Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucky Mitch/Pro-Choice anti-military service hypocricy


 * 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lucky Mitch/Pro-Choice anti-military service hypocricy
Delete userboxes that call other editors "hypocrites" are uncivil and devisive each a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete useless for saying anything about the editor, instead complaining about other's opinions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as potentially offensive and unrelated to editing. Ahh, if only we could get rid of userboxes all together. Ironholds (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not attack any specific editors at all. There is no requirement that userboxes be related to editing. In fact, userboxes have routinely been allowed even when expressing opinions, as this one does, so deleting this for expressing an opinion is wrong.  And seeking to delete all userboxes should be done on a higher level than this, as that opinions does not work on a case-by-case basis.  Collect (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In the userbox guidelines it states that being for a view point is fine but negative userboxes are deprecated. This takes it a step further in not just saying 'I don't agree' but adding an insult (Hypocrisy without a context is most definatly an insult) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if the current wording stays. Disagreeing with a particular viewpoint is fine; calling that viewpoint erroneous is fine; calling that viewpoint "hypocrisy" is not. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:IDONTLIKE is not a reason to delete a template. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If editors don't like this template, don't visit this user's page. Ikip (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote from our guidelines: Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. At the very top we are clear: Such templates which fail to meet these guidelines may be subject to deletion. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, because (see below) There are thousands of userboxes that someone could take offense to, but which still exist, on other hot button issues such as the death penalty, gun control, political alignment, religion etc. Guidelines are meant to reflect community consensus, not create it, and the community at large doesn't seem to have a strong objection. Personally, I think any userbox not directly relating to Wikipedia is a stupid waste of time, but if someone wants a thousand useless boxes on their page that say "I like bananas" or "I support Barak Obama" then so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it isn't saying 'I like bananas' it is saying that 'Anyone who doesn't like bananas is a twat' -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A hypocrite, but yes. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feels like splitting hairs to me. I saw one the other day that said something along the lines that the death penalty should be used more often. I think that clearly implies that people who don't think that are wrong. It doesn't just come out and say it like this one, but it's still a controversial, divisive statement. We don't allow user pages that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but we allow people to pepper their userpages with piles of these goofy boxes that have nothing to do with it, or even create an entire page just for their collection of them, there's hypocrisy for you. I'm sorry Ironholds, I'm not sure what you specifically are saying. Are you saying I am a hypocrite, or something else? Check my user page, I have 3 userboxen, and they are all directly related to what I do on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The userbox policy is very clear on this: no attack userboxes. Namecalling fits this, so delete unless the user is willing to change it to something like "This user is pro-military service."  Graymornings (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the guidelines cited by Narson. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if someone is so idiotic as to label themselves with this, and hereby branding themselves as soapboxy uncivil retards, then we should let them. I would bet money there would be a relationship between how little one contributes to the encyclopedia and placement of this userbox.--Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the phrase "uncivil retards" quite amusing for obvious reasons. I don't think "it helps us identify who is idiotic" is a very valid keep rationale, but that is for the closing admin to decide. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And irony flies over yet another head...--Cerejota (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I understand irony completely and got that it was meant to be a joke; I thought it was worth mentioning as a sort of more eloquent ROFLMAO. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my failure to Assume Good Humor.--Cerejota (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! And I understood that was a joke as well, so I'm doing pretty good considering the time. Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Userboxes: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." While I don't think that we should in general bother with userboxes that express beliefs, and it is true that there are many userboxes that could be deemed offensive by at least one person (anything from "This user is pro-choice" to "This user is"), there is a significant difference between "This user is not pro-choice" and "This user hates pro-choice [insert your preferred insult]" (I paraphrase). Quite simply, there are ways to express a similar sentiment without insulting/provoking people. We are here to write an encyclopedia and, yes, have some fun while doing it, and this userbox detracts from both purposes. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question If this were re-phrased, saying "This user doesn't understand how someone can be pro-choice but opposed to military service" would that make it ok? It's still saying the same thing, but without the perceived name-calling. (As an aside, I'm not sure I even understand what the connection is, but maybe I'm just dense) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, yes, if the page title was different. Since only two users use this userbox, and since it's ultimately unrelated to editing, I would support deletion with the option to recreate at a non-inflammatory title. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete. While I stand by the argument I made above, it seems only one user is actually displaying this on their user page, and they are retired. The boxes creator doesn't seem to be using it, and the only other instance I saw was on a subpage that is a guide to belief based userboxes, so delete as worthless. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In agreement with Narson's observation. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently not even userspace is safe anymore from the anti-userbox crowd. The reason these exist in userspace is because they are divisive and couldn't belong in templatespace. Other then that, it's a personal opinion this user holds. People hold different opinions, get over it and move on. -Royalguard11 (T) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is Wikipedia, not MySpace. I'm sure that if this user wants to spout his political opinions, there are an equal number of people that don't care over there. In the meantime, WP:SOAPBOX applies to userspace just as much as it does to mainspace.  Trusilver  02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reason as below. Robofish (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2009 (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.