Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Impeach Obama

 __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 no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:UBX/Impeach Obama
Relisted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:BLP, WP:UP. The existence of this cannot be legitimated by any encyclopedic goal, it does not serve in any way to build a sense of community, quite the opposite, it has no project benefit; wikipedia userspace is not a free speech zone, extreme political rhetoric has no place there. (Creator is a blocked sockpuppet.) Cenarium (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC))
 * (copied from above) Let me preface this by admitting my general bewilderment at the stupidity and utter uselessness of 90% of userboxes. So I might not be the most impartial judge in this affair. Yet I don't see any way to reconcile this userbox with the Userboxes guideline. This is divisive and polemical. I thinks there's a big difference between "I believe in party X" (political, non polemic) and "I believe party Y sucks" (political, looking for a fight). I'm sure some will argue that the userbox is necessary as a way to disclose a bias. No, it's not. If you feel so strongly about politics in your country, then just create a userbox that reads "This user has such strong feelings about political issues in country X that he will not touch these articles with a ten-foot pole." You get the full effect of disclosure without antagonizing anyone. Pichpich (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per accurate nom regarding UP#POLEMIC. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe userboxes are an important outlet for editors to express their personal POVs. I'd much rather a user had this userbox on their userpage than edit the article Barack Obama with an undeclared bias. Buddy431 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are acceptable manners to express one's POV, this one is not. Cenarium (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

(Just to let you know, I support Obama, so yes, I really mean it when I say we're not censored. I don't like the box, but I'll suppport his right to say it ! ) KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a social club or Facebook. This is not useful for improvement of Wikipedia, does not indicate editor expertise in a topic area. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. There's enough political commentary here as it is.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 11:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP Wikipedia is not censored, further users have great freedom in what they may or may not place on their userpages.
 * With all due respect, this is not a free speech issue and I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "not censored". The relevant policies here are Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the userpage guideline. There is quite a bit of freedom on userpage content but it should still be consistent with the goals of the project. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I believe all userboxes like this one that promote a political agenda are a violation of WP:SOAP and should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep innocuous    DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I don't see how a userbox that's likely to antagonize a chunk of American editors can be considered innocuous. As I noted above, the wording is asking for a fight and it's unlikely to foster any sort of collaboration. In fact, if editors connect through this userbox then I'd be happier if they don't embark on collaborations on subjects they have such strong feelings about. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We should not selectively censor negatively phrased political userboxes. Until such time as the community can arrive at a consensus regarding political userboxes both positive and negative, this should be left alone. If we would tolerate an "Elect Obama" or "Re-elect Obama" userbox, then we should tolerate this one too. Monty  845  00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong example. I would not have put for deletion a UBX which read "Do not reelect Obama.". This UBX however is quite extreme in its rhetorics (considering what impeaching means and how extraordinary it is) and directed at a living person. There are limits, BLP applies to userspace as well, this is implemented in the userpage policy at WP:UP, and clearly this violates it as this is a polemical statement attacking an individual. Cenarium (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all of those. Wikipedia is not a social club, these UBXes should all be removed. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It would not be acceptable to add this to an article or have a long rant on a userpage, but it is simply perfect for a userbox. Furthermore, it is good for people to put this in the open so we can see if someone has a bias when editing political articles. The userbox is not that divisive and doesn't give us a justification - the user could be a pacifist and may have supported impeachment of Bush as well as Obama or believes that his accepting the Nobel Prize was unconstitutional.  EdEColbert  Let me know 23:17, 4 May 2011 (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.