User:Tellyaddict/userbox/snowmanbuilding ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

WP:DRVPURPOSE use cases #2, #4, and #5: unilateral deletion without explanation or a CSD number. I'm not sure exactly what was deleted but it sounds innocuous and allowed by userbox policy, especially if in user space. I tried contacting the deleting admin, but it is clear that he just doesn't like off-topic userboxes. Although this was deleted in 2007, it is still transcluded on five userpages. I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, but I would like it reviewed given lack of suitable reason for deletion, as well the contemptuous attitude demonstrated today. –  void xor 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore. Unclear why anybody cares about it, but it's in userspace and it's harmless. The real issue here is this edit by John Reaves which is totally inexcusable for an admin (or even an ex-admin). The only reason I haven't blocked them on sight is to allow them to respond to this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize the depth/history of this dispute. I agree it's not worth stirring up. I was mostly reacting to the WP:UNCIVIL response of the deleting admin, but also agree that this is the wrong forum to be pursuing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• • If you remotely cared about this project, you wouldn’t be talking such nonsense. And the only reason you haven’t blocked me is the fact that you don’t have a leg to stand on. -- John Reaves 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore - This is probably very sad, because this appears to be a case where an administrator has gone to pieces. But this is a content forum. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks so much for the sympathy. Also, what the hell is a “content forum”? -- John Reaves 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The distinction between content disputes and conduct disputes goes back to the early years of Wikipedia. A content forum is a forum where Wikipedians resolve issues about encyclopedic content. There are also conduct forums, such as WP:ANI, where editor conduct is addressed. The issue here is whether the userbox should be restored and not why you, User:John Reaves, cursed about it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Do nothing. There was a lot of trouble with this user, over ten years ago. I'm guessing that User:John_Reaves was emotionally involved. John Reaves was always prone to that. I assume there is some historical context for this edit, and I do not believe that anything good will come from digging into long gone troublesome cases. The history is very murky, but this is an interesting place to start reading. It is from the middle of the story. Do not undelete without either: (1) An explanation as to the context of the time and relevance moving forward; or (2) an appeal from an editor in good standing who is one the users with the userbox transcluded. Feel free to remind admins to stick to accurate CSD codes, but don't start with mostly retired admins over actions 13 years ago. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• We've got to restore this. Arbcom have made clear and specific findings about how sysops should deal with unencyclopaedic material in userspace, see MZMcBride's first desysopping principles #4 and #5. We have absolutely no option but to enforce Arbcom's decisions and principles. Oppose any punitive action towards sysops, ex-sysops and discussion closers at DRV. We've never done that and there are good reasons why. DRV needs to be a safe space to encourage reflection and, where appropriate, admission of error. If there was ever a user conduct issue discovered at DRV we would refer to a drama board.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Those principles postdate this deletion by more than a year and a half and don't purport to be retroactive, so of course we have an option not to enforce them. If there's reason to, anyway. As far as I remember, the only arbcom cases preceding this that are at all relevant are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. But this wasn't {{ User pedophile}} or even {{ User GWB}}; to all appearances, it was completely harmless. John: What's the context we're missing that has you so upset? — Cryptic 12:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Hmm. The way I understand decisions and principles may differ from the way you understand them. I think Arbcom's "principles" describe the way things are: prevailing consensus, custom and practice, etc. I think their "decisions" are the way things shall be henceforth. I agree that their decisions aren't retroactive. I suspect that their principles might be... because violating a principle is grounds for sanctioning an editor even if that principle has not been previously articulated by Arbcom. But am I overthinking this?— S Marshall  T/ C 13:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. I don't think voidxor is intentionally trying to stir up drama, but the net effect is that this user is and it needs to stop. It's a terrible idea to be poking these bears, so to speak. If you're concerned about broken userboxes on user pages, you're welcome to remove them. Though it seems your concern is greater than that of the users who actually have placed these (now broken) userboxes on their pages and left them there for years. John Reaves is absolutely correct these discussions are a distraction and a waste of almost everyone's time. We do not need to re-litigate the userbox wars and we do not need to give attention to these subpages that belong to users who were appropriately blocked or banned. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I never intentionally poked a bear. I saw a deletion that didn't make sense (even given the policy as of 2007; userbox migration started in 2006) and asked the deleting admin for clarification before proceeding. That is WP:DELREVD step #1 too. The reaction I received made me further question the motive for the deletion, so I brought it here. Had I wanted to focus on conduct, I would have gone to ANI. As far as re-litigating the userbox decisions, I've been citing those decisions all along because this deletion seems to have gone against them. –  void xor 19:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  To be clear, I don't blame you and I think you're trying to do the right thing. But I think going through these deleted userboxes is going to dredge up muck and I think we should prevent that. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Why are we bothering to debate this, exactly? Sure, it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but it is a pretty pointless userbox created by a user who was indeffed for disruptive editing and it was deleted thirteen years ago. I can't see any value in restoring it or debating it here. We have better things to do. Hut 8.5 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• At heart, DRV exists because editors matter. When a good faith editor is unhappy about something, we engage with them and take it seriously and work out whether a mistake has been made. If it's not worth discussin, we could speedily restore and close the DRV. Given that this was an out-of-process deletion, I don't think it's open to us to speedily close the DRV without restoring.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Editors matter, absolutely, but do disruptive SOCKing blocked editors' NOTHERE userboxes count? From 13 years ago? Ugly stuff happened in the userbox wars. Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. The Germans#Don't mention the war. Acknowledge the history. Don't try to fix the history. Don't clean and hide the history, but acknowledge it and move on. The user in question came back, unblocked, for another two years without ever returning to this userbox. Why should someone unconnected bring it up here and now? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Does this editor need standing to open a DRV? I don't recall any other DRVs being declined because of that.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Well no, definitely not decline due to lack of standing to open. He is welcome to open this DRV, and we should discuss it seriously. My considered opinion, based on a a little bit of reading around the user, User:Tellyaddict & User:Qst, and my memory of the feel of the userbox wars, is that yes there was a procedural problem with the deletion of an unimportant userbox, but there is no harmed editor who has edited for ten years, there is no evidence of the deletion having been an issue for any user who used the userbox, there is no evidence of continued misuse of the delete button by the semi-active admin, and it was 2007. The wrong thing was done, but I don't think that WP:EM implies a need to undelete it. I think digging up such old deletions is counterproductive for the improvement of the project. If you think I am wrong, then maybe I need to ask for a temp_undelete. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't necessarily think you're wrong in what you say there, but I'm curious about where you stand on the Arbcom principle I linked.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I've been thinking about this a bunch, and have come to the conclusion that we should keep this deleted, if only to discourage this sort of thing in the future. There's probably been millions of deleted pages since we started this thing. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find thousands of bad deletions, even egregiously bad ones. Every discussion has a cost, and there needs to be some value that we get back for that investment. For reviews of recent actions, we potentially get value in three ways. We restore valuable material. We give somebody who has a stake in the page their due process. We educate active admins so they do a better job in the future. None of those apply here, so this is just effort expended for no potential return. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• S Marshall, I stand very firmly with those two principles. #4 Notification of deletion. Quite right, John Reaves should enter proper deletion log records. However, the statute of limitations is surely less than 13 year for a “not needed“ where a CSD code belongs. #5 Personal expression in userspace. I think I might be Wikipedia’s most contributing person to this question when it arises, and push comes to shove at MfD. Reasonable leeway in userspace for a productive Wikipedian is an old and well respected principle. In this case, at that time, the user’s ratio of userspace snowmanbuilding to productive contributions was overtly under challenge, and was substantiated. The principle speaks to the admin’s responsibility to talk to the user, to ensure that the user understands the problem. I think that angle was fine, even if what John did was handling the problematic user poorly. Like I said above somewhere, if any user, in good standing (not blocked, presently active), who has ever had this userbox transcluded, wants this back, then yes undelete. But don’t undelete this time. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

It is documented. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

User:S Marshall, I don't agree that I have !voted to "not review". I have reviewed. The nominator's request is

"I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, but I would like it reviewed given lack of suitable reason for deletion, as well the contemptuous attitude demonstrated today."

My latest stab at a consensus position is: That deletion was improper. However, given the age of deletion, and the contemporaneous controversy surrounding both the user involved and userboxes in general which is not ongoing, do nothing more. Do not undelete, not without an actual interest in the deleted userbox. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm with you on all your reasoning until the very last part. My thought process goes: (a) By unanimous consensus, this deletion was out of process; (b) By unanimous consensus it's unproductive to discuss; therefore (c) We should restore without discussion.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Auto-restore any bad speedy, checking in the process that G10, G12 etc don't apply, has a logical simplicity to it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn per WP:DP, "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately." This may stop the continuing waste of time per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew🐉( talk) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy undelete per User:Andrew_Davidson and User:S_Marshall. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore an unacceptable admin action does not magically become acceptable even after 13 years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply