geni wrote:
On 2/20/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)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:C…
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