Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:America Needs Jesus/world

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. bibliomaniac15 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:America Needs Jesus/world

Similar logic here as that found at WP:RFCN where it was eventually decided that this user must change his name. Expressing opinion is all well and good, but telling others what they need is crossing the line. GlassCobra 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The user chose to change his name. The RFC did not decide that he "must" change his name. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I disagree. It is a user box, to be used in user space. It is not being placed in articles and should not be deleted. --Andrew from NC (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Obviously we don't apply the same standard to usernames and userboxes. This is slightly pointed, but not divisive especially. I don't see much need for this to be deleted. Mangojuice^talk 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep freedom of speech is a basic human right. This userbox harms no one. Monobi (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Freedom of speech doesn't apply here. WP:FREE Nakon 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Free speech applies everywhere regardless of the type of "government" or ruling system in place. Monobi (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  No, the argument is incorrect, and I often see it raised when people harass or stalk people on Wikipedia. There is no "Right to edit Wikipedia" and there is no right to say whatever you want, whether it be to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or write some of the things this person writes on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  But this user is not harassing anyone, is he?--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  No, he's not at all. I'm more addressing the "Freedom of Speech" argument that is often raised, but is problematic for a wide variety of reasons. It is good-intentioned, and as the person who wrote Floyd Abrams' article, I certainly relate, but there's a reason we have WP:FREE and I can attest the "Free Speech" argument is often raised to support problematic, or even illegal, speech. --David Shankbone 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  What's your point? The user box doesn't say anything illegal. Why even bring it up? --Andrew from NC (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  For the same reason the person felt the need to bring up the "Freedom of Speech" argument contrary to WP:FREE. I suggest if you have further questions, you direct them to my talk page, a more appropriate place to discuss my motivations. --David Shankbone 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  I guess Wikipedia and I won't see eye-to-eye. I figured that freedom of speech should be worthy compensation for all of the effort that individuals put into writing the articles.--WaltCip (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep it's hardly decisive/inflammatory, and is expresses more of a wish than a goal or demand. Don't think it should link to userspace though. - Koweja (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I made it, so I don't get a real vote, I think. It's just a userbox, no one is forced to believe that, it's just opinion. There are userboxes that cross out God, and I disagree with them. The box doesn't make anyone do anything, it just says a belief, it isn't against anyone, just tells what topics this user is into. That is what userboxes are for. AmericaNeedsJesus 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but here's an interesting scenario - What if a user has the userbox with a picture of a middle finger, along with the accompanying caption - "This user gives the finger to God"? That is the user's personal beliefs, but would it be offensive to others?--WaltCip (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep I don't care for this User's name or this User's box--er, infoBox--but I don't see how we can in good conscience ask him to change or delete the box. He is welcome to exist how he wants; but the User is advised that this is a collaborative project and one is only successful in their ability to work with others. Religion has historically been a hindrance to freedom of thought and knowledge, and this User is destined to make their life and collaborative effort on Wiki projects more difficult, as both his name and his box rub people the wrong way. Fair warning - the same warning I would give to User:JesusSucks. Welcome to Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, does this userbox (and others this user has created) bring back memories of my childhood. I might find the userbox as "misguided" (to say the least), but that doesn't mean there is a reason to delete it. I've seen plenty of u-boxes that say "God is dead" or something along that line. If certain users are allowed to make u-boxes like that, then I don't see why this one should be targeted. I guess it's the libertarian in me. Monobi, there is no such thing as free speech rights on WP because this is a privately-owned website. The issue I have with this nomination is we need to apply the same standards to everyone in regards to u-boxes and there's no evidence this particular message is hurting the project. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mango, whose analysis tracks very closely with mine. Joe 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a clear case of unintentional misapprehension of self-expression as attempting to convert others, similar to that exhibited in the RFC over this user's name (which was ended because the user chose to change his name, by the way). The first two words of the userbox ("this user") cannot be ignored. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Per longstanding precedent, controversial userboxes are allowed provided that they do not attack people. This is certainly a controversial userbox, but it doesn't attack anyone. "This user believes that all non-believers are going to hell" would be over the line; this one is not. Walton^One 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this one. The user clearly thinks that America needs Jesus (you watch, someone will disagree with me on this ;) ). He's allowed to hold that belief on Wikipedia and to be honest about holding that belief, and it generally benefits the encyclopedia for him to disclose his biases. There's no reason to delete it. As a matter of clarity, I do not necessarily extend this opinion to the last two userboxes on User:America Needs Jesus/UserBoxes, which I do think are problematic. However, the particular userbox under consideration is fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Mangojuice. America Needs Satan (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Free speech and freedom of religion are natural rights. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:15, 18 April 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.