I edited CSD T1 a week or so ago to cover transclusion in any space, precisely because some T1 speedies had shown up again in userspace (created in a good faith belief that otherwise objectionable templates would be acceptable if in userspace). It didn't last, Crotalus (who had created the userspace templates) reverted and the clause hasn't reappeared. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

John 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... Whoah. As near as I can tell, all the UDUIW userbox said was, "This user is a member of Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia." So by suppressing it, we've made not one but two leaps: (1) That userboxes can be so dangerous that they need to be suppressed, as argued by the oft-repeated incident in which a "this user is Catholic" userbox allowed 40+ users to rally around the deletion poll for [[Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia]]. (2) That suppressing dangerous userboxes is so contentious yet so vital that those in support of userboxes need to be suppressed also. I hope I'm not being melodramatic, but this is really starting to sound like "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Steve Summit [[User:Ummit]] scs(a)eskimo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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. > 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. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Of course, but within reason. That's like saying DRV could undelete a copyvio -- Jimbo wouldn't like either action.

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.