Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User rouge admin

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: speedy keep before this devolves further Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User rouge admin

This is being used by users who are not admins. Someone just wrote: "Guy (JzG) has been an admin for a very long time". This templae appears to support that JzG is an admin. Especially without a verify, it results in deception. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator's comments regarding User:JzG pertain to this discussion. Curbon7 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This appears to be some sort of payback/nuisance nomination. —holly {chat} 01:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JzG may not be an admin, but he was one for many years, having resigned in late 2020 in (as far as I can tell) good standing. Instances of non-admins improperly transcluding this userbox can be addressed by either discussing with those editors or, if they haven't edited in a long time, simply removing or refactoring the userbox. That is not a reason to delete the userbox. The majority of transclusions are by users who actually are admins. I note that the above comments by Curbon7 and Holly Cheng paint this nomination in an unflattering light. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most important historical things about Wikipedia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - "someone used this template who shouldn't have used it" is not a reason to delete a template. No valid reason for deletion given. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's using it, exactly?

So I can't remove it? It's up to them to remove it? I'm confused by that. They clearly don't want to remove it. Why must I wait? I didn't know if anyone else was using it; it just looked fake. If it's important, as SmokeyJoe says (I don't understand why) then withdrawable.
It's certainly odd that 0 of the 8 people voting on this are active admins using the template. There's just 1 "SEMI-RETIRED" admin. Are any of y'all using multiple accounts? RudolfoMD (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG RudolfoMD (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you could view it as odd, and indication of deception... Or you could see it as evidence you made a bad nomination. If you think it's a problem, you can always take Guy to WP:AN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry is a textbook case of How Not to Win Friends and Influence People. If you think this should be deleted, find a policy-based reason instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —holly {chat} 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a retaliatory nomination. Rudolfo seems to be a fan of anti-medicine bullshit on a mission to cause trouble for those who support mainstream (I.e. the opposite of fringe) views. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 22 January 2024 (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.