Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful

 __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 keep both. T. Canens (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful
Double nomination: Delete (nom). These userboxes were brought to my attention during this discussion. Whilst the 'inflammatory' and 'divisive' nature of that particular userbox is quite debatable, these two don't enjoy the same luxury. They are not merely statements of belief (or non-belief, as the case may be), they are unambiguous attacks on the philosophy of others and are in quite inherent violation of our userbox policy. PS: I also feel that given their statement on the userbox page, the creator the first userbox may need to be amicably directed to WP:POINT and WP:OSE for future reference. — what a crazy random happenstance 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful
 * Template:User Religion Is Harmful
 * Bad Faith Nom - I'm not just how exactly what the procedure to do this is, but I do believe this nomination and that of Template:User Religion Is Harmful are in bad faith. The nominator has entered a Keep on the the nomination of his own userbox, which MFD has not even closed yet, yet is is simgling out me as being being disruptive to make a point. While I am making a point, I'm in no way being disruptive: both Atheism and Religion can easily be shown to have been harmful in history, but at no point have I stated that any beilef in somthing is imaginary, as does the nom's contested userbox. I would have not problem with his nom if he had waited until the nom was closed as a Delete, as he could then cite the delete as precedent, but that's not what he did, and thus it's in bad faith. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists. There is no need to wait for precedent, in fact that would be quite a silly notion. Would it be more fair were I to wait until "my" userbox were deleted, and then bitterly nominate yours in some sort of petty revenge ploy? I think not. This nomination and the one of which you speak are universes apart when it comes to being 'inflammatory', which is our primary criterion, and ought to be judged on their own merits - i.e. independently of one another. As for your accusation of bad faith nomination, I shall quote myself from below: "I would also like to remind you that I have not nominated the user-box of the nominator of 'my' userbox but that of a third user which was merely brought to my attention during the debate, that I have openly declared this in the nomination, that I have nominated both side's userboxes (for they are equally provocative), and that as a retired user (barring this discussion), I really have no reason to act in a tit-for-tat fashion". — what a crazy random happenstance 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for assuming you created the other userbox. I was under the impression from the other comments that you had created it. I stand by the rest of my comments. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both, per nom. No need for userboxes expressly attacking the beliefs of others. Nsk92 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While admittedly created to make a point, I did not do so to be disruptive. Let me be clear: There are many userboxes on WP which go beyond merely stating one's own faith or belief, and stray in to affirming their own beliefs in a possibly offensive manner, or denying someone else's beliefs n a derogatory manner. They exist, and aa such, I took their existence as an affirmation that the community accepts such infoboxes, and that they are in line with the guidelines on Userboxes. If I had beleived that they were not inline with such guidelines, I would have not created this userbox,and I would have pursued the removal of the other boxes at that time. If the Community stance on these uswerboses changes, then I will pursue the deletion of other boxes that are not inline with the new Community consesnus on the issue. As far as I am concerned, people should be free to merely state their religion or belief system (or non-belief system), such as "This user is a Christian/Hindu/Muslim/Atheist, and be inline with a a new consensus. However, boxes which make other pronucements, such as User:Wispanow/Userboxes/atheist, which states "This user is a scientist and therefore an atheist". probably should not be allowed, as it does make a derogatory statement towards those who may be Christians/Hindus/Muslims and scientists.. Under the current consensus, it is allowed. - BilCat (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. But Happenstance the issue with the other one was that it linked the words "imaginary friends" to Religion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless. Will only offend those who take offence far too easily; if they don't take offence at this, they'll find something else to offend them. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not just a matter of being offensive. These kind of userboxes contribute to tit-for-tat retaliatory battleground mentality (see the message at User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful as an example of what I mean), and give other users rather bad examples to emulate. What's next here, "Christianity is harmful"/"Islam is harmful"? Nsk92 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a "retaliatory battleground mentality" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean), just an alternative to whining about it. Speaking of "retaliatory, the nom of these two pages thinks his own box should be kept! I'm not even taking a position, but he is, and it's quite obvious that the noms are tit-for-tat. - BilCat (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Retaliatory battleground mentality" seems quite self-explanatory to me, have you read the note on the first userbox? It was a patently WP:POINTy move to create it. "My" userbox is not inflammatory, nor divisive. This one clearly is. WP:Other stuff exists - each nom ought to be judged on its own merit. I would also like to remind you that I have not nominated the user-box of the nominator of 'my' userbox but that of a third user which was merely brought to my attention during the debate, that I have openly declared this in the nomination, that I have nominated both side's userboxes (for they are equally provocative), and that as a retired user (barring this discussion), I really have no reason to act in a tit-for-tat fashion. — what a crazy random happenstance 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it as being "satirical" in that it simply reverses the sentiment of the atheism box. If the anti-religion box is taken down voluntarily, I'm assuming or hoping that Bill would also take his anti-atheism box down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I created this userbox as a counter to Template:User Religion Is Harmful. Of course I find that box "offensive", but I didn't go whining about it, I just made it clear that I oppose it, in my own way. If one is deleted but the other one is not, I'll appeal it, no matter which one is deleted. Note that there are many other userboxes like these two, some, such as the nom's own box, are much more offensive. If we delete these two, we should delete them all, including this one. - BilCat (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep a very mild and inoffensive userbox. Those who are offended will be offended by any similar statement of belief.  This MFD creates more drama than the userbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Wikipedia has few rules and guidelines directed at what Users may have, and may not have, on their User pages.  The suggestion here seems to be that a stylised statement of belief presented in a Userbox will be reviewed for acceptability and its deletion may be enforced; but the same statement of belief presented as original narrative will not be so treated.  If messages of this kind were being posted on other Users' pages, or Talk pages, then that would have to be curtailed.  But in this case the message (in a Userbox) is only posted on a User's page by that User.  These Userboxes are inoffensive and their use should not be prevented or regulated.  Dolphin  ( t ) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That may well be the case, but alas, it is often prevented and most definitely regulated. Our content restrictions on userboxes state in no uncertain terms that they must not be "divisive and inflammatory". Whilst the wording of that section often gives rise to dispute when it comes to more marginal sort of cases, these two userboxes seem to me to clearly meet that criterion. — what a crazy random happenstance 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep. It's a userbox. WP allows userboxes to represent personal opinions, which means we should not try to delete opinions that we disagree with unless it is extremely inappropriate or inflammatory etc. This is harmless, and frankly I'm troubled about the nominator's motivation which is likely because he is pissed about his userbox being nominated for deletion (and his may close as Keep after all!) so this "retaliation" was completely unnecessary, not to mention hypocritical that he claims no one could be offended by calling all gods and goddesses "imaginary," yet calling atheism "harmful" is so much more over the line for some reason. Atheism may be harmful, or it may not. God may be imaginary or (s)he may not. Leave others' userboxes alone, and cut this BS out where everyone claims offense when they have a different spiritual belief.  EdEColbert  Let me know 12:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not nominated the userbox of an opponent during the discussion, I have nominated userboxes of two third parties that were brought to my attention during the debate. Two user boxes of the two opposing sides, may I remind you (who am I 'pissed' against, exactly?). Prior to this nomination, BilCat had not even commented on the other discussion. I refer you to my reply above as to why this is not a bad-faith nomination. I can't help question the wisdom of basing your vote on whether these userboxes should or should not be kept on your assessment of my motives. This isn't so much WP:IDONTLIKEIT as "I don't like you". WP:AGF. — what a crazy random happenstance 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unclear and ambiguous and what I said and it's my fault you misunderstood. It's not that you were retaliating against an opponent (BilCat was never involved) but you were retaliating against an opposing view. I was implying that when you found out your anti-god userbox was in jeopardy of deletion you went to look for an anti-atheism userbox to nominate as retaliation. If you deny this, fine I will AGF but you should still see how it looked and I had to balance WP:DUCK with WP:AGF. Anyhow, for the record my vote is based on the merits of the box and not on any assessment of your motives.  EdEColbert  Let me know 18:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do indeed deny it - vehemently so, in fact. I again refer you above, but this time I shall quote myself, since it doesn't seem as though you've read it: "I would also like to remind you that I have not nominated the user-box of the nominator of 'my' userbox but that of a third user which was merely brought to my attention during the debate, that I have openly declared this in the nomination, that I have nominated both side's userboxes (for they are equally provocative), and that as a retired user (barring this discussion), I really have no reason to act in a tit-for-tat fashion". To be perfectly honest, it's exactly this kind of disruptive confrontational assume-bad-faith mentality which made me retire. WP:AGF aren't just letters to use in an argument, it's how you're meant to act from the get-go. — what a crazy random happenstance 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That quotation was not written until 4 hours after I made my post. My second post was only to explain my first because I was confusing. I stated my honest objections to your nomination and I was not the only one who thought it was in bad faith and criticism is allowed by WP:AGF. You have responded adequately and now it is up to the closing admin to decide whether the userboxes should be kept. After reading over my first post, I apologize if you thought it was rude to you. But I believe it would have been dishonest for me to vote Keep and omit the fact that the nominator had a userbox up for deletion of the opposite view. That is the fact that made me think it was a "tit for tat" type thing. I am willing to end this discussion here.  EdEColbert  Let me know 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Either keep both or delete both, leaning toward delete both. I personally don't care much for either one of them. But it would be hypocritical for one to stay and one to go, because they both express the same negativity, the "I'm right and you're wrong and that's that" attitude. It's one thing to assert that you yourself are of a particular point of view, it's quite another to say that others who don't share that view are "wrong". But if they're kept, maybe I should create a userbox that says, "I'm agnostic, and I don't trust anyone who's either a religionist or an atheist." No. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering your (accurate) assessment of the two userboxes as failing our "inflammatory and divisive" criterion, would it not be better to cast a delete vote? — what a crazy random happenstance 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Revised, above. I'm kind of agnostic on this particular item. :) But that's because I've seen far worse stuff on user pages. I'm only saying that it would not be right to treat these two userboxes differently from each other. If I understand correctly, Bill's userbox was a reaction to the atheist's userbox. That alone demonstrates that the atheist's userbox is disruptive. In fact, I would venture a guess that if the atheist voluntarily deletes his userbox, Bill would do likewise with his, and then everything would be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd probably change to the wording to: "Please keep your imaginary friends to yourself. Thank you," with a cross or fish sign as the image, assuming that one is kept. At least I know Happen would support it as not being inflammatory! Why wouldn't he? - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go with The Church of Baseball. That's as safe and American as apple pie. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'd be alright with that. It doesn't make much sense, but it's obviously a good-natured poke at the whole dispute. Thumbs up. — what a crazy random happenstance 17:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to create a userbox that supports the Church of Baseball, but the Cricket fans would think it was inflammatory! Btw, nothing "American" is safe nowadays, not on an international encyclopedia. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like cricket also. What I would avoid, for reasons that have resulted in this discussion, is one that says, "Soccer is a good cure for insomnia." Putting a more positive spin on it, I could say, "I love soccer. Please wake me when the shootout starts." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep These seem fine to me; I think you are stretching it to call them attacks.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonably toned declaration of an editor's POV.  Declarations of POVs are to be encouraged.  A Polemic, which is not OK, this is not.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both. I am an atheist and I think religion is harmful. Not all atheists agree. I am not surprised that some religious people, but again not all, think that atheism is harmful. These are just a way to express your POV and they are not an attack on anyone. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for both of the userboxes; my personal view on userboxes is that, while it is best to try to cause as little conflict in the userspace through the placement of sensitive beliefs and views, users are still entitled to displaying their beliefs, as long as it isn't in the extreme, and that it explicitly states that the userbox is expressing the belief of the user; in addition, it assists in identifying one's POV. A userbox I would not be okay with is, for example, this userbox, in which I leaned towards deleting in its Mfd. Why? It is basically stating, as a matter of fact, that atheists are ignorant and disregarding for other cultures. However, since the userboxes under question in this discussion explicitly state that it's a belief that atheism is harmful, it's fine by me in terms of inclusion. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and userfy the second template. The userboxes here were not as inflammatory as the last MfD nomination, which had specifically linked to a certain religion/sect, disparaged it, and thus was quite divisive regarding consensus on it's purpose, whereas these two were not as serious. However, considering the nature of the userboxes against some consensus, and per this MfD, the userbox should not be in template-space, as that implies a great consensus to allow the use of such userboxes anywhere. Just as user essays do not reflect a majority view and should remain in userspace, versus policies and guidelines that have clear consensus to back them up, I think that this would be the best solution. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea - There's no justification for having a standard template that's intended to be confrontational and divisive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As usual, I believe that it's better users express their opinion in user space than edit an article like religion with an undeclared bias. Buddy431 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Userboxes that are likely to offend other users, or provoke division among editors, and serve no useful purpose in building the encyclopaedia, should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2010 (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.