviors out where we can all see him for who he is. Don't stifle his right to announce he's a prickly, hard to get along with fellows, and don't stifle our rights to read his stuff and make our own decision to steer clear. ThuranX 21:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The idea that admin decisions should not be criticized is troubling and quite bizarre. The fact that people have power doesn't mean they always use it well. Freedom of speech, anyone? Arrow740 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see this as really problematic or inflammatory. The box will become redundant when Matt's block expires in a couple of weeks, anyway. It just doesn't seem worth any drama and I don't have a problem with users civilly expressing their dissent or disagreement with admin actions. "Let the baby have its bottle". Sarah 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete userbox and unblock Matt57.Proabivouac 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Matt57 was rightly blocked in my opinion, and this userbox seems kind of silly. Nevertheless, it's hardly disruptive and users are free to express their disagreement if they choose. --krimpet⟲ 11:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree this is really not disruptive. Easy to ingore if you agree with the block / disagree with the userbox. Keep and move on.... •CHILLDOUBT• 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- disagreement is not disruption. --Haemo 18:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Good for a chuckle. We have lots of silly userboxes, so why pick on this one? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.