Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from project page

After researching the history of this discussion I have a couple of comments regarding the way this was handled. For one, if the goal of the speedy deletion was to protect the underage editors, it has failed miserably. Searching for "child user" gives me a link to the Template:User Child (deleted IAR on January 2), and clicking on "what links here" gives me a list of user who had the template transcluded on their user page, all wtihin three seconds. All of them have a conspicuous red "User child" marker on their page now. So I strongly recommend that whenever an admin invokes IAR s/he should do it with due care and make sure the intended goal is actually achieved. There is a fine line between fucking process and raping process, and zipping up and walking away from the deed rarely ever leaves a good impression. For two, IAR never overrules WP:CIVIL, since creating an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress never improves Wikipedia. This is an admonition to all us admins who believe that ignoring all rules is sometimes necessary: It makes a difference on how we apply it, and on whether we are willing to take the necessary steps and let the community review our decision, or if we think it gives us a handle to act unilaterally outside established rules. So in summary no red cards but a few yellow cards and while the issue in all likelihood will not go away, freezing the situation at the status quo might allow us to revisit it (or wait for a ruling from the Foundation) further down the road when tempers have calmed down a bit and facts prevail over emotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialsanderrors (talk • contribs)

To be fair, I actually did remove all of the transclusions before you even brought this up. There used to be several dozen on userpages; the ones left are remnant links and aren't actually being used on any userpages, but rather, in userbox galleries and such that say "This is what you can use." So your characterization of me "raping process, zipping up and walking away" is simply wholly inaccurate. Nevermind the inaccuracy ... it also conflicts with the very next sentence, which says that "creating an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress never improves Wikipedia". I do not know how calling me a process rapist could possibly do anything but create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted them, all of them were on user pages. In case this was unclear, I also do not consider (or call) you a process rapist, but advise you to use better judgment in the future to avoid being seen as one. ~ trialsanderrors 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted a lot more of them than you did, check your email for more info. Looks like the bot didn't pick up all of them, however, and you just got the leftovers. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what's inaccurate about it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that I didn't do anything to remove the redlinked category and template transclusions. --Cyde Weys 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On further review I'm striking the first part of my comments, although a final click on "what links here" would have brought up the remaining listings. ~ trialsanderrors 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so he got one part wrong. The rest is the problem, and why this closing is so disgusting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)