Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage

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 No consensus. This is a difficult discussion to close. As I noted in this recent close of a userbox MFD, what is "inflammatory or divisive" is a subjective area. Some userboxes produce clear consensus that it is or isn't, but this one has not. I might infer that the division of opinion in this MFD indicates that the userbox itself is in fact "divisive", but I don't believe it would be appropriate to use that inference as the basis for a deletion when the majority of the discussion participants express "keep" positions that are reasonably argued and not just WP:ILIKEIT. --RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage[edit]

Violation of userbox guidelines — "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." Feezo (Talk) 05:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNothing divisive at all. Move along...nothing to see here. Just a busybody looking for something to complain about.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our policy on personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Feezo (Talk) 12:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The analysis for this userbox would be under Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions - "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for ... opinion pieces on ... politics." The userbox says, "This is the 782nd day that the United States has been held hostage." I don't see a case made for this userbox being outside of those listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, which allows opinions and I don't see why HRH Bedford's userbox should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics has no official status. Wikipedia:Userboxes is a guideline, and thus has priority. Feezo (Talk) 08:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If referring to a presidential administration as a "hostage" situation does not constitute an opinion piece, then I don't know what does. Feezo (Talk) 08:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The box doesn't say "presidential administration". In any event, we just seem to be guessing at whether the box complies with Wikipedia:Userboxes. Please look through Wikipedia:List of userbox nominations at miscellany for deletion for similarly listed MfDs, read the comments, and use that knowledge to expand your analysis as to why this userbox does not meet Wikipedia:Userboxes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're splitting hairs. The box counts the days since the sitting president's inauguration, and links to United States presidential election, 2008. But as you suggested, I went and had a look at the other deletion discussions — thanks for linking that, by the way. The most relevant seems to be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Gore is Satan, since that makes similar hyperbolic accusations. Actually, do you mind if I ask the administrator who closed that one to give his opinion here? He has a fair measure of experience with this kind of thing, and I think his opinion would be valuable. He's not directly involved in this discussion however, so I'd rather not contact him without consensus. Feezo (Talk) 10:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Userboxes exist to let others know about an editor, including their political beliefs. I would much rather have an editor declare their view of the United States President on their user page in the form of a userbox than have them editing articles like Barack Obama with an undeclared bias. Buddy431 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAPBOX CTJF83 21:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hardly inflammatory, merely a humourous political statement. Those that it inflames probably have an opposing point of view. It gives us a good clue about a potential COI. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people who may or may not be offended are irrelevant, and your suggestion that we can "tag" them as having COIs by their opinion on this userbox reeks of McCarthyism. Suppose I am a patriotic Republican, proud of his country, who wishes to raise the level of his nation's political discourse and disdains the childish mudslinging of his compatriots. But whether such or other people are "inflamed" is utterly irrelevant. The template clearly violates § 2.3 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, the template constitutes both Propaganda and an Opinion piece, and as such does not belong in Wikipedia in any namespace. Feezo (Talk) 10:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the inflamed people that have the potential COI, but the user of the userbox. Note the COI is not necessarily realised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see — there were two possible interpretations. I don't have a problem with identifying COI based on the use of a userbox, since many userboxes exist to show affiliation. I just think there are better ways to go about it. For example, I may disagree with the message of Bedford's other userboxes without supporting their deletion. This is the only one that constitutes both propaganda and advocacy, and so runs afoul of policy. Feezo (Talk) 11:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is perfectly fair humor. I believe the nominator is unaware that "America Held Hostage" is actually a humor theme for a segment from American television and radio programs in the early 1990s to chronicle the "horrors" Bill Clinton Administration. :) This has been out there a long time. No harm in it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was indeed unaware of that particular piece of political history. I still think it at least borderlines WP:NOT, but I'm glad there's a rational explanation. :) Feezo (Talk) 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the delete croud If, back in 2002 a template was up for discussion saying "Today is the 795th day since the citizens of the US were robbed" in reference to the 2000 elections would you still express the same impassioned opinion? Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't an editor then, so I can't judge. But I will vigorously oppose mudslinging regardless of affiliation — show me a comparable template today, and I will support its deletion. Feezo (Talk) 01:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might put such a thing on my personal site, but not on Wikipedia. It's a divisive comment, regardless of whether it is about/from red or blue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a standard implementation of the German userbox solution — NPOV userboxes go in Wikipedia or Template space, and POV ones go in userspace. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while consensus is against me on this one, I personally think userboxes like this one, which do nothing except express a political opinion (and in this one, a pretty controversial one, implying that President Obama is illegitimate) should be banned. They do nothing to help improve the encyclopaedia, and are only likely to provoke arguments; I've never understood why they're apparently exempt from WP:SOAP. Robofish (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought just about all political userboxes were deleted some years ago as being divisive some years ago. This is divisive regardless of whether it comes from the red or blue side of the spectrum. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a spectrum have sides? Chzz ► 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many users wouldn't know of that specific jokey theme thing, and hence at the very least it gives the appearance of derision, and is inflammatory. For the people !voting to keep it - would you say the same, if it was about Libya under Gaddafi? Chzz ► 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would, and do, say the same about pretty much all userboxes. Userboxes provide valuable insight into an editors mindset, even if they are little more than political bumper stickers. Buddy431 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personally, I don't see it as inflammatory or divisive, rather it's a userpage bumper sticker. To me, userboxen are mostly political or cultural fluff and not serious in this context. If it helps keep otherwise productive editors here and contributing, why stop them. See the essay: Editors matter. Excessive political correctness can be politically incorrect. — Becksguy (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2011 (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.