Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WeaponizingArchitecture/Userboxes/Discord

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeaponizingArchitecture/Userboxes/Discord[edit]

This template seems to be one out of frustration for being banned from Wikimedia Discord. I also see a problem with potential disruption where vandals could trash the server, get banned, then put this userbox on as a medal. At best, it is a template made out of frustration, at worst, it is a template that could encourage trolling on Wikicord. Aasim (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i made the template out of frustration. WeaponizingArchitecture (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We typically allow people to be a bit petulant on their userpage when sanctioned on-wiki; I don't see this as any different, really. As long as it's not attacking people, I don't see it as a big deal to have in userspace. I have no idea why this person was banned from Discord, but if whatever behavior that led to it continues on-wiki, this will just make it easier for people to take action. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the concern I have, it is that this userbox and similar may encourage raids or vandals to get themselves a medal by getting banned from Wikimedia Discord. This is behavior that we do not want to encourage at all. I get the template may have been made out of frustration (after all, getting banned from a Discord server can be frustrating), but I see a bigger risk of trashing by vandals. It is just as disruptive as having a userbox saying "I got blocked from Wikipedia". Or think about if this existed for IRC. It would encourage trashing of the IRC channels. This is behavior that we do not want to encourage in any way, shape, or form. Aasim (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this persuasive. It's hard to imagine many good faith Wikipedia contributors who would go intentionally get banned on Discord in order to display some profane temper tantrum of a badge on their userpage. It might as well say "this user will probably be blocked from Wikipedia soon" (something I say not having any knowledge of WeaponizingArchitecture). We could argue that sockpuppetry tags are badges of honor, too, so we shouldn't include them. If we see a surge of bad faith accounts created just to get this badge, we can revisit. A userbox is just a style of formatting, after all. Anyone can take the wikicode that creates this and copy/paste it on their userpage, and anyone can write the same text on their userpage without a userbox. I wouldn't support moving this to project space or including it in the userbox category tree, but as of right now it's a bit of foot stomping buried on a userpage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think last time I checked there is consensus to only have templates about bans or blocks when they need to be used for administrative purposes and when the block log would not suffice. That explains all the checkuser templates as well as the ban templates. The block user page templates were deleted at TfD a year or two ago as the block log exists. We do not need a ban template for Discord as it is easy for Discord mods to check, and anyone else can check by viewing whether they are present in the Discord. Aasim (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This userbox is purely disruptive. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeaponizingArchitecture, why were you banned? User:WeaponizingArchitecture SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is in the server, they were banned for spamming and making nonsensical threads about the odour of other users. They also created a now-deleted userbox about the latter. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: i literally don't know why i was banned. WeaponizingArchitecture (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why advertise then? I think you should either ask why, or let it go. If you were banned from a Wikipedia cabal for dubious reasons, I would like to hear more. If you passed through a phase of obnoxiousness, I recommend not mentioning it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If userboxes commemorating getting banned on-wiki were deleted, this should be deleted for the same reason. Note that I agree with Rhododendrites that the user is free to whine about getting banned if they like on their user page, but userboxes are a little different: best not glorify this stuff in easily shareable fashion. (I would also encourage slightly more self-introspection for WeaponizingArchitecture, that what they're talking about is a cause for a shame and not pride. It's not hard to not get banned.) SnowFire (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not something to advertise. Dronebogus (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's ways to go about getting unbanned (which I gather is the aim from WA's trivia page, but this is counterproductive to achieving that CiphriusKane (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.