- 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 No consensus.-- Aervanath ( talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
User:UBX/onemanonewoman
Previous MfD overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21#Same sex marriage userboxes (closed). I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep non inflammatory, insults no one, and the majority of editors would agree that this statement is true. In Australia this is also the law. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 02:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- The majority of editors would agree that the statement is true? You got a source on that? Glass Cobra 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref for Australian law:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/maa2004165/sch1.html, see also:
Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion. I am assuming that wikipedia editor opinion will match public opinion. In any case popular and unpopular opinions are allowed to be expressed in userboxes.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
02:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd agree with that - in my experience Wikipedians tend to be less prone to petty bigotry than the general populace. But even if it is, because a lot of people agree with something, even if it's offensive to others, that's OK? Interesting approach to a collaborative environment. Black Kite 07:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- There was not any bigotry involved here in this case. The idea is that we hope that wikipedians will not be offended by things, but with such a mild statement, the small number of people who may be offended will be offended less than in an alternative inflammatory statement. Those offended by this userbox will also be offended by much other content in wikipedia and in fact the law in many countries. These people should also be allowed to have a userbox that states their point of view, which may also be offensive to some others. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Quote from Barack Obama to be sure. If it is good enough for the President, it should be neutral enough for WP. No insult, no attack, no reason to delete. As I noted before. Collect ( talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as a non-inflamatory political statement, with no objection to removing all political Userboxes equally should that be the community consensus. Jclemens ( talk) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Default to Delete Political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes. This is pretty much the policy in a nutshell. Once you start allowing soapboxing about controversial issues--even mild, polite soapboxing--the result is an even bigger disruption, the likes of which we saw during the userbox wars. The only issue then is whether or not you support default to delete or default to keep; expressions of opinion in userboxes are not important enough to justify a default to keep.
Bullzeye
contribs
07:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rightly or wrongly, that's not our policy or practice. In fact,
GUS resolved precisely that many userboxes on "controversial issues" would be kept (or, at the very least, not categorically deleted) but situated outside of template space (as contemplated in the
migration process, which provides in pertinent part that "all controversial and divisive userboxes...will be migrated out of template space into userspace" [emphasis in original], which cannot be reconciled with the proposition that the idea that "political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes" enjoys the support of the community as "policy in a nutshell"). It may be that there no longer exists a consensus for GUS and that out of the instant discussion will spin, as Tony and Doc have urged in other recent MfDs, a broader consideration of the elimination of all non-'pedia-related userboxes, and it is perfectly fine in the meanwhile, of course, to submit that we should look with disfavor on all polemical userboxes (a position to which I am not, I should say, altogether unsympathetic, and one that I might ultimately adopt), but I don't know that one can rightly say that it is established policy that userboxes that express divisive or controversial positions on political or social issues are unwanted and established practice that such userboxes are deleted (but cf.
WP:NOT, I guess).
Joe
07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well put. I believe my interpretation, however, is still valid. The general rule of assessing value (for posts, pages and userspace) onwiki goes like this: 1)Does it aid in the construction of the encyclopedia?, if not, then 2)Does it cause disruption?. Controversial polemic statements are a form of disruptive editing, because they use soapboxing (however mild) to promote a controversial POV. This foments an adversarial attitude that undermines the entire concept of neutral collaboration, and causes time, energy and good feeling that could be used to improve the project to be wasted. Every bit of soapboxing we tolerate on one side only encourages more to occur, either in support or protest. If we had a solid article edit for every post wasted on dealing with controversial userboxes, we'd have enough to write 100 FAs. Bullzeye contribs 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rightly or wrongly, that's not our policy or practice. In fact,
GUS resolved precisely that many userboxes on "controversial issues" would be kept (or, at the very least, not categorically deleted) but situated outside of template space (as contemplated in the
migration process, which provides in pertinent part that "all controversial and divisive userboxes...will be migrated out of template space into userspace" [emphasis in original], which cannot be reconciled with the proposition that the idea that "political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes" enjoys the support of the community as "policy in a nutshell"). It may be that there no longer exists a consensus for GUS and that out of the instant discussion will spin, as Tony and Doc have urged in other recent MfDs, a broader consideration of the elimination of all non-'pedia-related userboxes, and it is perfectly fine in the meanwhile, of course, to submit that we should look with disfavor on all polemical userboxes (a position to which I am not, I should say, altogether unsympathetic, and one that I might ultimately adopt), but I don't know that one can rightly say that it is established policy that userboxes that express divisive or controversial positions on political or social issues are unwanted and established practice that such userboxes are deleted (but cf.
WP:NOT, I guess).
Joe
07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - as with 99% of userboxes on politics, religion or sexuality, anything that starts with "This user believes that..." should go. Pointless, irrelevant to editing the encyclopedia (unlike some userboxes), often needlessly divisive, and who cares anyway?? Black Kite 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as Jclemens. I think I am prepared to say that the net effect on the project of the preservation of a class of templates that express necessarily controversial views on extra-Wiki matters is negative, such that those userboxes probably ought to go, but even as policy follows from practice, it is to be preferred that we do not work broad changes to policy at insular XfDs, and so this must be a "keep" pending the community's considering the larger issue. Joe 07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The userbox states a point of view that is not designed to offend or exclude, but affirms a belief. This is no different than similar userboxes with comparable points of view such as --
- "straight but not narrow" [1] which implicitly accuses those who disagree of being homophobic
- "straight but not narrow" [2] which also implicitly accuses those who disagree of being homophobic
- "GayPride" [3]; would a userbox asserting pride in being heterosexual be permitted, or seen as an attack and devisive?
- "Proud to be a lesbian" [4]; depecting a picture of a man dragging a bride by her hair, I could easily take offense at this stereotypical attack on men
- "Equal rights for gay people" [5]; this is certainly the obverse of one man, one woman.
- If we are to be entirely fair, either ALL such userboxes should be banned by formulating a policy—which I believe has been tried in the past and failed—or these mild affirmations of belief should all be permitted. -- btphelps (
talk) (
contribs)
08:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- If we are to be fair, then we probably shouldn't see the idea of equal rights as being problematic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You mean "equal rights" the universal egalitarian social principle? Or "equal rights" as expressed as a petty political euphemism in the same-sex marriage debate? Btphelps, for the record I would also like to see all of those AFDed the same as this one. Politics is politics, and coming down on one side over the other simply furthers the systemic disease. Bullzeye contribs 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the above statement: all of these userboxes should be deleted. If this MFD is successful, I will nominate those listed above as well. Terraxos ( talk) 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Terraxos, thanks for volunteering. I'm with you -- if the community decides that this userbox is to be deleted, then the same rationale applies to the others I listed. -- btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep as I expressed in the previous AFD, while not agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the userbox and while desiring that all such userboxes expressing personal opinions should be deleted, it's clear we need to be fair about that and not adhoc. Since this userbox does not express a grossly negative or bigoted view of people it doesn't cross the line that I'm willing to delete without a clear policy resulting in the deletion of all such user boxes Nil Einne ( talk) 10:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, inflammatory and unnecessary. How does this userbox contribute towards building a free encyclopædia? It doesn't. All it contributes to is building up ill feeling and distrust between editors. We'll be better off without. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC).
- Delete. Per above. Bigotry has no place here. —
Jake
Wartenberg
12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- How come this is "
bigotry"? Stating that opponents of
same-sex marriage are "bigots" is not really that non-offensive.
Korodzik (
talk)
17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You asked me a similar question over at the other MfD. I have responded over there. — Jake Wartenberg 19:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- How come this is "
bigotry"? Stating that opponents of
same-sex marriage are "bigots" is not really that non-offensive.
Korodzik (
talk)
17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Personally I choose to only use userboxes that are about wikipedia. However this userbox is not inflammatory or incite any threatening attitudes. If the community wants to ban all nonwiki related material from userspace then go for it but that will never happen WP:SNOW. 16x9 ( talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as with any userbox whose text fits the pattern "this user believes that right/privilege X belongs only to subgroup Y", this is inherently divisive and incompatible with a collegial editing environment.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- That works the other way - what about the right to
freedom of opinion? Are you saying that right should be restricted to a subgroup of wikipedia editors? As for collegiality, I was just wondering whether dissenting opinions should actually be encouraged in the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view overall.
Opera hat (
talk)
20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but you're
not necessarily entitled to stand on a soapbox and share it with the rest of us.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- In what way does this userbox actually go against
WP:SOAP?
Advocacy? Hardly.
Opera hat (
talk)
21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say that it does. This tangent seems to be proving rather unproductive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have no right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia.
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Really "one is entitled to one's opinion..." and "one has no right to freedom of speech..." would have been more grammatically correct, and polite. As it was I felt a bit like you were both addressing me personally just there. I don't think I've expressed an opinion on what I think "marriage" should mean; it wouldn't be relevant to the debate in any case. Opera hat ( talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- In what way does this userbox actually go against
WP:SOAP?
Advocacy? Hardly.
Opera hat (
talk)
21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but you're
not necessarily entitled to stand on a soapbox and share it with the rest of us.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- That works the other way - what about the right to
freedom of opinion? Are you saying that right should be restricted to a subgroup of wikipedia editors? As for collegiality, I was just wondering whether dissenting opinions should actually be encouraged in the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view overall.
Opera hat (
talk)
20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep, users are entitled to their opinion and this is one of the more reasonable ones. If it was an opinion held by Islam as opposed to Catholicism and other branches of Christianity we would be unlikely to be having this discussion. Stifle ( talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- that is just because Islam does have gays Homosexuality_and_Islam#Homosexuality laws in Muslim countries 16x9 ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, inherently divisive. When seven million Californians registered that opinion in a vote, all hell ensued. It's really not worth it. Sceptre ( talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Not offensive any more than "This user is straight but not narrow". Korodzik ( talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:UBM. Let me explain a bit. This is an unpopular mindset, and a mindset I disagree with (If people are happy marrying each other, who am I to tell them "not allowed", just because they happen to have the same gender.) That said, I feel it is not offensive any way that would violate any relevant policies ( WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc.) and there are many opinions around about everything. Whether meat is murder or simply tasty, if nuclear power could save the environment or rather would destroy it, if one believes in "true love" or rather would "hit" whatever he can find. And people seem to forget that they are not entitled to their opinion to be the one, universally correct one. And not even the opinions of the majority of the people are not rarely "off" (A couple of hundred years ago everyone would have told you that the world is flat - some even claim that today). So there are only two ways to handle people showing their opinions - either allow them to do that, or don't. If you don't allow them, start packing all those "this user wants world-peace" boxes too - its an opinion and if the guy advocating "nuke them all" is not allowed to say his thing, how come your opinion gets special treatment. And believe me, that option causes LOTS of drama. I encourage you to read WP:UBM. Or you can accept that some opinions run against your world view and tolerate them. And if you see an user that states with an userbox genetic-engineered gerbils are the best thing since sliced bread... well, you'll know to take a closer look at his edits to Gerbils. Charon X/ talk 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- comment Opinion based user boxes are useful to determine an editors bias, and interest. If you are looking for some one to work on a particular topic, they can assist in finding people who care. It may be useful for controlling a troublesome user, an can help to understand why they did what they did.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't such userboxes encourage others to think about the editor, rather than the edits? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- think twice before making statements. 16x9 ( talk) 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the basis that I must have said something so stupid I can't even see anything wrong with it, could you please explain? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::::*Sorry, sometimes I am to short with my response and look like a dick. Before making a statement (or putting a userbox) on a page thing twice. You argument is a userbox may influence how other editors thing of that persons edits. But it happens all the time. If I see an editor with certain userboxes or an admin box I likely, and sometimes unintentionally, treat them differently (good or bad). 16x9 ( talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- My point was if you want to think about the edits then you can. You can think about the editor if you want, and since you would be looking at their user page there is no harm in that. It is better for opinions of editors to be known than hidden away. Wikipedia does not hide away from controversy, instead it describes it. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: per my remarks in another place. David( Talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete, same reason as I gave below: these userboxes are for POV advocacy, are divisive, and serve no useful purpose in improving the encyclopaedia. Terraxos ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- The division already exists, this userbox does not create any additional divisiveness. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would become an issue if some wikipedia editors felt they couldn't collaborate with others on common-interest projects because of unrelated and irrelevant opinions with which they disagreed being expressed on their would-be colleagues' user pages.
Opera hat (
talk)
00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er, OK - now I've actually read the point you were making above. Sorry. Opera hat ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the female symbol so much bigger than the male symbol? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This is just a neutral statement of a particular opinion. We allow neutral statements of opinion. Hence, we should allow this, regardless of the side issue that it's surrounded by a little rectangle. — Gavia immer ( talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, and not that the issues involved are identical, but let us posit a userbox which states "This user believes that marriages should consist of two people of the same race" or "This user believes that people of different religions should not intermarry" or "This user believes that Republicans and Democrats should not marry each other", do you seriously believe that these would be seen as mere neutral and non-offensive statements of opinion? Otto4711 ( talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself in saying that, if those userboxes existed, I would support keeping them as the most neutral way of expressing those particular opinions in userboxes. I tend toward a wide latitude in such things. Please note that I'm not endorsing the polemical use of those notional userboxes, the userboxes under discussion here, or any other neutrally-worded userbox - such things are behavioral issues that can be worked out separately, and do not require the suppression of particular opinions. Bear in mind also that if a userbox has harmful polemical statements as a part of its essential fabric, I agree that it should be deleted - if we were discussing a theoretical "this user thinks faggot marriage is just all fucked up" userbox, I would be the first in line to see it gone. The userboxes under discussion here, however, are not of that nature; hence, they ought to be allowed, lest we start to regulate which "approved" opinions editors can express. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Denying the validity and/or existence of same-sex marriage strikes me as being pretty harmful. We already regulate what opinions editors can express so that's no argument at all. And given that Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, given that user pages "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" and given that expressing an opinion either for or against same-sex marriage is irrelevant to working on the encyclopedia, this box fails bedrock Wikipedia policy. Once again, this userbox does not fulfill the stated purpose of userboxes, which is to encourage collaborative editing. All of these "it's not offensive" and "it's a way of expressing an opinion" and what-not "reasons" for keeping do not address that fundamental issue. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself in saying that, if those userboxes existed, I would support keeping them as the most neutral way of expressing those particular opinions in userboxes. I tend toward a wide latitude in such things. Please note that I'm not endorsing the polemical use of those notional userboxes, the userboxes under discussion here, or any other neutrally-worded userbox - such things are behavioral issues that can be worked out separately, and do not require the suppression of particular opinions. Bear in mind also that if a userbox has harmful polemical statements as a part of its essential fabric, I agree that it should be deleted - if we were discussing a theoretical "this user thinks faggot marriage is just all fucked up" userbox, I would be the first in line to see it gone. The userboxes under discussion here, however, are not of that nature; hence, they ought to be allowed, lest we start to regulate which "approved" opinions editors can express. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support, in general, removal of most userboxen (and userpage content in general) that espouse a political/religious/sexual/etc. preference or belief. They do not add to a collegial and collaborative atmosphere, and can only be useless or polemical. Wikipedia is not the place to display one's extra-Wikipedia views; we are not a soapbox. However, I believe that the decision to remove said content is something that should come from a community consensus. MfD is not the place to enact policy. For that reason, I only support deletion at MfD of boxen that are particularly inflammatory or divisive. This userbox is not particularly inflammatory or divisive. Therefore, I support keeping this userbox (more precisely, not deleting it) until the community makes that decision. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a question of evancting new policy. It is a matter of enforcing existing policy. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep pretty much the least inflammatory way of wording it. DGG ( talk) 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason that it has to be worded at all, no matter how supposedly non-inflammatory it is. "This user does not like Japanese people" is pretty much the least inflammatory way of stating that opinion. No way would most if any of the people so desperately concerned with preserving this anti-gay box defend the anti-Asian one. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - as per my input on another MfD here. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - the
stated purpose of userboxes is to allow for collaboration between users to create, maintain or improve Wikipedia articles. Since articles must comply with
WP:NPOV, there is absolutely no collaborative value in userboxes that express one's opinion on same-sex marriage, either for or against. Wikipedia is
not a soapbox, so if a user feels compelled to announce his opposition or support of same-sex marriage, they are free to find one of any number of websites upon which to do it or start their own website or blog.
And, not to get all waxy, but if userboxes that identify Wikipedians by sexual orientation are disallowed there is no reasonable justification for this box.Otto4711 ( talk) 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- See
Category:Sexual orientation user templates.
David(
Talk)
22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. Apparently things have changed since the last DRV on the topic of sexuality userboxes. Still, at least some such boxes may further the goal of collaboration; this userbox does not thus my opinion and the remainder of my comment stand. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If everyone who has a userbox giving an opinion on a controversial issue converted them to hard-coded inline tables, MfDs like this would vanish and we could get on with addressing the question of what content should be allowed on user pages. Of course, that question has been addressed before, and no consensus was reached. Which is why I think these MfDs are a waste of time better spent improving the encyclopedia. - Unconventional ( talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete do not contribute to the building of the encyclopedia in addition to being bigoted and inflamatory - all "I believe..." userboxes are worthless, but this is harmful and has no countervailing value. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If this userbox is removed, then in fairness we would need to remove the userboxes relating to the support of LGBT rights. Pastor Theo ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I've always found boxes like this unnecessarily divisive and as such, unhelpful to our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Such a view would almost certainly become apparent from a user's edits, so the box serves no purpose other to foment ill-will. Statements by Sheffield Steel, Lankiveil, and Black Kite above sum up my feelings on these boxes pretty accurately: I don't see the need for or usefulness of boxes outlining a user's personal beliefs, or of ones that advocate inequality. Kafka Liz ( talk) 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
KeepHomophobes like this piss me off, but there are tons of other political userboxes on WP (I have an Obama userbox and a pro-same-sex-marriage box on my userpage, I believe), so we ought to let even these ignorant people have their userboxes, too. Unless, as people above have said, we are prepared to remove all useless and potentially divisive userboxes. Besides, userboxes like this are a good way to know whom you're dealing with, since they're sort of a default full-disclosure of your own POV. Politizer talk/ contribs 06:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)- On second thought, userfy to the creator or one of the major contributors. The box has the right to exist, but probably not in the communal space of User:UBX. Politizer talk/ contribs 06:04, 1 February 2009 (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.
- 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 No consensus.-- Aervanath ( talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
User:UBX/onemanonewoman
Previous MfD overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21#Same sex marriage userboxes (closed). I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep non inflammatory, insults no one, and the majority of editors would agree that this statement is true. In Australia this is also the law. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 02:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- The majority of editors would agree that the statement is true? You got a source on that? Glass Cobra 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref for Australian law:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/maa2004165/sch1.html, see also:
Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion. I am assuming that wikipedia editor opinion will match public opinion. In any case popular and unpopular opinions are allowed to be expressed in userboxes.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
02:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd agree with that - in my experience Wikipedians tend to be less prone to petty bigotry than the general populace. But even if it is, because a lot of people agree with something, even if it's offensive to others, that's OK? Interesting approach to a collaborative environment. Black Kite 07:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- There was not any bigotry involved here in this case. The idea is that we hope that wikipedians will not be offended by things, but with such a mild statement, the small number of people who may be offended will be offended less than in an alternative inflammatory statement. Those offended by this userbox will also be offended by much other content in wikipedia and in fact the law in many countries. These people should also be allowed to have a userbox that states their point of view, which may also be offensive to some others. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Quote from Barack Obama to be sure. If it is good enough for the President, it should be neutral enough for WP. No insult, no attack, no reason to delete. As I noted before. Collect ( talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as a non-inflamatory political statement, with no objection to removing all political Userboxes equally should that be the community consensus. Jclemens ( talk) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Default to Delete Political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes. This is pretty much the policy in a nutshell. Once you start allowing soapboxing about controversial issues--even mild, polite soapboxing--the result is an even bigger disruption, the likes of which we saw during the userbox wars. The only issue then is whether or not you support default to delete or default to keep; expressions of opinion in userboxes are not important enough to justify a default to keep.
Bullzeye
contribs
07:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rightly or wrongly, that's not our policy or practice. In fact,
GUS resolved precisely that many userboxes on "controversial issues" would be kept (or, at the very least, not categorically deleted) but situated outside of template space (as contemplated in the
migration process, which provides in pertinent part that "all controversial and divisive userboxes...will be migrated out of template space into userspace" [emphasis in original], which cannot be reconciled with the proposition that the idea that "political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes" enjoys the support of the community as "policy in a nutshell"). It may be that there no longer exists a consensus for GUS and that out of the instant discussion will spin, as Tony and Doc have urged in other recent MfDs, a broader consideration of the elimination of all non-'pedia-related userboxes, and it is perfectly fine in the meanwhile, of course, to submit that we should look with disfavor on all polemical userboxes (a position to which I am not, I should say, altogether unsympathetic, and one that I might ultimately adopt), but I don't know that one can rightly say that it is established policy that userboxes that express divisive or controversial positions on political or social issues are unwanted and established practice that such userboxes are deleted (but cf.
WP:NOT, I guess).
Joe
07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well put. I believe my interpretation, however, is still valid. The general rule of assessing value (for posts, pages and userspace) onwiki goes like this: 1)Does it aid in the construction of the encyclopedia?, if not, then 2)Does it cause disruption?. Controversial polemic statements are a form of disruptive editing, because they use soapboxing (however mild) to promote a controversial POV. This foments an adversarial attitude that undermines the entire concept of neutral collaboration, and causes time, energy and good feeling that could be used to improve the project to be wasted. Every bit of soapboxing we tolerate on one side only encourages more to occur, either in support or protest. If we had a solid article edit for every post wasted on dealing with controversial userboxes, we'd have enough to write 100 FAs. Bullzeye contribs 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rightly or wrongly, that's not our policy or practice. In fact,
GUS resolved precisely that many userboxes on "controversial issues" would be kept (or, at the very least, not categorically deleted) but situated outside of template space (as contemplated in the
migration process, which provides in pertinent part that "all controversial and divisive userboxes...will be migrated out of template space into userspace" [emphasis in original], which cannot be reconciled with the proposition that the idea that "political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes" enjoys the support of the community as "policy in a nutshell"). It may be that there no longer exists a consensus for GUS and that out of the instant discussion will spin, as Tony and Doc have urged in other recent MfDs, a broader consideration of the elimination of all non-'pedia-related userboxes, and it is perfectly fine in the meanwhile, of course, to submit that we should look with disfavor on all polemical userboxes (a position to which I am not, I should say, altogether unsympathetic, and one that I might ultimately adopt), but I don't know that one can rightly say that it is established policy that userboxes that express divisive or controversial positions on political or social issues are unwanted and established practice that such userboxes are deleted (but cf.
WP:NOT, I guess).
Joe
07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - as with 99% of userboxes on politics, religion or sexuality, anything that starts with "This user believes that..." should go. Pointless, irrelevant to editing the encyclopedia (unlike some userboxes), often needlessly divisive, and who cares anyway?? Black Kite 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as Jclemens. I think I am prepared to say that the net effect on the project of the preservation of a class of templates that express necessarily controversial views on extra-Wiki matters is negative, such that those userboxes probably ought to go, but even as policy follows from practice, it is to be preferred that we do not work broad changes to policy at insular XfDs, and so this must be a "keep" pending the community's considering the larger issue. Joe 07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The userbox states a point of view that is not designed to offend or exclude, but affirms a belief. This is no different than similar userboxes with comparable points of view such as --
- "straight but not narrow" [1] which implicitly accuses those who disagree of being homophobic
- "straight but not narrow" [2] which also implicitly accuses those who disagree of being homophobic
- "GayPride" [3]; would a userbox asserting pride in being heterosexual be permitted, or seen as an attack and devisive?
- "Proud to be a lesbian" [4]; depecting a picture of a man dragging a bride by her hair, I could easily take offense at this stereotypical attack on men
- "Equal rights for gay people" [5]; this is certainly the obverse of one man, one woman.
- If we are to be entirely fair, either ALL such userboxes should be banned by formulating a policy—which I believe has been tried in the past and failed—or these mild affirmations of belief should all be permitted. -- btphelps (
talk) (
contribs)
08:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- If we are to be fair, then we probably shouldn't see the idea of equal rights as being problematic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You mean "equal rights" the universal egalitarian social principle? Or "equal rights" as expressed as a petty political euphemism in the same-sex marriage debate? Btphelps, for the record I would also like to see all of those AFDed the same as this one. Politics is politics, and coming down on one side over the other simply furthers the systemic disease. Bullzeye contribs 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the above statement: all of these userboxes should be deleted. If this MFD is successful, I will nominate those listed above as well. Terraxos ( talk) 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Terraxos, thanks for volunteering. I'm with you -- if the community decides that this userbox is to be deleted, then the same rationale applies to the others I listed. -- btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep as I expressed in the previous AFD, while not agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the userbox and while desiring that all such userboxes expressing personal opinions should be deleted, it's clear we need to be fair about that and not adhoc. Since this userbox does not express a grossly negative or bigoted view of people it doesn't cross the line that I'm willing to delete without a clear policy resulting in the deletion of all such user boxes Nil Einne ( talk) 10:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, inflammatory and unnecessary. How does this userbox contribute towards building a free encyclopædia? It doesn't. All it contributes to is building up ill feeling and distrust between editors. We'll be better off without. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC).
- Delete. Per above. Bigotry has no place here. —
Jake
Wartenberg
12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- How come this is "
bigotry"? Stating that opponents of
same-sex marriage are "bigots" is not really that non-offensive.
Korodzik (
talk)
17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You asked me a similar question over at the other MfD. I have responded over there. — Jake Wartenberg 19:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- How come this is "
bigotry"? Stating that opponents of
same-sex marriage are "bigots" is not really that non-offensive.
Korodzik (
talk)
17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Personally I choose to only use userboxes that are about wikipedia. However this userbox is not inflammatory or incite any threatening attitudes. If the community wants to ban all nonwiki related material from userspace then go for it but that will never happen WP:SNOW. 16x9 ( talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as with any userbox whose text fits the pattern "this user believes that right/privilege X belongs only to subgroup Y", this is inherently divisive and incompatible with a collegial editing environment.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- That works the other way - what about the right to
freedom of opinion? Are you saying that right should be restricted to a subgroup of wikipedia editors? As for collegiality, I was just wondering whether dissenting opinions should actually be encouraged in the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view overall.
Opera hat (
talk)
20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but you're
not necessarily entitled to stand on a soapbox and share it with the rest of us.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- In what way does this userbox actually go against
WP:SOAP?
Advocacy? Hardly.
Opera hat (
talk)
21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say that it does. This tangent seems to be proving rather unproductive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You have no right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia.
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Really "one is entitled to one's opinion..." and "one has no right to freedom of speech..." would have been more grammatically correct, and polite. As it was I felt a bit like you were both addressing me personally just there. I don't think I've expressed an opinion on what I think "marriage" should mean; it wouldn't be relevant to the debate in any case. Opera hat ( talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- In what way does this userbox actually go against
WP:SOAP?
Advocacy? Hardly.
Opera hat (
talk)
21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but you're
not necessarily entitled to stand on a soapbox and share it with the rest of us.
SHEFFIELDSTEEL
TALK
21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- That works the other way - what about the right to
freedom of opinion? Are you saying that right should be restricted to a subgroup of wikipedia editors? As for collegiality, I was just wondering whether dissenting opinions should actually be encouraged in the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view overall.
Opera hat (
talk)
20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep, users are entitled to their opinion and this is one of the more reasonable ones. If it was an opinion held by Islam as opposed to Catholicism and other branches of Christianity we would be unlikely to be having this discussion. Stifle ( talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- that is just because Islam does have gays Homosexuality_and_Islam#Homosexuality laws in Muslim countries 16x9 ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, inherently divisive. When seven million Californians registered that opinion in a vote, all hell ensued. It's really not worth it. Sceptre ( talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Not offensive any more than "This user is straight but not narrow". Korodzik ( talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:UBM. Let me explain a bit. This is an unpopular mindset, and a mindset I disagree with (If people are happy marrying each other, who am I to tell them "not allowed", just because they happen to have the same gender.) That said, I feel it is not offensive any way that would violate any relevant policies ( WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc.) and there are many opinions around about everything. Whether meat is murder or simply tasty, if nuclear power could save the environment or rather would destroy it, if one believes in "true love" or rather would "hit" whatever he can find. And people seem to forget that they are not entitled to their opinion to be the one, universally correct one. And not even the opinions of the majority of the people are not rarely "off" (A couple of hundred years ago everyone would have told you that the world is flat - some even claim that today). So there are only two ways to handle people showing their opinions - either allow them to do that, or don't. If you don't allow them, start packing all those "this user wants world-peace" boxes too - its an opinion and if the guy advocating "nuke them all" is not allowed to say his thing, how come your opinion gets special treatment. And believe me, that option causes LOTS of drama. I encourage you to read WP:UBM. Or you can accept that some opinions run against your world view and tolerate them. And if you see an user that states with an userbox genetic-engineered gerbils are the best thing since sliced bread... well, you'll know to take a closer look at his edits to Gerbils. Charon X/ talk 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- comment Opinion based user boxes are useful to determine an editors bias, and interest. If you are looking for some one to work on a particular topic, they can assist in finding people who care. It may be useful for controlling a troublesome user, an can help to understand why they did what they did.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't such userboxes encourage others to think about the editor, rather than the edits? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- think twice before making statements. 16x9 ( talk) 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the basis that I must have said something so stupid I can't even see anything wrong with it, could you please explain? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::::*Sorry, sometimes I am to short with my response and look like a dick. Before making a statement (or putting a userbox) on a page thing twice. You argument is a userbox may influence how other editors thing of that persons edits. But it happens all the time. If I see an editor with certain userboxes or an admin box I likely, and sometimes unintentionally, treat them differently (good or bad). 16x9 ( talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- My point was if you want to think about the edits then you can. You can think about the editor if you want, and since you would be looking at their user page there is no harm in that. It is better for opinions of editors to be known than hidden away. Wikipedia does not hide away from controversy, instead it describes it. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: per my remarks in another place. David( Talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete, same reason as I gave below: these userboxes are for POV advocacy, are divisive, and serve no useful purpose in improving the encyclopaedia. Terraxos ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- The division already exists, this userbox does not create any additional divisiveness. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would become an issue if some wikipedia editors felt they couldn't collaborate with others on common-interest projects because of unrelated and irrelevant opinions with which they disagreed being expressed on their would-be colleagues' user pages.
Opera hat (
talk)
00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er, OK - now I've actually read the point you were making above. Sorry. Opera hat ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Why is the female symbol so much bigger than the male symbol? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This is just a neutral statement of a particular opinion. We allow neutral statements of opinion. Hence, we should allow this, regardless of the side issue that it's surrounded by a little rectangle. — Gavia immer ( talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, and not that the issues involved are identical, but let us posit a userbox which states "This user believes that marriages should consist of two people of the same race" or "This user believes that people of different religions should not intermarry" or "This user believes that Republicans and Democrats should not marry each other", do you seriously believe that these would be seen as mere neutral and non-offensive statements of opinion? Otto4711 ( talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself in saying that, if those userboxes existed, I would support keeping them as the most neutral way of expressing those particular opinions in userboxes. I tend toward a wide latitude in such things. Please note that I'm not endorsing the polemical use of those notional userboxes, the userboxes under discussion here, or any other neutrally-worded userbox - such things are behavioral issues that can be worked out separately, and do not require the suppression of particular opinions. Bear in mind also that if a userbox has harmful polemical statements as a part of its essential fabric, I agree that it should be deleted - if we were discussing a theoretical "this user thinks faggot marriage is just all fucked up" userbox, I would be the first in line to see it gone. The userboxes under discussion here, however, are not of that nature; hence, they ought to be allowed, lest we start to regulate which "approved" opinions editors can express. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Denying the validity and/or existence of same-sex marriage strikes me as being pretty harmful. We already regulate what opinions editors can express so that's no argument at all. And given that Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, given that user pages "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" and given that expressing an opinion either for or against same-sex marriage is irrelevant to working on the encyclopedia, this box fails bedrock Wikipedia policy. Once again, this userbox does not fulfill the stated purpose of userboxes, which is to encourage collaborative editing. All of these "it's not offensive" and "it's a way of expressing an opinion" and what-not "reasons" for keeping do not address that fundamental issue. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself in saying that, if those userboxes existed, I would support keeping them as the most neutral way of expressing those particular opinions in userboxes. I tend toward a wide latitude in such things. Please note that I'm not endorsing the polemical use of those notional userboxes, the userboxes under discussion here, or any other neutrally-worded userbox - such things are behavioral issues that can be worked out separately, and do not require the suppression of particular opinions. Bear in mind also that if a userbox has harmful polemical statements as a part of its essential fabric, I agree that it should be deleted - if we were discussing a theoretical "this user thinks faggot marriage is just all fucked up" userbox, I would be the first in line to see it gone. The userboxes under discussion here, however, are not of that nature; hence, they ought to be allowed, lest we start to regulate which "approved" opinions editors can express. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support, in general, removal of most userboxen (and userpage content in general) that espouse a political/religious/sexual/etc. preference or belief. They do not add to a collegial and collaborative atmosphere, and can only be useless or polemical. Wikipedia is not the place to display one's extra-Wikipedia views; we are not a soapbox. However, I believe that the decision to remove said content is something that should come from a community consensus. MfD is not the place to enact policy. For that reason, I only support deletion at MfD of boxen that are particularly inflammatory or divisive. This userbox is not particularly inflammatory or divisive. Therefore, I support keeping this userbox (more precisely, not deleting it) until the community makes that decision. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a question of evancting new policy. It is a matter of enforcing existing policy. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep pretty much the least inflammatory way of wording it. DGG ( talk) 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason that it has to be worded at all, no matter how supposedly non-inflammatory it is. "This user does not like Japanese people" is pretty much the least inflammatory way of stating that opinion. No way would most if any of the people so desperately concerned with preserving this anti-gay box defend the anti-Asian one. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - as per my input on another MfD here. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - the
stated purpose of userboxes is to allow for collaboration between users to create, maintain or improve Wikipedia articles. Since articles must comply with
WP:NPOV, there is absolutely no collaborative value in userboxes that express one's opinion on same-sex marriage, either for or against. Wikipedia is
not a soapbox, so if a user feels compelled to announce his opposition or support of same-sex marriage, they are free to find one of any number of websites upon which to do it or start their own website or blog.
And, not to get all waxy, but if userboxes that identify Wikipedians by sexual orientation are disallowed there is no reasonable justification for this box.Otto4711 ( talk) 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- See
Category:Sexual orientation user templates.
David(
Talk)
22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. Apparently things have changed since the last DRV on the topic of sexuality userboxes. Still, at least some such boxes may further the goal of collaboration; this userbox does not thus my opinion and the remainder of my comment stand. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If everyone who has a userbox giving an opinion on a controversial issue converted them to hard-coded inline tables, MfDs like this would vanish and we could get on with addressing the question of what content should be allowed on user pages. Of course, that question has been addressed before, and no consensus was reached. Which is why I think these MfDs are a waste of time better spent improving the encyclopedia. - Unconventional ( talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete do not contribute to the building of the encyclopedia in addition to being bigoted and inflamatory - all "I believe..." userboxes are worthless, but this is harmful and has no countervailing value. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If this userbox is removed, then in fairness we would need to remove the userboxes relating to the support of LGBT rights. Pastor Theo ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I've always found boxes like this unnecessarily divisive and as such, unhelpful to our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Such a view would almost certainly become apparent from a user's edits, so the box serves no purpose other to foment ill-will. Statements by Sheffield Steel, Lankiveil, and Black Kite above sum up my feelings on these boxes pretty accurately: I don't see the need for or usefulness of boxes outlining a user's personal beliefs, or of ones that advocate inequality. Kafka Liz ( talk) 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
KeepHomophobes like this piss me off, but there are tons of other political userboxes on WP (I have an Obama userbox and a pro-same-sex-marriage box on my userpage, I believe), so we ought to let even these ignorant people have their userboxes, too. Unless, as people above have said, we are prepared to remove all useless and potentially divisive userboxes. Besides, userboxes like this are a good way to know whom you're dealing with, since they're sort of a default full-disclosure of your own POV. Politizer talk/ contribs 06:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)- On second thought, userfy to the creator or one of the major contributors. The box has the right to exist, but probably not in the communal space of User:UBX. Politizer talk/ contribs 06:04, 1 February 2009 (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.