Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User nodemocrat

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:User nodemocrat


Another useless userbox. Who is in the photo? Is it a BLP violation to post this message with the photo? Not related to the goals of Wikipedia amd divisive. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the image is File:Debbie Wasserman Schultz, official photo portrait, color.jpg, with a description of who it is there. — xaosflux  Talk 22:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So pretty much this userbox accuses her of corruption. Lovely. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The photo is of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as you can find by clicking on it. No BLP violations.  It is a combatitively presented political view, it could be defended as an self-declaration and explanation of the user's editing.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree it was somewhat combatively presented. I've removed the external links and changed "knows" to "believes". I'm aware that believes is listed as a potentially-inflammatory word at WP:UB, and would welcome any other suggestions for improvement. In the meantime, I don't believe this template is inherently offensive, and so doesn't warrant deletion. If you find specific words offensive, just be bold and fix them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I'd have no objection to removing the DWS photo and replacing it with something more neutral. MB298 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done some thinking about the BLP claims. Can't say this is rooted in policy, but here's my take on it: a public servant is the public's eye doing a service for said public, and can (and should) expect to receive feedback on their performance thereof, including allegations and criticisms regarding any aspect of their performance thereof. I don't see the reference to her to be an issue, given that it refers to substantiated and legitimate grievances regarding her conduct while in a position of power (blatant libel would be another thing entirely). In other words, if a newspaper can print it, so can we. But that's just my opinion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The text is a user polemic. The image is a BLP attack.  Toss it out either way or both.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP violation in spirit - it is using wikipedia to cast aspersions on a particular person. Also WP:POLEMIC - "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)." This kind of userbox as Jimbo indicated has no legitimate purpose and is bad for the project. It is a negative statement rather than a positive affirmation of belief - that's the distinction that makes it not acceptable. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no BLP violations with the userbox. "BLP violation in spirit" means a fake BLP cry, see Crying "BLP!".  The no political polemics arguments is one I have time for, but it is a matter the great userbox war resolved by ceasefire, it should not be restarted with isolate MfD border skirmishes.  Start a WP:RfC at Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration instead.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between "I am a proud Democrat." and "Republicans are retarded!" If the guideline still says no polemics how can we ignore that? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally agree. This userbox doesn't say that.  Combative personal opinions can be fixed by editing.  Negative statements about the opposition can be reworded as positive statements about your favourite.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree about that. By like, I would much prefer fixing perceived polemics to deleting them altogether. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Even taking DWS out of this, the text remains polemic as casting aspersions on the DNC and other "establishment Democrats". Not helpful for collaboration. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POLEMIC, i.e "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Image implies that DWS is part of the elite which is apparently corrupting the democratic party; as a negative unsourced statement seems like a BLP vio to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the whole intent of the template is combative; templates should generally be what the user is for, not against. If it were "this user supports revolution to reform the US" I suppose that would count as for, but picking an "enemy" to announce on one's userpage is not constructive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - divisive and unhelpful for building a community around writing an encyclopedia.  Richard 0612  23:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: While the textual content could be argued for or against, I cannot think of any valid reason per WP:IUP or WP:UNDUE why a photo of any particular individual should be allowed to be used. If an image is absolutely essential to this userbox, which is something I highly doubt, then File:US Democratic Party Logo.svg, File:Proud to be a Democrat (19081150688).jpg, File:DemDonkey.png, etc. should be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.