Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker

 __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  delete - the unanswered argument that this has been used only for incivility lends strength to the delete position (which is the majority anyways). If you want the userbox for your own page, ask me and I'll provide it to you. If you want it for someone else's page, ask me and I'll block you. Cheers, Wily D 08:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker


Grossly inappropriate misuse of user space, containing what seems to me to be little if anything which would be regarded as "humor", the purported reason for this page's creation, in the eyes of anyone but perhaps the creator of the page. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to be humour from my perspective, although not the type I'd engage in. Certainly not "grossly inappropriate" - since we don't deem using such words in discussions in talk space to be grossly inappropriate, why should we think of it differently in userspace? This silly little userbox has no negative impact that I can see, and is extremely unlikely to cause widespread or serious offence. Some userpages contain swastikas, nudity, and prominently placed things that might look to some like close-ups of genitalia, and suchlike; all of these are likely to cause more offence (to some) than this. This userbox is something that I would not be in the least bit concerned if I happened to click on a userpage containing it while at work; some of the aforementioned examples would not be the same. This is harmless. Not mostly harmless; totally harmless. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete At best tasteless. If somebody would put this infobox on my userpage (as the creator apparently did with some other editors), I would most certainly regard that as a personal attack. --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep-I'd consider it tasteless, but that's really no criterion to delete it. I could call placing it on other user's pages without consent an attack, but that's a user conduct issue and should be treated as such. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The userbox was created for the sole purpose of harassment - its only use was the addition by its creator to other users' pages. StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And you, User:HiLo48, and User:MezzoMezzo each had the template added to your user pages on the 1st by the editor who created this page as a "joke", as can be seen in that editor's history here. I also note that StAnselm is an editor which whom Pass a Method has had fairly regular previous disagreements, and that factor would to my eyes very seriously call into question any possible "humor" associated with this template. That being the case, I think that Randykitty's and Fyre2387's comments above are applicable, and that, in the history of this page, it has, seemingly, only been used for purposes which would seem to qualify as user conduct issues. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the fact that the image's name is "File:Retard.gif" appalling, but it's on Commons. I may have to see how one attempts to get a file name changed there. Lady  of  Shalott  23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * keep per demiurge. Pass a Method   talk  12:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be noted that User:Pass a Method is the creator of the userbox. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not my type of humor, but I think Wikipedia supports keeping it as per WP:Censor. "Yes...  It's Raining " 02:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, possibly, when it has been used in the way it has, which I can and do think seriously raises questions as to whether or not it qualifies as a means of personal attacks on editors with whom its creator has had disagreements, which would make it seem to be basically only a way to make personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CENSOR is a content policy, so is not applicable except to the extent that editors convince other editors that it applies.  WP:CIVIL is a policy that applies, except to the extent that enablers of incivility convince other editors that it does not apply.  Regarding the "humor", IMO this is not humorous.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete OIn practice, it seems to be intended as unconstructive.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see it as just another infobox, there to take or leave and not doing any harm in itself. The obvious problem i see is that it can be seen as a clear personal attack if placed on the userpage of another user by anyoone other than that user. That being said, i consider the future risks of that to be low and minimal.
 * That's the only way it's been used, and since the editor who used it like that has not shown any remorse, I would say the future risk of it being used for that purpose is quite high. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hence my choice of words "i consider the future risks of that to be low and minimal". Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But, if it is never used in the only way it has, so far as I can tell, ever been used, then what purpose is there for keeping it? As an individual, I have extremly serious questions as to how such an infobox could ever be used in a way which would benefit the encyclopedia. So, if it can never be used in a useful, positive way, which I think to be the case, and it can really only be used to insult others, what possible reason is there to keep it? John Carter (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion was that of a very weak keep. I don't see any possible use for this infobox that isn't insulting to a user who is inflicted with it, or chooses to inflict their own userpage with it. That being said i don't agree with a userbox deletion police unless something is grossly offensive. That's the only reason i'd !vote to keep it and the only reason i have. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: I say with the utmost seriousness that PassaMethod didn't intend it to be rude or offensive. I've interacted with him, on however limited a scale, for at least five years. I'm confident that he actually thought this was funny. But it's not, and it uses bad language which has a strong potential to offend. I wasn't offended but I could take no issue with someone who is. It's better to just delete it and forget about it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - if this were just another userbox, the creator might have included in his own user page (there is no indication in his contribution history that he did). Instead the creator placed this as a "joke" on other people's user pages. It appears to be a serious breach of WP:CIVIL, bordering on a personal attack. Insomuch as this page has only be used in this non-constructive way, I see no reason to keep it. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely un civil. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  01:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not humorous. Just plain uncivil, and was used that way in a tasteless April fools joke to disparage three editors. Hard to AGF here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: This userbox is harmless by itelf. No one can know the intent in another person's mind, so it all comes down to how it is used. We have user conduct policies in place to deal with that. Ignocrates (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Demiurge. A bit strange - not sure why anyone would want it on their user page! - but not objectionable to the point of needing to be deleted. As for it being placed on others' user pages, people generally shouldn't be adding userboxes to other people's pages at all, regardless of their content. That is not a reason for deletion of this particular userbox. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per John Carter and Maher-shalal-hashbaz. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless I'm missing something, nobody is even using it and I see above that it was used for harassment. --B (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not appropriate or acceptable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: After 2 weeks, there is no clear consensus to delete the userbox; therefore, it should remain by default. Move to close the discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that it is up to the closing admin to establish consensus, which is not a vote but depends on their reading of the policy-based arguments given. It really is bad form to try to tell the closing admin how to close a discussion (unless it's a case of SNOW). --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I apologize to the closing admin in advance for my "bad form". Ignocrates (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the "considerable leeway" granted to User-space per WP:USERPAGES; Trout for Pass a Method for not stepping up like a gentleman and deleting it himself with an apology the moment it became perfectly clear that it only served to upset the editors he applied it to.  16:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropriate, a tool for harassment. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zad; it would be humorous to some, though it is clearly not being used as such (which wouldn't by itself be merit for delete IMO). Ansh666 05:36, 30 April 2013 (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.