Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/arseholes

 __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: The image itself is not offensive and the proposal to place it on the bad image list did not get consensus. The intent of the userbox creator was discussed and some editors were clear in saying that regardless of there not being a disruptive intent, this is an unencyclopaedic potentially disruptive userbox. As for the userbox itself there are three broad options, delete, userfy or keep. The deletion arguments focussed on whether calling a group of people arseholes was incivil and whether having such a userbox in template space was disruptive or fostered a battleground mentality. Whilst there were a number of keep !votes they tended to focus on either the image, the concept of the pedia being uncensored or indeed whether some editors would merit this epithet, but they didn't respond to the reasons given for deletion. So I'm closing this as delete per Worm and Kimelea.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia/arseholes


User box is disruptive; image should be on bad image list as it is being abused; but the userbox makes it difficult to determine where exceptions should be allowed. Calabe1992 02:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Used by only two users, not disruptive users, per se, but a disruptive userbox. Achowat (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Amount of users shouldn't matter, i could increase that hundred-fold in a day just by posting the image in the LGBT Wikiproject page. They're all used to articles getting mothballed and constantly attacked by anonymous and registered users.  J e n o v a  20 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point towards the number of users being able to be increased. The Userbox is disruptive and lobbies a personal attack against other editors. It is axiomatically disruptive. Achowat (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as do quite a few others here.  J e n o v a  20 00:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Why should the image be on a bad image list? Its a rather pleasant nude, are you offended by nudity?  Its not disruptive, its humorous, the lack of humour displayed on wikipedia was one of the motivations for its creation.  A sense of humour bypass is not a pre-requisite for editing on wikipedia (though I sometimes wonder). Wee Curry Monster talk 08:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - obviously the picture is much too pretty to illustrate someone's dislike of arseholes (and buttmunches and so on). Not exactly useful, although I also do not find it disruptive enough to cast a vote.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is rather pretty, I suppose it is too much to expect the arsehole problem to be addressed.


 * Opinion changed to support move to userspace - Wikipedia is not censored, the image is not in bad taste and the point made by the userbox is very true.
 * Plus i've seen more untasteful ones, for example the one entitled "Wikipedia is not censored" shows both breasts, a vagina and a penis.
 * If an arse is is disruptive and a bad image then what about those 3?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Good points, I agree. Bearpatch (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't understand deletion rationale (Image should be on bad image list? Why? Where I can find that "bad image list"?). I don't think that user box is disruptive. It is in line with other similar user boxes.-- В и к и  T   11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - As far as I know, "arsehole" is an insult, and calling someone an "arsehole" would be a personal attack. Right, the userbox does not label any specific user as such, but insulting a vague number of users instead of a certain user is still borderline behavior, which does little to promote civility. Cambalachero (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Mugginsx (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That policy does not apply here. The deletion request is on the userbox, not the image. The images are "not censored" when used in articles, they are "censored" (meaning that such usage is not allowed) when the use is meant to be shocking or offensive to someone else. Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please state the guideline which says this. I have never seen it. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See guidelines such as WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:Images. I do not personally feel that we need to use an image like this for a userbox of this type. Calabe1992 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...But that's your personal opinion that an arse is offensive. It's a human anatomy issue and Wikipedia is not censored. Your interpretation of the policy is wrong, it clearly gives examples against porn and dominatrix-wear, nothing about human anatomy in such a way that it would not even constitute softcore pornography.  J e n o v a  20 09:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in this context the term "arsehole" is not used to make mention to human anatomy, but to insult other users that the user of the userbox does not like. Cambalachero (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is it insulting? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Other editors. And for the record, this is not an issue concerning censorship. No one, not a single person, is lobbying for this box to be removed because it shows someone's ass. It's a personal attack, and nothing else. Achowat (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which editors precisely? Its not a personal attack, its a comment on certain editor's behaviour phrased in a direct manner.  Wikipedia doesn't have an arsehole shortage but its certainly lacking in editors with any sense of humour.  This is censorship, its pretending there isn't an issue with arseholes making this place unpleasant.  14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't recognize that the comments you just made are a personal attack, then there's hardly any use in explaining it to you further. Achowat (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the guidelines cited either refer to articles or possibly PERSONAL attacks on a talk page. Since no person is mentioned, the criteria for No personal attacks is not met, though hopefully they know who they are.  This is really silly.  Don't we all have articles to go back to? Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I made something that was unambiguously a personal attack, but I didn't make it in an article or talk page, then it's ok? Achowat (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Open your eyes, it is done all the time. This is mild and not a personal attack - it mentions no names. Look here for the definition of personal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personalMugginsx (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Personal" in regards to WP:NPA means "aimed at people, instead of edits"; not "aimed at one specific person". Achowat (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider it a personal affront to my integrity your presumption that I created this to be disruptive or to make personal attacks. Were I a sensitive soul I would classify that as a personal attack.  This is an expression of frustration with editors behaving like arseholes but its not directed at anyone in particular.  It clearly isn't a personal attack on anyone (if I'd said Fred Bloggs is an arsehole that'd be different), the claims that its disruptive or a personal attack are bogus.  If you consider my comments about a lack of sense of humour were personally directed, then for that I'll apologise but they were not intended to be personally directed, more a general observation.  But really editors worrying about a shapely pair of female buttocks being a "bad image", or a barbed comment in a userbox is a major threat to WP:CIVIL, are seriously lacking in perspective.  Sorry but I have to run and continue my evil plan to subvert WP:CIVIL.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you explain your reasoning why you think "John Smith is an arsehole" is unacceptable, but "Some editors on wikipedia are arseholes" is not? Why is there a distinction there Achowat (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There clearly is. One is a blatantly personal, the other is a general observation on some editors.  If you fail to see that, its your problem not mine.  You'll make wikipedia a friendlier place by getting rid of that kind of editor, not by pretending they don't exist and deleting "bad" images. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Achowa - because, as I have already stated the guideline No personal attacks states the definition of a SINGLE PERSON. Read it here on the page you incorrectly define: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.
 * I'm sorry, this seems to be an attempt to ignore the underlying principles of a policy by hiding behind the letter of that policy. Achowat (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it seems like wishful thinking that a guideline fit your personal opinion. I have had the same wishful thinking myself at times.  Unfortunately, it changes nothing.  Mugginsx (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusing an editor of WP:L could easily be construed as a personal attack. You're of course welcome to have the last word but I feel this discussion has run its course. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WL actually has a lengthy discussion of when an offense of WikiLawyering becomes an insult. If I have offended you by crossing that line, I apologize. But the argument remains that attacking other editors, even en masse is poor form and not something that should be hosted in Template space. Achowat (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This userbox features an image of buttocks next to the statement "This editor is constantly dismayed that there are so many arseholes on wikipedia." I think this is objectionable not because of the image, but because of the insult to the Wikipedia community. The problem with this userbox is incivility, not nudity; see Userboxes. If the buttocks image were removed from the userbox but the same text were kept, I would still support deletion. On the other hand, if the same buttocks image were used in a userbox that said "This user believes he or she has nice buttocks," I probably wouldn't object due to Wikipedia being not censored. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Were wikipedia an arsehole free zone you may have a point, its not a comment on the community but the individuals who make it an unpleasant place. I do have a pert pair of buttocks that I'm quite proud of but that isn't the point.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I'm not strongly against it, but this userbox does nothing to promote a civil atmosphere and goes against the concept of assuming good faith. Yes, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but I see more downsides than upsides to this userbox.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit of a catch 22 though, if it's deleted then it only reinforces the message the box is making. Everyone here will have had other editors get in the way and make things more difficult for them on an article. Ergo we can all identify this box, no matter how much of an arsehole someone is or how much of a nice loveable person they are then deleting it does nothing but prove that there are people out there making things more difficult for others (even though they may think what they're doing is right and the other person is the arse). Bet i'm not yet at the stage to outfox you Dave, but i'll try =P. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 00:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rubbish! You only get what you give and where I've been blocked on an article it's because an editor has an opposing view point, not because they are aresholes. Even the editors who have got right up my nose, I wouldn't consider them arseholes - they generally don't aim to bother me. Your comment there really just proves my point. It's all about perception.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, I've had editors go out of their way to target me, even to the point of ringing me at home after finding out my real name and location.  That guy really was an arsehole.  Wee Curry Monster talk 10:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He does indeed sound like an arsehole from your description. The userbox still does nothing to promote an atmosphere of assuming good faith.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. First up, I don't think it's a personal attack, and I don't doubt the creator's motives - it seems to me to be a light-hearted way of blowing off a bit of frustration. But having said that, I don't think it's in the spirit of the Community - we should be using userboxes to say what we like not what we don't like, to show what we support not what we oppose. Sure, every community has its share of arseholes, but I don't think that openly saying so in a userbox is the best approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfying it would probably be enough, I think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy and remove from gallery. As a new user looking for userboxes, things like this don't make me perceive Wikipedia as a community working together in a spirit of cooperation. More like a battleground where people use name-calling when others disagree. ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sums up quite a few articles to be honest  J e n o v a  20 11:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is and was intended as a light hearted response to frustration. As a general observation this is the second occasion where I've seen a light hearted template nominated for deletion on the basis "it encourages incivility". No templates don't encourage it, the behaviour of users does and the lack of will to tackle disruptive behaviour.  Example I had an editor hinting darkly that I was being talked about off-wiki, I've taken it to ANI as to be honest it creeps me out and its been ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see the frustration and i share your point of view. Like violent games, they don't encourage violence, people have free will and everyone is responsible for their own actions. Some people are also kind to others and help them, but there's also arseholes and so i can see both points of view here (which is why i'm neutral) but would rather the userbox was not deleted.  J e n o v a  20 12:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the tone that was intended, and I'm not saying there are no arseholes, but I feel that advertising that frustration in the userboxes gallery isn't the best way to deal with it. Unlike violent video games, a userbox is a means of direct communication with the rest of Wikipedia and others might not read it as light-hearted. It feels unfriendly and more likely to produce an atmosphere of further arseholery than harmony. ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This does not belong in the template namespace. Per the German userbox solution, potentially divisive userboxes must be in userspace, so this needs to be moved if it's not deleted here at MFD.  Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully support this idea. Whatever is decided, this is clearly a controversial userbox.  J e n o v a  20 14:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm happy to userfy this, no problem at all.  But I really object to the premise it was created to be disruptive or using a "bad" image.  a) nudity is not bad and b) it was intended to be light hearted humour.  Really some sense of perspective rather than finger pointing would make for a better editing environment.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is actually a problem with the image, at least technically - it's not actually an arsehole ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also not a womans arse as Wee Curry Monster claimed  J e n o v a  20 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From the image description, "Delicious female buttocks",... either way its a rather nice nude. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfying would be fine by me, but I'd request that it also be removed from the userbox gallery in that case. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  00:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. 1 Offensive to some people. 2 Doesn't help in production of good articles. (If it were one without the other, I could argue for keeping it.) Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic benefit WP:NOTFACEBOOK. if not delete then userfy. --Salix (talk): 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep-Up above this was asked: "Could you explain your reasoning why you think "John Smith is an arsehole" is unacceptable, but "Some editors on wikipedia are arseholes" is not? Why is there a distinction there Achowat (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)" (Copied from above). The first case the editor makes the determination that John Smith is an arsehole. In the second case the reader has to make the determination that he has been acting in such a way as to be an arsehole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk • contribs)
 * Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum here, then. If there was a UBX that said "Achowat is a thief", clear WP:NPA, no argument. But if we made a userbox that said "Some New Englanders are theives" or maybe "Some Native Americans are thieves" or "Some people of color are thieves" you wouldn't have a problem with it? Achowat (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Divisive userboxes should be userfyied (I'm sure I'm mispelling it) at the very least. In this case, I think deletion might be appropriate, it really doesn't help anything, it's just being divisive. Also, the picture is clearly inaccurate :P  Snowolf How can I help? 07:29, 30 March 2012 (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.