Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LaraLove/Userbox/RacistOnlyOnWP


 * 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 debate was Delete, non-admin closure by  Lenticel  ( talk ) 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:LaraLove/Userbox/RacistOnlyOnWP
This is ridiculous, huge WP:POINT violation, not to mention entirely inappropriate. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Would such sentiment be acceptable if it were not in a userbox form? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. It's one thing to vent your frustrations on your talk page. It's another thing to make a userbox memorializing it, especially when the point of the userbox is to be a jab at another user. Lara is an admin. She should know better. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask only because that is the relevant provision of WP:UBX, which stipulates that "...If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It also stipulates "Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." This userbox is both. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete knowing why it was created and what it references to, I can say that it is slightly divisive, and is sort've having a go at Swatjester, so weak delete-- Phoenix -  wiki  16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep and gag at the hypocrisy. The community let you get away with mislabeling the_undertow a racist. That's a fact. My userbox merely points that out, and without naming you. This userbox points out much of the discussion. It's not even specific to you, nor does it violate any policy. It's my interpretation of the discussion.  Lara  ❤  Love  16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight - the ADL and the SPLC consider this racist, but you see no problem creating a ubox which states "only on Wikipedia" in order to continue the argument with Swat? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While we're discussing hypocrisy, you flipped out over my opinions that someone is a white supremacist, but now you have absolutely no problem creating a user box that says "I'm a racist"? That's the very definition of "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point." &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - userboxes are not appropriate tools for attacking other editors. Guettarda (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, that's what ArbCom is for. What is the attack, exactly?  Lara  ❤  Love  17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While SWATjester's point is well taken, I believe that the userbox should be kept. Perhaps it could be worded in a slightly less abrasive manner, but the user discusses Wikipedia's policys and their own self-identity in the context of a statement made by another user. I think that WP:SARCASM is the relevant essay, in this case. The userbox does not violate WP:POINT, in just the same way that making that statement on a talk page would not be - there is no disruption or obstruction of process to make the point. It's a sarcastic evaluation of Wikipedian Culture in the context of an RFAR statement, and I don't think it meets the criteria for deletion. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needlessly provocative and bitter. Just because x user called y user a racist doesn't mean two wrongs make a right and a userbox about the incident is appropriate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Swatjester's nomination. This user box drives home a point that this user has used code words and a form of denialism to make racist language "politically incorrect" rather than obnoxious.  But I'm getting off the point.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is intended to be an expression of dissatisfaction with a particular event that occurred. I have to say that that's not entirely clear from the text, though, as I had to look more into this situation before I actually understood its meaning. The wording may need a little tweaking -- I mean, as with any sarcastic statement, there exists the potential for people to just not get it and instead take it literally. That goes doubly for readers who are unfamiliar with the situation that led to it. In the end, though, this amounts to someone saying "I hate the fact that I've been called a racist", which is in diametrical opposition to claims that she actually intends to say she is racist.  Equazcion •✗/C • 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete others say why well. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I note for the record that the userbox in question has been deleted, and that this debate should be closed on that basis. As I have already commented, I ask an uninvolved admin to please process this closure. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on -- while the separate page may have been closed, Lara has moved the code for the box to her talk page. I think this should continue to determine the appropriateness of the box, despite the fact that it no longer resides on its own page.  Equazcion •✗/C • 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reopening this. Lara has now moved the code for it on her talk page, which is no less inappropriate than if it were in a userbox page. It's still an inflammatory, divisive userbox. It fails WP:UBX. It fails WP:TALK. It fails WP:USER. It needs to be deleted. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But is MfD the venue at which a discussion about the box as constituted at present is properly situated? (That's not entirely rhetorical; I don't see that further discussion would be within the settled scope of MfD&mdash;one might, I suppose, remove the box from LL's talk page and, upon his being reverted, bring the user talk page to MfD, with the provision that one means only to determine whether a consensus exists for the removal of the box from the page, but even such a listing might be objected to on the grounds that XfD is not to be used to debate whether some content on a page should be deleted&mdash;but I don't know that any place else [with the possible exception of RfC, in the form of a user conduct-content hybrid focused solely on the issue of the box] might be any better.) Joe 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only relevant question is "does this userbox warrant further discussion?" If the answer is yes, there is no reason to take the discussion elsewhere, except for the preservation of bureaucracy. If a discussion should continue, we can continue it where it started. The physical location makes no difference, and changing that midway would just be a disruption.  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly content that is acceptable on a user page or user talk page. GRBerry 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only WP:POINT violation here is the nomination. This box is only expressing an opinion of disagreement with a particular incident. Nothing racist here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever the history involving interactions between individual editors here is, the box is inflammatory and should be removed per WP:UBX. It would not be appropriate on a user page and it is not appropruate as a user box on a talk page either. Nsk92 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless drama-mongering userbox that's only going to engender ill will :/  naerii -  talk  12:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's LaraLove's right to disagree with others on the matter this refers to, but that doesn't entitle her to disregard userspace policies. This userbox (in whatever form) is divisive, inflammatory, and intended to be both. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could we please leave this discussion open to try to reach consensus or an acceptable compromise? It is a controversial case and i do not see how it could be beneficial to open a bunch of discussions on different pages, this is the appropriate place to discuss this  &#xE01E;&#xE01E;&#xE01E; Iunaw  &#xE441;  15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is an opinion/belief-userbox used by LaraLove to express a reasonable concern. It could be however rewritten to be less inflammatory, but i do not see how a disagreement on a discussion can be considered divisive while zillions of clearly divisive and even discriminatory userboxes not. In my opinion this whole case smells like witch hunting sparked by a discussion that was based on opinions and vaguely supported accusations.  &#xE01E;&#xE01E;&#xE01E; Iunaw  &#xE441;  15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete POINTY and disruptive userbox from what is turning out a chronic source of drama and disruption. For the supporters here: How does this userbox contribute to building an encyclopedia? That is Wikipedia's only goal. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (ec). This is one of the most incredibly silly arguments. This sort of thing makes us look bad, so it does not belong here. Period.


 * Wikipedia is getting to be a very visible website; last I checked, 7th most popular on earth. As a result, and quite appropriately, Wikipedia has had increasing concerns about its image and WP:CIVIL. There are some reasons to worry about WP:CIVIL to create a productive working environment, but to my mind a far more compelling reason is to reduce our chances of a public relations disaster. Some of the uncivil dialogue here just is not appropriate for a very public, very visible venue like Wikipedia.


 * And therefore, even if something like this is for a joke, or to make a political statement of some kind, we just cannot afford it here. For the exact same reason that WP:CIVIL is being more strictly enforced and WP:CIVIL standards have become far more stringent in the last year or so. If using phrases like "self-promotion", "trolling", "get lost", "put up or shut up", "boneheaded argument", "not as repulsive as astrology", and "don't be too silly" are now being claimed to be inappropriate or even sanctionable, then surely something like this blatantly offensive userbox is way over the line. Surely this is obvious to anyone. Apply the new standards evenly here, and use some common sense. Something like this is bound to cause us trouble down the line if we allow it.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2008 (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.