Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy

 __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. After fully reviewing this discussion, I find consensus to delete this userbox. Editors advocating to keep the userbox brought forth several arguments (anti-political correctness, no active harm, etc). Editors advocating deletion refuted some of these arguments by claiming that the userbox violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:CIVIL. Defining which userboxes are polemic is largely left up to the community, and several more editors argued this was polemic than argued it was not. Both sides were reasonable from a policy perspective on that point, and for something this subjective, I must turn mostly to the numbers. The debate over guidance at WP:UBX/POLITICS favored deletion, as the claim that the guidance supported political userboxes was clearly refuted. That was not a major factor in my view of consensus, though, as UBX/POLITICS is not a policy or guideline. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy


Per the discussion at DRV (log), it was found that this userbox was not removable under CSD criteria. Therefore, I am opening an MfD for this box as requested by the editors at DRV. - This opening is procedural in nature, and I hold no view on the deletion of this page. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete . Offensive, divisive, and serving no project related purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Approximately 10 contributors transclude this to their userpage. I believe PRISM (surveillance program) is what's being called "America's bullshit". — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If so, it is too subtle, and still is not project related, crosses WP:NOTADVOCACY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The left image, i.e. File:PRISM logo.jpg, is the logo of the program, and it directly links to PRISM (surveillance program). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now pointed out, it is obvious.  Too subtle for someone unaware of PRISM (surveillance program), what jumped out was calling America the expletive. Non-project related political offence can be tolerated, but should be done more diplomatically. A rewording could bring this userbox back from across the line.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Improving wording to avoid offence by misreading. My attempt to improve the wording was here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But Delete if the previous wording is insisted upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I agree with the sentiment, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and this doesn't advance that goal.  There's no shortage of other, more appropriate, forums for users to express their political views.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLEMIC. While reasonable expressions of opinion are fine in userspace, this crosses the line from a statement of opinion into "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities" which aren't allowed. Alternate wording like "this user is opposed to the US government's surveillance programs" would be acceptable.  Hut 8.5  10:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: already nailed what I was thinking... chill-- (talk) (c) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – I was the one who submitted this to deletion review. Ultimately, it's not important to me whether or not this userbox exists.  What is important is the community's true commitment to NPOV, which I just haven't seen in this case.  WP:UBX/POLITICS and related pages carry a big warning box at top which states in part "Please remember that the purpose of userboxes is to tell people about yourself as a Wikipedian (an editor of an encyclopedia), not as a human being in general".  I've backed far away from political topics due to the countless cases of cherry-picking sources to produce a party-line narrative, often without regard for any inherent POV baggage found in those sources.  On the one hand, too many corners of the encyclopedia glorify the U.S. government and flavor-of-the-month media-darling politicians at every possible turn.  On the other hand, many non-mainstream topics are heavily weighted towards the opinions of the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and similar, often at the expense of actually covering the topic.  Given that context, perhaps this userbox DOES allow users to express who they are as a Wikipedian, unless "being a Wikipedian" means worshipping officialdom and expecting others to follow in lockstep.
 * We appear to be using the bluntness of this userbox's message as an excuse to single it out, all the while other userboxen which may violate WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:POLEMIC escape similar scrutiny. My poster child is User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Strong ProLeader.  Stating that one "strongly supports the policies and views of Barack Obama" could be seen as highly divisive, especially given that Trump's election has been viewed in part as a rejection of his presidency.  Or are such views exempt from scrutiny because of Obama's "popularity"?  I'm quite certain that if I were to (perhaps falsely) claim that I "strongly support the policies and views of" David Duke or Willis Carto instead of a laundry list of media-darling politicians, someone would be putting that userbox under this same microscope.  Perhaps Hut 8.5's suggestion of alternate wording is the way to go here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My problem with this userbix is that it reads as broadly anti-American. I see now that this was not intentional, but is due to clumsy lacking articulation. That is not sufficient excuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A huge difference between your poster child and this is that the poster child is worded positively, this is worded negatively. Stating who or what you love is great. Statements of hate are not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm getting genuinely concerned on how politically correct this place is becoming. JAG  UAR   14:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't strike me as Polemic. However, for those that believe it to be, in my experience, WP:POLEMIC seems to be one of those policies that wikipedia has "in writing" but rarely enforces on userpages. Therefore, why should this be any different, users have great flexibilty on what they can have on their userpages. He's (I'm assuming) protesting the goverement's use of  PRISM, no biggie, he's not insulting users, nor anyone's gender, nor skin color, nor sexuality, nor is it racist, sexist, mysoginistic, nor anything else patently dissalowed by Wikipedia.  Let it stay.  Kosh  Vorlon }   13:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no issue with this. Sam Walton (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Ambivalent. Sam Walton (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Recognising that this is leaning "keep", and my opinion that the problem is broad offensiveness that can be read, but was not intended, I have fixed the problem with this edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think just because only you who finds it offensive gives you the right to change another person's userbox. The growing consensus is that nobody else found it offensive in any shape or form, and the majority voted keep to leave the infobox how it is. JAG  UAR   00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "nobody else found it offensive" is patently false. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is offensive about it? The userbox was protesting the ethics of the PRISM program. It doesn't label itself as anti-American in any way. JAG  UAR   00:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was able to be read as asserting that Americans are bullshit. On a more careful reading, that is a gross misreading, but still, communication should be better than that.  I made a suggested that I think completely preserves the intention but removes the way I (and others) were able to misread it.  Of course, the edit could be improved.  Note that I am effectively withdrawing my delete !vote.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I just reverted 's change. I would request that the userbox remain in the state that it was originally tagged in, that way a consensus can be determined with the original statements still intact. For the record, I was not offended by the original wording of the userbox.  Kosh  Vorlon }   14:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is the nature of divisive offence that not all find it offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTHOST, WP:CIVIL: directly defamatory to a whole nationality and irrelevant to encyclopedia-building purposes. If I make a similarly rude userbox like the one at the right, claiming in the same way a whole nationality's "bullshit" is threatening, and new South Korean users see this and decide not to participate in Wikipedia because it's apparently open season on Koreans, is it OK for me to say later, in some obscure discussion page like this that normal users never see, that I only meant one part of the North Korean government, even though I didn't explicitly say so, so it's OK and they're too sensitive if they didn't understand?  A huge portion of Wikipedia editors are American: Why should they, and especially new/potential editors, have to face irrelevant side attacks on their nationality like this out of nowhere, just because they encountered some other editor who's too lazy to get their own website somewhere else for the irrelevant crap they can't seem to keep to themselves?  RadioKAOS mentioned the line at the top of WP:UBX/POLITICS: "Please remember that the purpose of userboxes is to tell people about yourself as a Wikipedian (an editor of an encyclopedia), not as a human being in general."  But that's not a disclaimer to allow divisive userboxes; it's a warning not to use them.  What, exactly, does this userbox have to do with creating an encyclopedia?  Even deleting all "opinion" userboxes would be better than allowing this one: WP:CIVIL is one of Wikipedia's five pillars; "insert your insulting opinion about irrelevant crap when it didn't come up in the first place" is not. --Closeapple (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a place for demeaning others, and userboxes are no exception. Closeapple said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above - There's a lot of leeway when it comes to userpages/userboxes however this is political and probably should be kept off of here, It'd be like creating a userbox saying "I hate Conservatives and they've all but ruined this country and I'm sick of their bullshit" - Doesn't help the 'pedia in any way shape or form and would only invite trolling to my talkpage. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why delete this, it isn't harming anyone.--WaltCip (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No but it doesn't exactly contribute to the Encyclopedia either does it ? .... It just creates silly little arguements and or trolls. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Community consensus says otherwise. It's why WP:POLEMIC exists.  Wikipedia isn't for yammer that make users not to want to edit.  If it's Wikipedia-related discussion, then it's presumed necessary up to a point; but off-topic political screeds, particularly ones that can be interpreted as blaming a nationality for the sins of a few, serve no purpose but to make new editors think that it's not worth starting if they think they have to randomly defend against off-topic drama on top.  That's harming Wikipedia. --Closeapple (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (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.