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 debate was keep. Sandstein 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:USERPAGE#What may I not have on my user page?, users are strongly discouraged from having content on their userpages that constitutes "...personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia...", "...non-encyclopedic related material", or "[p]olemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia". The userbox being nominated is each and every of those things. While cases where the community is tolerant to this type of content are not uncommon, this infobox is one that is clearly divisive and provocative. Why we are still allowing this kind of material to be used on our editors' userpages is simply beyond me—it is goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia and affects the colloborative environment in a very negative way. Why nominate this particular infobox but not the rest? Because one has to start somewhere and this one is as good bad as any, because I do not believe in nominating things in bulk, and because I have every intent to nominate each and every similar infobox after this one is processed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep These user boxes are awesome for identifying POV pushers and such. It is displayed on an editor's page at their own risk and we should not legislate against it. --mboverload@ 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The potential usefulness of such userboxes in those regards is not in question, but they also aggravate editors who hold an opposing point of view and do more harm than good in the end (just follow any heated East European-related topic for a few days; you'll see). Ask yourself this—if one is to create a userbox supporting KKK (or "white power"), how long would it take for such a userbox to be stomped on by the disgusted community because it is "clearly divisive", "disruptive", and "unrelated to building an encyclopedia"? Just because this userbox is not as offensive (it does not resonate with the English-speaking editors as well for the reason it does not strike their home that close), does not mean we need POV-pushers to have a ball by letting them keep it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are aggravated because they hold differing points of view, they really need to work out that issue before editing wikipedia. Supporting banned or illegal organisations is not the same as expressing a political view. You are complaining about POV pushing whilst attempting to censor a POV you obviously disagree with. --neon whitetalk 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't jump to ungrounded conclusions about me, and remember that this discussion is about the userbox, not about my alleged POVs (which you got all wrong, by the way). As for "expressing political views", how is a demonstration of a political view which, in essence, calls for partitioning of an existing country, not disruptive or poisoning the editing atmosphere? Can't argue with your "working out different views" statement, though—if everyone followed that, we wouldn't be having this userbox (as well as other userboxes of the same nature) in the first place (one's own userpage is always a great place to start practicing that advice). I can live with this kind of userboxes just fine, but I know some productive editors who are really ticked by it and, unfortunately, react to it by simply displaying an opposing kind of userboxes, thus ticking some other editors and creating a vicious loop of hostility. If that can be at least somewhat elated by deleting a rectangle with a picture in it, why not do it, especially when rectangles of this sort fall under the definition of undesirable userpage content as per WP:USERPAGE?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"how is a demonstration of a political view which, in essence, calls for partitioning of an existing country, not disruptive or poisoning the editing atmosphere?" because it simply isn't. If people are too narrow minded to accept other political points of view then it's entirely their problem and something they need to deal with. There are many seperatist political positions in many countries in the world from tibet to quebec, ireland, scotland, wales, basque etc. Disagreeing with the principle of devolution is not grounds for censoring wikipedia. "If that can be at least somewhat elated by deleting a rectangle with a picture in it, why not do it" Why not delete all wikipedia in case someone is annoyed by it? So what if someone wants an opposing userbox? There's pro-choice and anti-abortion, evolution and intelligent design etc. --neon whitetalk 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you keep referring to this nomination as "censoring Wikipedia". "Censoring Wikipedia", in my book, is prohibiting certain materials from appearing, or encouraging certain materials over other materials to appear, in main space. We are talking about userspace here, which is already "censored" by WP:USERPAGE. We do not allow quite a few things on our editors' userpages, but not because we disagree with them in principle, but because they do not fit the purpose of building a free encyclopedia. If people are too narrow-minded to understand, for example, that they can't peddle goods and services on their userpages, it is entirely their problem, too, but we would still remove such content. Expression of political/religious views falls under the same category. If you go to church wearing a "jesus sucks" t-shirt, is the pastor censoring you by asking to leave the premises? No, because while you have a right to commit such an act, you are also going against the norms accepted by the community you are visiting. Plastering "I support Republicans/Democrats/Burma/Orthodox Church/United Nations/independence of Chechnya/independence of Scotland/and-I-also-like-pizza" messages all over one's userpage does nothing to promote collaborative atmosphere and, indeed, only aggravates other "narrow-minded" (but nevertheless productive) editors who happen to hold an opposing point of view. This is what this nomination is all about.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's obvious that the user pages have progressed beyond the guidelines so i dont think they are of any use here. I dont see how this remotely affects a users ability to edit. Everyone has views to pretend otherwise would be more damaging. --neon whitetalk 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making statements like that is very dangerous as they undermine our policies and guidelines. What's to prevent anyone from stating that any our guideline somehow "progressed beyond" whatever it is that person does not like in it and then to keep going about one's business by safely ignoring the whole thing? If you believe that a certain guideline is obsolete or is in dire need of being updated, please propose changes there; until then, we are supposed to uphold the principles we are declaring.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KKK userbox. Other Chechnya user boxes: 1 and 2. -- Suntag☼ 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any evidence that Dc76 (or I with my userboxes, for that matter) is a "POV-pusher"? BiruitorulTalk 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not about you, Dc76, or anyone else using these boxes being POV-pushers, but about the fact that the existence of these boxes is contrary to the guidelines the community expects everyone to follow (although, judging by the essence of the comments accumulated so far, it would be more accurate to say the guidelines "the community wants everyone to believe it wants everyone to follow").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that, but it was Mboverload, not you, who made the initial charge. I should've addressed the question more directly to him. BiruitorulTalk 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is unrelated to wikipedia, possibly divisive, at odds with the core principle of NPOV. Should real-world NPOV permeate the entire project, beyond mainspace? To delete could be considered censorship. Hasn't there been a community discussion on this? Where is it archived? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To delete would be in complete accordance with WP:USERPAGE, which, unfortunately, seems to be in contradiction with WP:GUS. If this userbox is not deleted, then a discussion will definitely need to be started regarding the USERPAGE/GUS incompatibility, and one of the two needs to be amended in the end.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No conflict. Wikipedia:Userbox migration is not a guideline and Wikipedia:User page is a guideline, so Wikipedia:User page trumps. -- Suntag☼ 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, WP:UBM has kept the userbox drama away (and is treated as if it were a guideline by many users) - I'm not sure we really want to unlid this can of worms for more "OMG!!! You deleted my userbox you [insult]!!! But [another userbox] is even worse!!! Kill it with Fire!!!" CharonX/talk 08:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't believe this is the best way to go about trying to change guidelines to eliminate the use of politically based templates. It would be preferable to nominate two templates directly opposed to each other for deletion at the same time, so as to make it obvious that your opposition is to political templates in general rather than to the particular template being nominated. For example, you could nominate User:Hexagon1/EU3 and User:S.Örvarr.S/Template:EU. As an alternative, you could nominate Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics for deletion, which would not eliminate the userboxes themselves but would avoid encouraging their use and creation. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Like I said in the nomination, I do not believe in nominating more than one thing at a time. Rest assured, my next nomination is going to be for a template from an opposing set. Thank you for the suggestion to nominate Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics for deletion; in the hindsight, it would have been a better place to start —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's keep a lid on this can of worms - as the userbox wars in the past have shown this kind of thing just causes too much of drama. Also see WP:UBM. CharonX/talk 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The solution is worse than the problem. Intolerance breeds intolerance. If these userboxes really hurt, stay away from them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2008 (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.
