Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Vlad and Don

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 . This userbox seems less inflammatory than was the other which sought to ban immigration on a particular group of people. However, as some have pointed out Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions, the third bullet point, applies. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Vlad and Don

[edit]
Template:User Vlad and Don (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per User:MrX in his nomination of User:Broter's userbox on Trump being "political", I'd like to make the same arguments in that this userbox (as well as some other polemical ones) should also be deleted under the consensus reached in the last MfD. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This userbox is mild expression. Unless there is a widely participated discussion and agreement to restrict these things, it has to be a keep. "Putin outwits Trump" is not nearly as offensive or divisive as the other case cited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions is pretty clear. I didn't really approve of the "Userbox wars" nor of some of the restrictions that then got consensus (OTOH, I don't really like userboxes much). But it is pretty clear that politically divisive and particularly politically negative userboxen are not allowed byh consensus. Nor does this really help the project in any way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UPNOT also includes as prohibited content: Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia ... (emphasis added) and Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, ... I think this comes under at least one and probably both of these, depending on how "polemical" is interpreted. I do see SmokeyJoe's point, but I believe that there was such a discussion some years ago, which resulted in the current text of UBX and UPNOT. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The UPNOT "polemical" language was apparently first inserted in this edit. Being in a guideline for more than 10 years implies some degree of consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: I think "polemical" userboxes in relation to politics should be defined, so I'm testing the waters with this MfD nomination. I suggest that userboxes that exist to disparage other points of view be banned, instead political user-boxes should be made to advance a specific position on an issue. Such that a userbox supporting the independence of Bouvet Island would be OK, while a userbox being against the continued rule of Bouvet Island by Norway be disallowed (as it only exists to be against the view that Bouvet Island should be controlled by Norway). I'd like to gauge opinion here in this MfD before bringing it up for a potentially major RfC though. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This userbox is merely an expression of personal belief. It is not a direct attack on either individual.  Buaidh  17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think this counts as "polemical" in that it is not a harsh diatribe attacking anything. On the other hand I tend to agree with User:Chess that negative political statements, or negative statements of any kind (in the sense of belittling), should be prohibited from userboxes as being divisive and counterproductive in building an encyclopedia. That's why I !voted delete (along with User:SmokeyJoe) on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jerem43/ubx-yankees - saying something is bad is more hurtful/abusive/divisive than saying that its counterpart is good. However I see that an old Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/MLB-Yankee Hater was a strong keep as well. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing an RfC proposing to ban negative userboxes but to be honest I don't see it gaining much traction. As to User:DESiegel's issue about viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia, I think the key point is that it is listed under "Excessive unrelated content". If promotion of viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia were entirely prohibited on user pages a great many would be in violation. I think we might be better off without the material but it seems unlikely that would get very far. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Note: I have modified this userbox template to be somewhat less provocative.  Buaidh  20:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite changes, the userbox is still politically provocative and will aggravate anyone who supports President Trump.  — Myk Streja (aack!) 18:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most userboxes aggravate me personally, but I don't think I'll quit Wikimedia because of them. Many of President Trump's most ardent supporters acknowledge that he is no match for the President of the Russian Republic. I don't know how to make this point anodyne. What wording would you suggest to describe the relationship between President Putin and President Trump.  Buaidh  20:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • One must consider the precedent set by the deletion of the userbox in favor of Trump's immigration ban. What is different in this case? It's a sort of double standard to allow accusations of a foreign power having harmful effects on America while simultaneously disallowing support of a policy that forbids foreign nationals from having harmful effects on America. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we insist that no userbox template can be divisive, then that would require a ban on all political userboxes and all userboxes that refer to a politician or political party. That would be a major policy shift that would ban hundreds of userboxes. Otherwise, you are selectively removing userboxes that you personally disagree with, such as this one. This userbox does not engender hate as the User:Broter/Ban on Muslim immigration did, but rather states a personal belief supported by substantial evidence.  Buaidh  23:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're going to have to actually inform us as to what was in that userbox, because as far as I can tell, it supported a major policy proposal of the Trump administration where they banned travel from a few Muslim majority countries that were listed as state sponsors of terror. You might find it to be a distasteful policy, but supporting it passes the "personal belief supported by substantial evidence" test. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muslims are a disadvantaged minority group in the United States. Putin and Trump are very far from disadvantaged.  Buaidh  21:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we can agree that the consensus on Wikipedia is that all groups of people have the same right to not be unnecessarily insulted. Meaning, if one is not allowed to critique Mohammad in a userbox, then one should not be allowed to critique Trump in the same way, being as both are leaders of groups of people who would take incredible offense to insults to their leader. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that this userbox template will offend any users other than the three of you who have registered your disapproval above. This is not an article in main space, but merely a userbox that appears on my userpage and a few others. No one has registered a complaint with me about any of the hundreds of userbox templates I have created. I don't think we need to censor user beliefs that are not intended to offend users.  Buaidh  21:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complaint is right here, and it's not your userbox in the first place, being as it is on Wikipedia where nobody owns anything. Userboxes are meant to be conducive to the goal of creating an encyclopedia, and the reason we allow so many of them is that it takes up little space or effort to host them and can satisfy editors who want to express their opinions. Usually the benefits outweigh the costs, but this one does not give a net benefit to the project. It is divisive, and is just not needed in our incredibly divisive political climate. Also, despite my belief that this userbox should be deleted, I'd like to suggest a move to userspace at the very least, considering that's where many pro-Trump userboxes are located. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:55, 31 July 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Vlad_and_Don&oldid=1074078255"