Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valce/Userboxes/CaseyAnthonyGuilty

 __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. Although there are users who, in good faith, have argued in favour of keeping this userbox, their rationales are diverse nuances of the very same line of reasoning: namely, that this just the expression of an opinion. This argumentation is, however, specious for, as conteded, explicitly or implicitly, by various delete-!voters, the relevant guideline states that not all opinions can be freely expressed through userboxes, but only those that are not, among other things, divisive or inflammatory. This userbox is divisive, this emerges, quite obviously, from the discussion and this alone would warrant a delete close; however, it cannot be overlooked that there are also WP:BLP concerns which regard this userbox: as poignantly points out: [This userbox doesn't] say anything much useful abou[t] a user hosting it. [... Rather i]t is negative advocacy directed at a living person. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Valce/Userboxes/CaseyAnthonyGuilty


Bee Ell Pee, people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:Not Censored. Further,  Valce is prsenting this as his (or her) opinion, not in wikipedia's voice. Nor in anyway that would imply a "fact".  Further, per WP:UP#OWN "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit".   No reason to remove. @- Kosh  ► Talk to the Vorlons ►  Moon Base Alpha  -@ 20:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a widely held justifiable opinion. It is clear that this is a belief rather than an attempt to mislead the reader by stating it as a fact. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:USERBOX. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't get to use user-space to advocate criminal cases against living people, sorry. I see no wiggle room here in WP:UP. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The content of the userbox is stating an opinion, not a fact. People are entitled to have views on the merit of others, living or dead, and just because the individual in question was acquitted doesn't mean she was innocent; people get arrested for crimes they didn't commit and some get off on one's they did commit. Because the truth of the crime is, and will presumably forever be, a mystery, it isn't biographical; alJl that is biographical, is that no one may ever know if she really did it. Also, did it occur to whoever tagged this that I equally created User:Valce/Userboxes/CaseyAnthonyNotGuilty? Valce Talk 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I call out inappropriate userboxes when I see them. Were I to plough through all the pointless and borderline guideline-violating userboxes created by some users I'd never get any other work done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)U
 * It seems more like you are crusading to keep her name in a positive light than a negative by calling out the "guilty" userbox than the "not guilty". Both of them equate to an opinion. Valce Talk 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both userboxes. Both are advocacy not related to the project.  Neither say anything much useful abou a user hosting the userbox.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The infobox contains contentious information on a biography of a living person. There isn't even reliable sourcing available to verify the contentious information. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Tarc. Ugly. -- Klein zach  03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Speedy delete WP:CSD#G10.  This userbox is not about the user, but is an offensive statement against a third party.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – According to WP:COI: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged ... to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. ... When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor. (Emphasis mine)"
 * In addition, I second the reasons put forth by Graeme Bartlett and Kosh and Valce. The template would be problematic if I said "She is guilty" or "She is a murder."  But it doesn't say that.  It says This user believes.
 * To address the remarks of SmokeyJoe and Tarc: This is not a statement of action against anyone. It is a brief, limited opinion of the user. The rules DO permit this, as we are told to avoid user page opinions which are excessive and/or substantial.
 * It is apparent that the template's creator took the time to read the policies in place while creating this template, and designed it to conform to those policies. Those, such as Kleinzach, who simply call it "ugly", reveal that they want it deleted because they disagree with the opinion, not because it fails some golden Wikipedia rule, thus making the keep case even stronger.  Senator2029  ║  talk  06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note I didn't simply call it 'ugly'. I first endorsed the comments of two other editors. 'Ugly' was a further expression of distaste at seeing this kind of thing on WP. -- Klein zach  08:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I linked above, the userbox guidelines have something quite specific to say about prefacing potentially harmful statements with "this user believes". This is a textbook example of why that is codified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A520 &#124;   Talk me away! / sign it! 18:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete per WP:BLP and WP:G10 (attack pages). This kind of content should not be acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, and those who think it is need to better acquaint themselves with our policies. Robofish (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy+strongest delete as per above.
 * Keep. Userspace infoboxes are allowed to express certain types of opinions — this is not a matter of racism or of similar nature, but rather a simple statement of what should have been concluded in a trial.  A user's opinion about this trial doesn't affect BLP, since it's overtly stated that this is purely the opinion of the editor: this is very different from its inclusion in an article or in a draft for an article.  Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is negative advocacy directed at a living person. Wikipedia should have no such material anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree.

A520 &#124;   Talk me away! / sign it! 09:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the reality check, but not everyone has to like everyone. Keeping people in a positive light and not allowing anyone to express otherwise is a form of bias and that is definitely not acceptable in Wikipedia. Valce Talk 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may have a misconception about Free speech. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UBX. It's not an attack page, but per the above discussion, it's very obviously a divisive user box.  It also uses divisive wording and makes a negative statement.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @833, i.e. 18:59, 26 December 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.