Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/cfireusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep per nom's request to close. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Allstarecho/cfireusa

Nominating for deletion per userbox guidelines on content restriction of userboxes, specifically these parts of the guidelines:

  • Potentially divisive words with a negative comparison (believes)
  • Wikipedia is not a place for propoganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

This is an extension of a previous MfD regarding a similar userbox, which was speedy deleted. This userbox was previous deleted in a slightly different form. This userbox is a rewording of the previously deleted ones, however, the "new" wording doesn't sit right with me. Given the controversy surrounding the last deletion, as well as the conversation that ensued afterward, I am unable to completely assume good faith, given the creator's tendency to POV push this issue and his unwillingness to collaborate previously. I would like to get the community to reach some consensus as I have been unable to reach consensus with the author, who does not see this (or it's predecessor) as being divisive.

I would expect that a userbox stating "I support the Boy Scouts of America because they do not allow gay members and leaders." to be considered equally as polemic. If such a userbox existed, I would be listing that for deletion just as quick as this one, as it is just as much of an attack against other scouting organizations as this one.

Rather than deletion, I would much rather just see a userbox that says "This user supports Camp Fire USA, with a link to the entire article rather than the current link to one sentence, which to me belittles the entire Camp Fire USA program down to just being a one-issue organization, which they are not (unlike other scouting organizations, which were founded as one-issue organizations). Justinm1978 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

request to close - this is good enough consensus for me to assuage my concerns. I still don't like it, but I must abide by the community. Please close as keep (I can abide by consensus! :). Justinm1978 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this, or a template about the boy scouts. Are you seriously suggesting supporting Camp Fire USA because they respect lifestyle choice as belittling them? That's like, from Bizarro World. -Nard 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
comment whoa there, tiger :) No, I said it makes it seem like they're a one-issue organization, like American Heritage Girls who were specifically founded because the GSUSA openly admits gay and lesbian members. Camp Fire USA was founded and went co-ed long before any membership policies became an issue. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Allstarecho has made a new userbox that does not mention the BSA and does not use their symbol, as requested. The userbox does not attack the group and the nom said "Potentially divisive words with a negative comparison (believes)." I do not see any divisive words or a negative comparison because the BSA is not even mentioned any longer. The nom also said "Wikipedia is not a place for propoganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." I have seen alot of userboxes that mention politics, current affairs, etc. that are much more divisive than this userbox supposedly is. Are we now going to try to delete ALL userboxes that someone doesn't agree with? No one seems to have an issue with this userbox, even though it actually mentions the BSA organization in a negative manner and uses the logo. Makes me wonder the true agenda of this discussion. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for obvious reasons that it doesn't attack anyone or any organization, unlike the nom himself who has attacked other users and been very rude and uncivil on my talk page today. It merely points out what's already in the Camp Fire USA article. Your main issue initially was the first userbox that included the Boy Scouts of America and a link to the article containing info that they do not allow gay scouts and gay scout leaders. You found that one "attacking" and "divisive" - your own words there. You nommed it for deletion, canvassed other users regarding its nomination, and then it was speedily deleted, However, during that deletion discussion, I made this one to settle your concerns - even though I still don't see anything wrong with a userbox that points out things that are fact and in other Wikipedia artices. Now, not happy with this one that does not mention the BSA in it anywhere, you want it gone too. It would seem to me like you are the one with the POV issue and some sort of agenda here. While the "wording" does not sit right with you, it doesn't sit right with me that you're off on some tirade to rid the world of things they speak bad about the BSA, even when they don't even mention the BSA. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You've made your point, Allstar. I'd suggest you refrain from making comments about other contributors. I've already warned the nom for his comments. Dreadstar † 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because you've warned him doesn't mean I can't mention it in this related discussion. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to review Poisoning the well. Dreadstar † 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read that before, it's an article, not policy. WP:AGF is however, policy. Thanks. :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gadget. I wasn't aware of Image:FireIcon.svg and have since changed to it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gadget850. And it should stay in userspace. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - ok for user space. Addhoc (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it is in no way divisive or inflammatory to express support for non-discriminatory practices. There is no element of attack or denigration in the content. DuncanHill (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the above well reasoned arguments. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — this version is okay. The problem with the previous version was the BSA-logo (almost) which clearly indicated that it was an anti-BSA userbox. This does not share that issue. --Haemo (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I didn't get a chance to comment or !vote in the MfD on Allstar's previous userbox, here which closed in less than six hours as a speedy delete when not all participants supported deletion and there wasn't time for other interested editors to chime in. I fail to see how the original userbox, never mind this one, can possibility be construed as an attack or divisive. Pointing out an extremely well documented and well known position of the BSA is not an attack. It's a statement of fact. It's no more inappropriate than all the other political userboxes that exist here. One could say, considering the extensive political polarization and the nasty attack political ads that have characterized several recent elections, that placing a GOP or Democratic userbox on one's user page is divisive to the same extent, using that overarching and inappropriate criteria, since they "attack" those that hold other political positions. Is a userbox with a crossed out American flag and verbiage that says something against our presence in Iraq an attack and divisive userbox, and would it be treated the same way as the other political userboxes? Supposing it was the opposite, eg - "support our troups", which might be considered an attack against those that think we should get out of Iraq, using that flawed logic. Would someone nominate those userboxes for deletion because they're attacks? The userbox that is the subject of this MfD doesn't even mention the BSA. In any case, pointing out discriminatory practices is not an attack. In response to the nominator's example: a userbox that said "I support the Boy Scouts of America because they do not allow gay members and leaders" is perfectly fine and acceptable in userspace, in my view, and I find that very unconvincing, since that example is not polemic, controversial, an attack, or divisive. It's just a statement, like Allstar's userboxes. And this one doesn't even say anything like that. I'm AGF, but I get a sense of a double standard working here. It's a userbox, not a manifesto in mainspace. Editors have always have considerable and extensive leeway to express opinions, memberships, positions, and other stuff on their user pages. I oppose deletion per my rationale and all the other keep rationale. — Becksguy (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment You're correct when you mentioned how quickly the last discussion closed, even when not all users had a chance to vote. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is not an attack on the Boy Scouts nor any other organization. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep in userspace. This one's fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2008 (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.