geni wrote:
On 2/20/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:...
This template which I speedied under CSD T1 and pure common sense is now on DRV because some process wonks are pointing out T1 doesn't apply outside template-space. (Which is, if you think about, blatant wikilawyering, since now anyone can just create the most offensive, polemical and divisive template ever in userspace and have all his buddies transclude it on their userpages.) I mentioned I had speedied the userbox on the Admins' noticeboard, and two other admins expressed agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Cj...
Wikipedia:Deletion_review could undelete it wherever it is.
Of course, but within reason. That's like saying DRV could undelete a copyvio -- Jimbo wouldn't like either action.
Maybe Jimbo should clarify how literally he wants T1 interpreted and whether userboxen in userspace are subject to this sort of thing.
John
We could but I doubt he could come up with an answer that is short enough to fit on CSD and impossible to rule lawyer around.
Judges clarify and interprete law -- they don't amend it. Jimbo just has to say "By 'template' I mean anything created for the purpose of being transcluded", or something to that effect. Typically this isn't necessary because of IAR and all that crap, but this userboxen debate will need Jimbo to step in eventually. His occasional pronouncements aren't working, and T1 isn't working well either.
I don't really care for political/ideological userboxen -- whether those go or stay, I don't care. They /can/ be used for factionalism, but they aren't necessarily so. But userboxen like the one currently on DRV that exist *only* to promote factionalism definitely ought to go. Given the choice between a T1 applicable only to stuff in the template namespace, and a T1 applicable to anything transcluded but only applicable to factionalist userboxen, I'd pick the latter.
John