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. After fully reviewing this discussion, I find consensus to delete this userbox. Editors advocating to keep the userbox brought forth several arguments (anti-political correctness, no active harm, etc). Editors advocating deletion refuted some of these arguments by claiming that the userbox violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:CIVIL. Defining which userboxes are polemic is largely left up to the community, and several more editors argued this was polemic than argued it was not. Both sides were reasonable from a policy perspective on that point, and for something this subjective, I must turn mostly to the numbers. The debate over guidance at WP:UBX/POLITICS favored deletion, as the claim that the guidance supported political userboxes was clearly refuted. That was not a major factor in my view of consensus, though, as UBX/POLITICS is not a policy or guideline. ~ Rob13Talk 01:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy[edit]

User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per the discussion at DRV (log), it was found that this userbox was not removable under CSD criteria. Therefore, I am opening an MfD for this box as requested by the editors at DRV. - This opening is procedural in nature, and I hold no view on the deletion of this page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Improving wording to avoid offence by misreading. My attempt to improve the wording was here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Delete if the previous wording is insisted upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be using the bluntness of this userbox's message as an excuse to single it out, all the while other userboxen which may violate WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:POLEMIC escape similar scrutiny. My poster child is User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Strong ProLeader. Stating that one "strongly supports the policies and views of Barack Obama" could be seen as highly divisive, especially given that Trump's election has been viewed in part as a rejection of his presidency. Or are such views exempt from scrutiny because of Obama's "popularity"? I'm quite certain that if I were to (perhaps falsely) claim that I "strongly support the policies and views of" David Duke or Willis Carto instead of a laundry list of media-darling politicians, someone would be putting that userbox under this same microscope. Perhaps Hut 8.5's suggestion of alternate wording is the way to go here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this userbix is that it reads as broadly anti-American. I see now that this was not intentional, but is due to clumsy lacking articulation. That is not sufficient excuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A huge difference between your poster child and this is that the poster child is worded positively, this is worded negatively. Stating who or what you love is great. Statements of hate are not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think just because only you who finds it offensive gives you the right to change another person's userbox. The growing consensus is that nobody else found it offensive in any shape or form, and the majority voted keep to leave the infobox how it is. JAGUAR  00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nobody else found it offensive" is patently false. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what is offensive about it? The userbox was protesting the ethics of the PRISM program. It doesn't label itself as anti-American in any way. JAGUAR  00:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was able to be read as asserting that Americans are bullshit. On a more careful reading, that is a gross misreading, but still, communication should be better than that. I made a suggested that I think completely preserves the intention but removes the way I (and others) were able to misread it. Of course, the edit could be improved. Note that I am effectively withdrawing my delete !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just reverted SmokeyJoe's change. I would request that the userbox remain in the state that it was originally tagged in, that way a consensus can be determined with the original statements still intact. For the record, I was not offended by the original wording of the userbox. KoshVorlon} 14:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user's privacy, safety and liberty are threatened by Korea's bullshit.id2
It is the nature of divisive offence that not all find it offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No but it doesn't exactly contribute to the Encyclopedia either does it ? .... It just creates silly little arguements and or trolls. –Davey2010Talk 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community consensus says otherwise. It's why WP:POLEMIC exists. Wikipedia isn't for yammer that make users not to want to edit. If it's Wikipedia-related discussion, then it's presumed necessary up to a point; but off-topic political screeds, particularly ones that can be interpreted as blaming a nationality for the sins of a few, serve no purpose but to make new editors think that it's not worth starting if they think they have to randomly defend against off-topic drama on top. That's harming Wikipedia. --Closeapple (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (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.


More