Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott


 * 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.  krimpet ✽  01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott
I really don't see the point in this template. The use of the template is contradictory in itself, and the only people who should use it, banned users who are annoyed they were banned, can't edit anyway. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are banned users the only people who should use this template? Are other people just incapable of disliking Wikipedia? -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Banned users are more prone to boycotting than usual people (of the usual "you can't fire me, I quit!" type). Editing Wikipedia to say you're boycotting Wikipedia, then continuing to edit is really silly. Sceptre (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A one-man boycott has no chance of any effect, so why would someone do that? -Amarkov moo! 14:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On some level I believe in boycotting Chinese products. Does this mean I can actually put that principle into practice? No, Chinese products are ubiquitous and I'd have to turn my life upside down to boycott. I believe Wikipedia should be boycotted as a source of information by the media, academia, and anyone serious. Does this mean I should just go away? Maybe, but I've created so many articles here it's hard to just abandon the place entirely. Although I would prefer a less inflammatory template like "This user is skeptical of Wikipedia." Or maybe "Wikipedian Doubters of Wikipedia": Wikipedians who think the place has many positive qualities, but feel that doubts about its overall effect are understandable and healthy. If we already have things like that I'll be okay with this being deleted.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found such a box like what I meant so I'll replace for a time. I might bring back depending on how the discussion goes.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; this is pretty much the definition of divisive and inflammatory. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If any user create a userbox saying "This user supports boycotting the People's Republic of China", will that be inflammatory to you?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. No need for such ubx.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had on "It's a good thing that bias is announced" vs. "Bait for canvassing and divisive", but I'm not sure that's the right place for it. To answer your original question, yes it would.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Expression of opinions on the project is legitimate. I see it as an expression of his reasons for becoming only semi-active. It's not disrupting the project. This is within the range of civil language. DGG (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment -- I would staunchly defend the right to voice "criticism of the project" along the lines of "the arbcom has lost its marbles", but this isn't so much criticism as complete rejection of the project, and it seems pointless to even have an account if that's your position. --dab (𒁳) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not help in building the encyclopedia. Max S em(Han shot first!) 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Divisive. Less talking about it and more doing it by the userboxen's creators would also be fine. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 15:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: As somebody stated above, this doesn't help improve the encyclopedia in any way. And before anybody says "there are lots of them that don't actually improve Wikipedia": I know, delete those also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. No idea why this had to go to MfD... --MZMcBride (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy delete - I would have speedied as well, this is indeed inflammatory and divisive and doesn't promote cooperation in any way. Categories like this ubx have been delete several times at UCFD as well.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy delete same as above  Not hing 4 44  20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is against the whole point of a wiki which is to be collaborative. Serves no purpose either to the encyclopedia or community. Pedro : Chat  21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, inflammatory and divisive. Its very existence contradicts its purpose, anyway. --Core desat 00:46, 30 March 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.