Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikipédiste Consommé/Userboxes/Violence

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: keep. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipédiste Consommé/Userboxes/Violence

While all divisive userspace content is disallowed per WP:USERPAGE and WP:SOAPBOX, content that could be construed as an endorsement of violence is particularly egregious under both enwiki and WMF conduct rules. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an overt promotion of violence. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the userbox text does not promote or incite the use of violence, it merely acknowledges it, as do thousands of our mainspace articles on wars and battles. The box does not violate any userbox prohibitions at WP:UBCR, but this deletion nomination runs afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this userbox literally emphasizes the "belief in the power of violence". That is quite different than a mere acknowledgement of violence as a fact of life, like wars and battles. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The box text says This user believes in the power of violence. That is not the same as saying "go shoot someone". I was a soldier for almost two decades, I believe in the power of violence as well, that is the reality of humans, war and politics, that many human conflicts result in violence and has done the whole history of our species. I should point put that even though this box does not advocate in favour of violence, there is nothing in the userbox prohibitions at WP:UBCR that says even if it did we should delete it. As far as I can see there is no policy basis for deleting the box. It is not divisive and it is not advocating anyone do anything. This deletion proposal just feels like some sort of moralizing crusade run amuck. If you think human affairs don't or shouldn't involve violence then don't put the box on your user page. Or better yet make up a corollary box. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not seeing how this is promoting violence. It just neutrally states they believe in it, not that they think it's a good thing. If it said This user supports the power of violence, it would be a different story, but it doesn't. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 07:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The userbox in and of itself is neither inflammatory, nor a promotion of violence. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's more of a philosophical userbox, not a call to violence.—Alalch E. 00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm happy to see this nomination, because it's an excellent example of how WP:Ragpicking in retired editors' userspace is a terrible and misguided idea.
- 1. As already pointed out, the userbox neither promotes nor advocates violence, except in the minds of delete assertors. This is a subjective criteria, this twisting of a clearly stated belief into something opining a negative about that belief. The negativity is itself not in the stated belief, but lies solely in the personal opinion of the deleters.
- 2. This nomination is an enormous breach of good faith, incorrectly painting a long-ago very short-term contributor as a net negative to the project (a violence promoter), when their contribution history doesn't so indicate. There's no block log, no deleted user warnings. This editor never did anything wrong, so far as I can read. It's biting behavior of the worst sort, openly casting aspersions on a long retired editor, someone not around to defend against such unkind flagging today. Worse, their contributions seem to indicate a good faith interest in supporting human rights, not oppression. This is the very first edit in their two-week wikicareer. Ironically, these ragpickers may have been entirely pwned by a retired editor.
- 3. Somebody had to go ragpicking really hard to find this poor innocent wikivictim. This was way off the beaten path. I'm judging the behavior, but IMHO, this nomination says lots about the nominator and the nom's supporter(s). This last sentence is intentionally worded in the same non-judgemental way as is the infobox. BusterD (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD Userboxes are transcluded onto user pages. You do not need to go deep into user space to find them. A list of current transclsions can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Wikipédiste Consommé/Userboxes/Violence. I happened to see this one when I looked at the profile of an active editor, and I nominated it for deletion because it could be construed as an endorsement of violence, which should be avoided to maintain a positive collaborative environment. If your opinion is that it should be kept, that's perfectly valid, but I'd like for you to please retract the false things you said about me. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has to explain userboxes to me. Please tell us exactly what I've said which was incorrect. (for the record, I've gotten several "Thank" notifications for my assertion) BusterD (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep per Ahunt and BusterD. BilCat (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2023 (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.