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. This is blatantly unacceptable as in the nature of an attack page and should have been speedied. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• delete userbox that makes a likely false assumption, or celebrates the potential death of a person, very close to an attack page. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• delete divisive userbox, attack on a living person, no encyclopaedic value, no place on a collaborative project GTD 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep: the user is not the only person who will be glad to see the old girl shuffle off this mortal coil. This is a statement of the user's feelings, not an attack on the Iron Biddy herself - tastelessness is the height of the user's crime.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep: It is just a user-box. If we start to remove all user-boxes which express opinions that some might find offensive - there will soon be few user-boxes left! Setwisohi ( talk) 10:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Ooh, resorting to the slippery slope argument, are we? Personally, I'm fine with userboxes like these, so long as impunity is given to both sides of the political spectrum.-- WaltCip ( talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete I defend lots of userboxes with topics which might be offensive. This one goes beyond the edge of my defense. It is not an "opinion" but a specific desire that another be harmed or die. As such, it falls well outside the scope of normal free speech in a userbox. Collect ( talk) 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: This has no encyclopedic value and is a direct attack on an individual. I question Setwisohi's latest POV edits in conjunction with this userbox. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have no problem with people questioning my right to free speech. But who is the troll making off topic remarks? Setwisohi ( talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy is an official policy of long-standing. This is an encyclopaedia, written on a set of privately owned wikis that are open to volunteers like us for the sole purpose of writing that encyclopaedia. It is not a platform for making speeches. Uncle G ( talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• keep People are indeed entitled to their own opinions. Setwisohi's userbox is no more offensive than a userbox supporting a nationalist (racist) political party. JaneVannin ( talk) 14:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, thinking about it a bit more, I find this whole debate rather sinister. It reminds me, in a minor way, of the Mohammad cartoons. Like his/her opinions or not, freedom of speech, the right to express an opinion - however unpleasant others may find it - is what distinguishes Free countries from non-Free countries. Of course it has to stay. Change vote to strong keep JaneVannin ( talk) 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think you understand how freedom of speech actually works. It means that the government may not limit speech. Private entities are not subject to the same restriction. Delete per Collect, and frankly the sooner we get rid of offensive userboxes entirely, the better for the project. // roux   14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not only is Setwisohi entitled to his opinions, it's a net benefit to the project that he chooses to disclose opinions that represent an identifiable bias, as this clearly does. Moreover, despite the nominator's assertion, there's no implied threat here. This type of expression in userspace should be allowed. — Gavia immer ( talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Setwisohi is entitled to his opinion, but Wikipedia is not the place to express that you will celebrate somebody's death. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep too trivial a problem to bother about . Non-inflammatory language. DGG ( talk) 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This userbox is a personal attack on a living person, which violates Wikipedia:USERBOX#Content restrictions. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • put she's a major politician, and must be quite accustomed to comments like this, and worse. We cannot tolerate threats or implications of violence, and neither need she, but verbal attacks saying that "I'll be glad when you're finally dead" are not threats of violence. DGG ( talk) 05:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't say this userbox was a threat of violence, because it isn't. It is a personal attack, though. The fact that the subject of the personal attack has been subjected to lots of other personal attacks does not make additional personal attacks appropriate. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • The civility and NPA policies documented in the userbox content restrictions apply only to other editors, not to celebrities or users who do not edit Wikipedia. The userbox is within established boundaries.-- WaltCip ( talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I think it would be very unfortunate if Wikipedia adopted a policy that we are supposed to be civil to each other, but that third parties who don't edit Wikipedia are fair game for personal attacks. WP:USERBOX currently states: "Essentially: Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like." So if I created a userbox that said "This user hates meatloaf", in reference to the food, that would probably be deleted as a "dislikes" userbox. But under the standard suggested above, it would be okay to have a userbox that said "This user will be glad when Meat Loaf is dead", in reference to the singer, because he is not a Wikipedia editor. I can't agree with that kind of standard. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Let's put this in more immediate terms, DGG: If a volunteer librarian at your library placed a notice on xyr library desk that read "I'll celebrate the day when Barack Obama/Bill Clinton/George W. Bush is dead.", would you tell that volunteer to remove it? Would you do so if other volunteers complained about it? How would you reply to assertions that the notice "does no harm", that the volunteer "is entitled to xyr opinions", that it benefits the library for the volunteer to state this opinion on xyr desk, and that the library desk at which xe worked was xyr own to affix notices to as xe sees fit? Uncle G ( talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • If xe put such a notice on her own individual study desk where she was working, I would not mind in the least, any more than if xe wore it as a button. If xe put the notice on the library circulation desk, then I would mind very much. If this user puts such a notice on a WP space page, I'd remove it immediately as vandalism. But it's in user space. DGG ( talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete "I'll be glad when you die" is an attack however you phrase it. Guest9999 ( talk) 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Divisive userbox that is unrelated to Wikipedia and doesn't provide any information useful to collaboration. snigbrook ( talk) 23:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• I find it amazing that so many people feel so worked up about this. "Too trivial a problem to bother about" said DGG: yes indeed. "Unrelated to Wikipedia and doesn't provide any information useful to collaboration" says Snigbrook, and similar remarks from others: true, but the same is true of much stuff on thousands of pages in user space, and these users are not clammering for them to be removed. "Divisive", say GTD and snigbrook: somewhat ironic, in relation to the person who is widely regarded as the most divisive UK politician of her century, and in any case the userbox is no more divisive than any other statement of political position. "A specific desire that another be harmed or die" says Collect: no it isn't, it is an indication the user will be pleased when the inevitable happens, and she does die. Uncle G refers to the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy", and says "It is not a platform for making speeches". However, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of wikipedians who have declarations of their political affiliations on their user pages, and after spending some time searching through Uncle G's contributions I have failed to find any evidence that he has a history seeking to have them removed. I do not deny that this userbox is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, but, as I have indicated above, it is trivial, and no worse by any reasonable standard than a lot more which is allowed to exist in user space. Yes, I know that "bad stuff exists elsewhere therefore this bad stuff should be allowed to exist too" is not a valid argument, but that is not my point: my point is that if the stated reasons were the true motives for objecting to this, then many more things would be objected to as well. "Too trivial a problem to bother about" said DGG: yes indeed, and my conclusion is:

Let it be. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • If it was the name of a Wikipedia user in the box I'm sure it would quickly be deleted - probably G10 - despite the fact that (assuming all editors are human) every one of us will die. I don't see why we shouldn't hold the same standard for the treatment of others as we would for each other. Guest9999 ( talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You need to read what I wrote in the proper context of what I was in fact replying to. Uncle G ( talk) 11:25, 21 June 2009 (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.