Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/scouts

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 'Speedy deleted divisive attack template.

User:Allstarecho/scouts

Nominating for deletion based on guidelines for content restriction of userboxes, specifically the part where it says "userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." This userbox is a direct attack on the Boy Scouts of America, and specifically their policies. Calling a user or an organization a homophobe is directly divisive and inflammatory. I am operating under the impression that userboxes are supposed to be like the guidline says: "Express what you like, rather than what you don't like. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't. Express what you do, rather than what you don't." This userbox fails that statement.

I have attempted to work with the creator of this userbox to have it reworded to say "This user supports

Note: I have no quarrel with the fact that the author disagrees with the membership policies of the BSA. My disagreement lies in the wording of this userbox. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I would gladly accept a change to this userbox that makes it simply read "This user supports
  Camp Fire USA", and would prefer that end result to deletion. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree with this statement. Change it or delete it. --evrik ^(talk) 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, delete - pretty obvious the userbox is only there to soapbox. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously and I'd point out that the links within the userbox are links to articles and subsections, including the subsection of
  Camp Fire USA regarding its non-discrimination policy, that are on Wikipedia and therefore, nothing is being violated here. This is nothing more than attempt to keep the userbox from being added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes where the nom has been reverted not just by my self each time he's removed it from there. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

comment - It was revertd by User:Gadget850 to avert an edit war (not to agree or disagree with either opinion), coupled with the recommendation on my userpage to talk to you about it, and failing a satisfactory resolution, take it to MfD. I attempted to reach a compromise that is less divisive and inflammatory, and was stonewalled. Therefore, I brought it to MfD. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Why is it necessary for you to have this userbox? Is it facilitating collaboration? I'm all for treating people like humans and all that, but if something unecessary is causing disruption it's best to just let it go. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It facilitates collaboration by giving notice to editors who disagree with the BSA policy or not know of the BSA policy, that there is another "scouting" organization with an article that they could edit and feel morally and ethically comfortable for doing so. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - That's a tenuous link at best. Even if that case were true, that wouldn't hinder the argument for it being worded differently. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - And how does it facilitate collaboration by referring to those who would like this usebox reworded as Al-Gayda? There is a difference between being against the BSA's membership policy and openy attacking, which is what this userbox (along with your comments above) does. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "Al-Gayda" thread on AgnosticPreachersKid's talk page had nothing to do with the userbox initially. I myself related the 2. And why are you stalking me anyway? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't stalking. When someone voices an opinion, I like to see where they are coming from to better understand their position. I noted that thread on there. That's hardly stalking. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An attacking userbox = delete. RogueNinja_talk 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "attack" when it's sourceable and news-media verifiable fact, not to mention worthy of inclusion in articles on Wikipedia itself. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced attacks are still attacks. RogueNinja_talk 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Allstar's reasoning.
  talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete If it just said "This user supports Camp Fire USA" and linked to their homophobic policies statement, that would be ok, but as it is now, I agree it is unnecessarily divisive and advocacy-ish in the sense it pushes one group specifically over another group (as opposed to simply supporting one group). MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MBisanz (well said) plus if you look at the debates on Justin1978's and Allstarecho's user pages, you can see Allstarecho is clearly pushing his own personal views. The project tries very hard not to push one Scout group over another and the userbox pits both BSA and CFUSA against each other, which makes it
  soapboxy and disruptive. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• speedy delete as attack template. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While a "user supports Camp Fire USA" is fine, this content on a userpage is a clearcut violation of
  WP:UP#NOT as a polemic. JGHowes ^talk - 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's certainly not polemic because the BSA's homophobic policy isn't a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. It's fact - stated in thousands of sources and in the actual articles here on Wikipedia. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Incidentally, users who have a problem with this userbox should not use it. Period. If you want a more "pansy" version, use User:Allstarecho/cfireusa. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Unfortunately, that's not how wikipedia works. I'm curious why it has to be specified for discrimination reasons? Why can't it just be "I support Camp Fire USA"? I wouldn't support a userbox that says "I support the BSA because they keep out homosexuals". You're pushing an agenda and a POV with these userboxes, especially when you keep the same icon with the userbox. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if the word "homophobic" (or similar phrasing) is retained. Like others above, I would have no particular problem with a more neutral phrasing supported by a link, but as currently constituted, it is an unacceptable attack. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.