Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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.  


 * DRV overturns this non-administrator closure to a simple, outright Keep. Xoloz 17:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was substitute by a suitable invocation of template:userbox

Userspace does permit statements of this kind to be made; they're traditionally accepted as disclosures of possible bias.

The concern here is not that editors make such statements of believe, but the possible abuse of the mechanism by which the statements are made for the purpose of networking between people of like beliefs, and to a certain extent the use of the Wikipedia mechanisms for the transmission of those beliefs.

The problems are easily resolved without the editors having to lose their pretty boxes.

The userbox is easily replaced with an invocation of template:userbox, for instance

The above produces this:

The main advantage of this is that it does not permit the template whatlinkshere mechanism to be abused for POV networking. Another advantage is that the user can edit the code to customize the message, logo, size or anything else to his own wishes.

The userbox at User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN need not be deleted, it will be enough to edit all userpages outside the userspace of User:DieWeisseRose to use an invocation of template:userbox. The editing is simple enough to be performed by bot or AWB. --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN
User template is divisive and inflammatory. It implies that the UN is bad Sef rin gle Talk 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep What? Something in userspace that expresses an opinion that you don't like? Burn it, burn it to a crisp! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this any different than Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny?-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anything that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group has no place on Wikipedia." I was unaware that the UN was a religious group. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK so let me get this straight. It is OK to have a userbox that is offensive in general so long as it doesn't insult a religion? Is that what you are saying?-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that just because you personally dislike something doesn't mean it should be deleted (personally, I'd rather strap lit fireworks to my throat than sit through an episode of CSI: Miami, but that doesn't mean I'd delete a userbox about it). Offending an entire religion is completely different. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to point out that the userbox doesn't state a fact (like "The UN is bad"). The userbox states an opinion (wanting the UN to be dissolved). It doesn't imply jack squat about the general "goodness" of the UN itself; perhaps the user wants the UN dissolved because they are an anarchist (which is likely, given the author). The initial nomination is flawed (doubly so because of the "I don't like it" reasoning). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Not offensive in the least bit. Its okay to have userboxed with political statements. There is no reason to delete it.--†Sir James Paul† 09:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, soapboxing. WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the most relevant part of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox) refers specifically to articles (a distinction that is pointed out several times in the whole page). This type of userbox isn't even covered under What Wikipedia is not, or at User page. I'm not trying to wikilawyer, I'm just pointing out that the usual policies bounced around in these situations are generally irrelevant. I'm all for WP:GUS, in that opinion-based userboxes should never appear outside userspace, but I feel that this is well within the bounds of a user's personal space. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not a free-web space provider for soapboxing. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive and should not be taken normatively. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Soap boxing, in my mind, is actual ranting and raving about something (if they had an essay in their userspace about why they think the UN should be dissolved, there'd be no disagreement between the two of us about this). A simple sentence that declares an opinion is hardly soapboxing. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A template that exists in userspace, which is allowed to be transcluded into the userspace of other users, and used as a propoganda device is soapboxing. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, divisive, soapboxing, not what we're about. Not in total agreement with the 'it's just in userspace' idea... passes the duck test - being used as a template, therefore is a template. Riana (talk)  12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this blurs the line between userspace/templatespace, but this is still not that big of a deal. I also have extreme doubts as to the user's motivations, considering their own userboxes; he/we should be equally willing to delete User:EVula/Userboxes/User against Bush (haha, which I had no idea was in my namespace until now), User:Mtmelendez/Userboxes/Globalization, and User:Aminullah/Userboxes/Anti communist, as they are equally inflammatory, and imply that Bush, Globalization, and Communism are bad, respectively. (I'm not trying to wikilawyer, I'm just point out how the argument boils down to the ever-petty "I don't like it"). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would strongly advocate for those to be deleted as well. Riana (talk)  14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A perfectly reasonable attitude to have (even though I disagree). All I want is consistency, regardless of the actual argument. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a clear statement of political opinion,of course, but there's nothing wrong with declaring your biases. Not intended to be divisive, despite what others have said; it's just a statement of something the user would like to see happen. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - not the slightest divisive or inflammatory. It is a statement of opinion, we can disagree or agree, but proposing it for deletion seems rather disuptive. Bertilvidet 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is just an opinion. There are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike the UN (such as merely sending a letter when genocide happens). -N 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - this UBX is in user space and is an appropriate use of it. --DieWeisseRose 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - T1 does not apply to user space. User space is the appropriate place for "controversial and divisive userboxes" per WP:UM--DieWeisseRose 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment T1 applies to all templates. If it's designed to be transcluded across multiple pages, by its nature it is a template. What namespace it is in doesn't matter. ^ demon [omg plz] 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "It implies that the UN is bad." You mean it isn't? --BigDT 21:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - divisive, inflammatory, and a polemical statement, none of which a userbox or template should be. Pages cannot be kept solely because they are in userspace, and userbox migration is not a reason to keep a particularly inflammatory userbox such as this. --Core desat 00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Statements of opinion are not against the law and the way things are going, we meant as well just get rid of the userboxes and categories of Wikipedians since everyone's so hell-bent on silencing everyone's point of view lately. Sion 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. ^ demon [omg plz] 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say we did but we can express our opinions within reason. Sion 04:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the Speedy Keepers (the reasons are all good) and BigDT's comment after DieWeisseRose. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep It is not offensive or devisive at all. Every userbox that is pro-something should have an anti-counterpart. i.e pro-abortion, anti-abortion, creation/evolution, anti-metric pro-metric, pro-george bush, anti-george bush. To present only one side would be the real crime. --Nordic Crusader 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So far the score is 9 Keep : 3 Delete Can we resolve this yet? --Nordic Crusader 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * MFD is not a vote, and this is not a speedy keep candidate because there are arguments to delete. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Core desat  02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The userbox is not offensive and its nomination for deletion is suspect. The statement made is not inflamatory nor does it defame any parties on or off the Wiki community. King of Corsairs 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that the creator of the userbox is in effect canvassing for votes by way of a large, obtrusive message being transcluded with the userbox. It should also note that several of those arguing to keep it are doing so from their personal beliefs and transclude the userbox on their user pages. --Core desat 02:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm ... if it were a template, it would have a message tfd notifying anyone looking at a page where the template was in use of the tfd discussion. It makes sense to have something similar in place here - that isn't canvassing.  And as far as people using it wanting to keep it ... that's no more relevant than pointing out that everyone wanting to get rid of it is not using it.  It's an uninteresting statistical correlation. --BigDT 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - You can argue all you want about how it's not a template because it's in the user space, however that doesn't change the fact it fulfills the very spirit of being a template: it's a page designed to be transcluded in a bunch of other pages. That's a template, and this template is divisive. Divisive templates are not allowed. (messedrocker • talk) 02:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like once again political correctness is running mad. The whole point of these userboxes is to show opinion and information of the userbox holder. I was hoping also to find an anti-EU box, does anyone happen to know if there is one? --Nordic Crusader 02:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Djr xi/User bad EU Here's one. There's another, too. I'll look for it. Sion 04:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I note the nominator has a number of userboxes at User:Sefringle/userboxes making a political statement on their userpage supporting Zionism, the U.S. Democratic party, the globalization movement, recycling, same sex marriage, renewable energy, green energy, racial equality, gender equality, equal rights for queer people, the death penalty, and opposing George W. Bush, communism, fascism, and the war on drugs, all in similar userboxes. I'm afraid I don't see much of a difference between these boxes taking political positions and the box which is the subject of this nomination. John Carter 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is nothing more then a statement of opionion, in no way attacking anyone else. — xaosflux  Talk  02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not willing to execute the "speedy keep" requests in a discussion that has attracted attention from so many admins. (I tried that recently, and the close was reverted.)  However, I have a few words of wisdom to offer.  Sefringle, in his nomination, compares politics to religion.  I see a fundamental difference.  A userbox that says "This user believes that all Jews are Christ killers" would be personally offensive to me as a Jew, and to all reasonable people.  Religion is too personal an aspect of many of our lives to attack so brazenly with a glib cartoon.  However, to say that the United Nations should be dissolved - unless you actually work for the United Nations, this is not a personal attack against you, and honestly, there are some serious flaws with the UN such that the user's opinion is not altogether preposterous (not that I agree either).  So it's not a divisive and inflammatory template. Yechiel Man  08:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - polemic userboxes are divisive. Also, this userbox uses categorization improperly. --After Midnight 0001 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The categories can easily be removed. That isn't a valid reason to delete a page. I also disagree with the polemic bit, but that is a valid reason to delete. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my delete is based on the polemic bit. The category bit is not additional delete support, but rather, additional information that if the deciding admin selects something other than delete, that the categorization should be corrected. --After Midnight 0001 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing offensive about the userbox. Many people oppose the United Nations (including myself, for national sovereignty and national security reasons). How is that offensive? Many people oppose the ACLU, the NRA, etc; should they not be allowed to have userboxes which voice their opposition? What about all the religious userboxes "Christian," "Roman Catholic," etc. which speak about support for a belief and/or organization? Yet more "free" speech hypocrisy from the socialist Left. To quote Metallica, "freedom with their exceptions." -RedBlade7 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick note (got a bit carried away there). The userbox links to category "Users INTERESTED in the United Nations," which seems to (slightly) suggest the opposite of what the userbox says. We should remove this category from the userbox. -RedBlade7 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor point: It's become conventional to write user categories at "Users interested in X" regardless of exactly how the user identifies him- or herself. There's no reason I can see to change that. Yechiel Man  21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And, to be fair, someone who dislikes something still has an interest in it. Unless the category was "Users who support the United Nations", it'd still be applicable. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with Yechiel. That like saying that User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotJewish should be categorized into "Users interested in Judaism".  Using "interested in" is often, though not always, an attempt to end-run policy. --After Midnight 0001 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Because this userbox in in userspace, it can have whatever the "owner" would like in it, except stuff such as anti-religiousness. And to everyone that wishes to delete it, there is a difference between "template" and "userspace". "Template" means it belongs to Wikipedia in the way an article belongs to it, but "userspace" means that it belongs to the user, not to Wikipedia as an article.  Since only articles are governed by the NPOV standard, any user  is free to put whatever he/she wants on his/her userspace, provided that it is in that user's userspace and not in the form of a template, and that it follows established Wikipedia guidelines.  Also, if you couldn't put this kind of language in your own userspace, then Sefringle's userboxes with similar language should be deleted off his userpage.    FastLizard4  ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If Sefringle dosen't like the language of the userbox in question on this page, I strongly urge Sefringle to delete all similar userboxes off of his userpage.  FastLizard4  ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have rewritten the following based on a comment User:Nordic Crusader made, which Sefringle deleted in accordinance to WP:NPA. What is the difference between a userbox that says "This user is against the UN" and one that says "This user is against George W. Bush"?  He also has several other userboxes which may be considered akin to the UN userbox in quesion.  They include one that says "This user is an atheist", which (hypothetically) may imply that God is bad, and one that reads "This user is Pro-Choice", which (hypothetically) may imply that abortion is good, which are purely based on the user's opinion (note: none of this represents my view on any of these topics, which may be the same of different).  If Sefringle has those userboxes on his userpage (user sub-page, rather), why should he/she complain about this userbox?  There are some very good reasons that a person might dislike the UN, as there are some very good reasons that a person might like the UN (you can see Sefringle's userboxes on this page: User:Sefringle/userboxes). FastLizard4  ( Talk | Contribs ) 05:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Polemic. But I think this is a bad faith nom, given the nom's own extravagant use of similar userboxen.--Flamgirlant 07:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete soapboxing--D-Boy 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. "I disapprove of what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kay okay, but why not say it in your userspace, and be done with it? Why create a template and prompt others to use the same? That's propaganda and soapboxing. We are only Wikipedians on Wikipedia and nothing else. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A userbox doesn't prompt anybody to do anything; it's just there. It being in an easily transcluded form is a convenience, nothing more. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAP. You can go through a loophole by saying it's not an article, but regardless, it's a template that is transcluded on a number of pages. I don't think that userboxes that could be classified as contentious should be on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, and that Wikipedia is not censored is an argument that doesn't apply to userspace. Wikipedia should not be considered to be an instrument to harp about one's politicial or religious affiliations or dislikes. WP:NOT censored applies to article space only. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Comment Would you classify any of the following as "contentious"?
 * 1. One on Sefringle's userbox page that says "This user is against George W. Bush"
 * 2. One on Sefringle's userbox that says "This user is Pro-Choice"
 * 3. A userbox that reads "This user supports the UN"
 * Since you think the Anti-UN userbox is, all of the ones above must be deleted, and hundreds of others, because they are potentially "contentious".
 * Please also read PiMaster3's comment, The Storm Surfer's comment, and ShadowHalo's comment.
 * -- FastLizard4 ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think those type of userboxes should be deleted. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nishkid and Nick. Baka man  19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the consensus around WP:UBM. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if this userbox is deleted then any pro-UN userboxes must be deleted as well. --PiMaster3 talk 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per EVula, Sir James Paul, Gavia immer (especially), Bertilvidet, N, DieWeisseRose, Nordic Crusader, King of Corsairs, xaosflux (quite elegantly), RedBlade7, FastLizard4, and Ashley Y. And I think those who are saying that T1 is meant to apply to userspace should read this diff by Jimbo. — The Storm Surfer 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I was under the impression that this was one of the purposes of userboxes. Identifying one's own biases (without going on a long, inappropriate rant) seems much more useful than "This user likes carrots", pardon the semi-WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.  ShadowHalo 04:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep bald statements of opinion are allowed in userspace. This is not an inflammatory userbox. Hut 8.5 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete political organizing on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 08:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep userpages are about a person, their interests and their views, so how is this more problematic than any other userbox? The idea this is political organising is spurious as it categorises to Wikipedians interested in the United Nations together with a number of other boxes for both sides. A single sentence is hardly soapboxing, and the idea that it fails "not a free webhost" is laughable. --h2g2bob (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as expression of a view, but appalled at the bandying about of WP:ALLORNOTHING! ck lostsword • T  •  C  11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Userspace doesn't have to be NPOV, there's nothing wrong with the userbox, precedent, ect. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - We had the userbox migration to solve these problems. Let it go.  You wouldn't delete a userpage if a user wrote that on their page, so don't delete the template. — M ETS 501 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - either hardcode it or delete. Cant have this as a template.  Sarvagnya 04:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? give a reason. Under what section of what policy is it offending? You can't just say 'Cant have this as a template' --Nordic Crusader 06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should re-read the page because this isn't template for deletion, and we're not dealing with templates here. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Censorship - Jet123 (Talk) 05:15, 28 June 2007 (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.