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 speedy deleted. The comment below by Gr8opinionater states that this userbox was created not because the creator wanted to use it, but solely for theoretical purposes, to make the universe of political userboxes more complete. A lengthy debate on whether to keep or delete this userbox, with all of its historical associations, is clearly going to be extremely divisive at best, and indeed the tone of some of the discussion is already deteriorating. There is absolutely no reason to engage in such a debate if the sole reason for creating and retaining the userbox is just for the purpose of being able to say that it exists, with the hope that no one would use it. Such a debate is a woefully unproductive use of the community's time, and it would be a hideous idea for us to spend another week on it. (Perhaps what we have here is the good-faith equivalent of a WP:POINT situation.) Moreover, in the event anyone actually argued in favor of using the userbox on his or her userpage, the principles discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein would probably apply. Under all the circumstances, I conclude, by a sufficiently strong basis to warrant summary deletion, that no useful purpose is served by either keeping the userbox or continuing the discussion of it. I will add that while early-closing an XfD discussion on such a basis as this should be a rare event, I find it somewhat more justifable in the context of a userbox than in many other circumstances, in light of the guideline that userboxes must not be excessively inflammatory or divisive. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Socialism

Lenerd ( talk) 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to add that I added this userbox totally in the interest of improving the Fascism section of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, as made obvious by my user page I am a Socialist and an ardent Antifascist and Anti-Nazi and in no way am I a follower or adherent of this disgusting ideology and the misery and suffering it has brought upon the world down the years, if I have caused offence to any user by adding it then I humbly and thoroughly apologise and if I have broken any of Wikipedia's rules by adding it then I of course apologise for that and thoroughly respect any majority decision to delete it as I understand how controversial it is to have added it, but as I have stated, I have added it totally within the interests of improving the encyclopaedia and in the belief that freedom of speech should allow us to say who we support even if, sadly, it is Nazism.

Gr8opinionater ( talk) 09:37AM, 11 January 2009 (GMT)

• but Lenerd is known for being against National Socialism. I think you should understand him. 戦車 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion appears to have never been transcluded to the main MFD page. I have just done so.-- chaser ( talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Edit primarily to remove images which are not legally acceptable in much of Europe (and which are quite objectionable elsewhere). The wording is, moreover, quite acceptable in my opinion as a matter of free speech. Collect ( talk) 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• • On that, note Wikipedia:Free speech. The only right to free speech we've got around here is a a conditional one within the bounds of policy and communal norms.-- chaser ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: User Lenerd describes himself as an anarcho-communist, which is just as controversial and illegal as Nazism. If you people want to delete Nazism, why don't you also delete the Maoist userbox, considering it contributed immensely to the general Red Terror that has been plaguing us since 1917? I don't see any reason to delete any userbox, Nazi, Communist or whatever simply because some people don't like what they see. -- UNSC Trooper ( talk) 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, any userboxes which injure Wikipedia's reputation through the suggestion that its users support communist terrorism should also be deleted. Andrea105 ( talk) 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete -- This userbox brings Wikipedia into disrepute through the association of its users with a political ideology that is widely regarded as evil on account of its generally recognized support for mass murder. Andrea105 ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It is recognized in Wikipedia:Free speech, of course, that the liberty of expression enjoyed by Wikipedia editors is simply not coextensive with the right against governmental restraint of speech codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: while the latter certain permits expressions of sympathy for political positions that are widely regarded as despicable, Wikipedia should not and does not allow political speech that actively disrupts the project and besmirches its reputation (of which this userbox is an archetypical example.) Andrea105 ( talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep it or delete all political userboxen Let me be perfectly clear: I hate Neo-Naziism. I have driven hundreds of miles and marched in the bitter cold in anti-racism demonstrations where we directly confronted the KKK and Nazis. I've gotten in fights with Nazi skinheads. I despise them and the sooner they realize they lost the war over sixty years ago and they'll never get another chance, the better. But we can't pick and choose which political userboxes are "offensive" based on our own opinions. I think all political userboxes do more harm than good, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If the judgment of Wikipedia editors were so generally faulty that

we can't pick and choose which political userboxes are "offensive" based on our own opinions

then the project would be unable to function. The principle regarding acceptable ranges of expression is quite easily applied in other areas: though we have a wide range of userboxes relating to human sexual orientation, we don't allow template:user paedophile (deleted by Jimbo Wales himself.) Arguably, identification as a National Socialist is actually more offensive and injurious to the project than identification as a pedophile. Andrea105 ( talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this is no way aids the construction of an encyclopedia, and likely hurts that aim. I also assert that I can, in fact, pick and choose which userboxes are likely to be offensive. This would be one. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Absolutely offensive per my ANI discussion and cannot be anything other than polemic, against UBX policy. A8 UDI 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete and throw every single remaining political or polemical userbox after it. Black Kite 19:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete How is this meant to foster community and aid in the production of a quality on-line encyclopaedia? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not useful for working on the encyclopedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep The people advocating delete have not cited any policy for deleting this userbox, just emotion. There's lots of things I'd like to delete on emotion. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There's no special case here. If this userbox should go, then so should any other userbox supporting any other government. Show me a government that doesn't have blood on its hands. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Amen to that. How do any political user boxes "foster community and aid in the production of a quality on-line encyclopaedia"? This is an all-or-nothing deal, if we allow one controversial political userbox we have to allow them all. Now I know how those ACLU lawyers feel when they find themselves defending people they despise... Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

There is a difference between stating political believes and saying you support a political party who killed millions of people. That's merely emotion? Why not add a "I like raping little girls" userbox too? OR a white supremacist UBX? A8 UDI 20:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Advocating crime is one thing. Advocating white supremacy isn't crime, just morally repugnant to many. Neither is advocating national socialism a crime anymore than supporting US Democrats or US Republicans. Both of those parties have serious blood on their hands too. Again, where do you draw the line? At what you personally find objectionable? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Where do I draw the line? When you say or promote something in which a majority of people find offensive. In most of Europe Nazism is actually illegal. Are they going on a "slippery slope"? Is Germany a failing country? Didn't think so. It's a false argument. A8 UDI 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

For starters, Wikipedia's servers are in Florida, so European restrictions on free speech don't apply. It has nothing to do with the state of Germany either. It has to do with this one question:Do we allow controversial political statements in userboxes or not? Right now we do. I happen to think that is a bad idea, but that is the current state of things. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I realize that and agree with you... and I know I'm not going to win this but ... I just believe it's lunacy A8 UDI 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I agree with you. Nazism is lunacy. I also think socialism is lunacy as well. Same goes for Satanism. The vast majority of people in the world probably find Satanism to be offensive. Should we delete all the boxes at User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion#Satanism? If we're going to delete this box, we need an objective criteria for doing so. For example, if Nazism were illegal in Florida (where our servers are hosted) that would be an objective criteria. We don't host any userboxes that advocate things that are illegal in the state of Florida, and if we did I'm sure we'd delete them post haste. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I think many people here aren't getting why I am so against this UBX. So I'll say this as clear as I can: I do not care what any Wikipedian believes. My concern is the fact that many people WILL find this userbox offensive [more so than any other UBX]. Thus, it should be deleted. A8 UDI 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yet, you're not providing any metric as to how this box is more offensive than any other userbox and why this one alone is special and should be deleted, when things like User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion#Satanism exist. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You're right, I can't prove it. And then you're going to say "see, it shouldn't be deleted." Then I'm going to say "OK, well if you think having a NAZI userbox is good Wikipedia and the community, then keep it." As far as the slippery slope: use consensus for defining what's offensive.. A8 UDI 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Again, you're using subjective measures. How are you identifying that the majority of people find Nazism offensive? What source do you have for that? Is that our criteria now? If a majority of X find Y to be offensive, we delete it from Wikipedia? Pray tell why has the lead image not been deleted from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy then? It's offensive to more than a billion people on this planet. A majority of the people in the U.S. apparently find the Republican Party to be offensive. Should we therefore ban polemical userboxes that support the Republican Party? If you're going to delete this userbox, do so on policy. If you can't do that, then in the very least come up with a consistent metric that results in its deletion but no other polemical userbox. You can't do it on emotion and subjective measures. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Neither party has actively advocated murder, stop making those kinds of arguments! A8 UDI 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• That depends on your definition of "advocate". Both parties president's have ordered attacks against unarmed civilians resulting in deaths. The white pedestal of moral cleanliness does not exist. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I agree with you. Every single political or polemical one should go. As far as policy goes, WP:SOAP (or WP:BATTLE, or even WP:NOTSTUPID) would seem to cover it (and all the others) nicely. However, advocating a Keep here on the basis that they all should go does suggest a bit of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Black Kite 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I can see how that conclusion could be drawn. My concern here is that no policy is being raised on which to delete the box, and the objective criteria to delete it in absence of such policy (we can certainly create such on the fly) is absent. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Regretful but strong keep per Hammersoft. There are a lot of userboxes on that page that I would rather not have here, but I also don't think we should be deleting them just because a certain number of people find them "offensive". Personally, if someone really identifies as being a Nazi I would rather know that up front. I support the right of someone to have this userbox on their page to an equal degree as I support the right of someone to have a pro-Stalin box, even though they are equally repulsive. If political userboxes are to be banned, the proper place to decide that is in a policy RFC. Since this userbox does not advocate violence, there is no reason to pick this one out for deletion. (if anyone nominates the Stalinist, etc. boxes for deletion, my opinion would be the same.) The  Seeker 4  Talk 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If you think it's a bad idea, then quit arguing for it. Nobody needs to play the devil's advocate; if there's support for the position, its supporters are capable of speaking for themselves. Nobody is handing out medals for hypocrisy. We do not need a specific metric; as humans, we are able to judge each case on its own merits. I can point you to Jimbo's quote about that if you really think it's necessary.

Userboxes that say which languages a user speaks are useful because they show potential availability for translation projects. Userboxes that say where a user is from are useful because they may be useful for photograph requests. Other userboxes convey expertise about encyclopedic subjects, such as universities, military service, or occupations.

Political userboxes, on the other hand, are not generally useful. A registered Republican doesn't have any special advantages when it comes to contributing. They don't necessarily know any more about their party than anyone else; they just checked a box on a postcard. I'm fine with getting rid of all userboxes that don't convey a particular expertise about an encyclopedic subject and this would be a good start.

Furthermore, any argument that the WWII-era Nazi party is no different than any other political leaning is patently absurd. And make no mistake - the userbox is not simply about the universal concept of National Socialism; it actually has a swastika and a photo of Hitler on it. And since that party no longer exists in any form, it is clearly intended to stir up controversy and nothing more. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't really care if the userbox exists or not; as Hammersoft said somewhere (ANI?), it's somewhat useful to know if the person you're dealing with is a lunatic or not. But I feel compelled to comment that it's a foolish consistency to say that if you delete this, you have to delete every political userbox there is, or to equate this to the battles the ACLU has had to fight. It is also a foolish consistency to say that if you allow this, then you're morally obligated to allow a "raping little girls" userbox. The fact that there is a theoretical slippery slope in almost any judgment call does not condemn us to inaction on every issue. It just means that (like everything else around here) we'll have to muddle through and try to determine if something is too far past the line or not on a case by case basis. Indeed, that's kind of what MFD is for. This is Wikipedia, people don't have a right to say anything here, and "free speech" is not a keep rationale. If the userbox is primarily of use in identifying loons, then keep it. if it is truly divisive and inflammatory, then per Wikipedia:USERBOX#Content_restrictions, it is not against policy, or against common sense, or against the first amendment to delete it. Relax folks, the end of civilization is not upon us, no matter what the result of this debate is. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Totally agree with the last sentence. The crux of this problem is that there is no clear definition of "divisive and inflammatory." The other end of that is that neo-nazis are now painting themselves as victims of persecution, the last defenders of the great white race, and this sort of attempt to stifle them plays right into their hands. Obviously that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, but I'd though I'd throw it out there nonetheless. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

What if I am jewish? I'm just supposed to "Assume good faith"? Oh, I'd just tell myself, he/she is a good person, they're just a nazi, of course they should have a say in a legit encyclopedia! *rolls eyes* A8 UDI 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• What if I'm Christian? I'm just supposed to "Assume goood faith"? Oh, I'd just tell myself, he/she is a good person, they're just a satanist, of course they should have a say in a legit encyclopedia. *rolls eyes* -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ah, but without the userbox you never would have known they were a nazi to begin with. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Exctly! Delete! And satanists didn't kill 6 million Christians... so again, not an argument and there isnt the historical significance that Nazism has. A8 UDI 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• So in order for a userbox to be deleted, the political party in question needs to have killed six million people? I think some people in Cambodia and Rwanda would object to that. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Good counterpoint! *Ahem* well, use a consensus *for all political ubx's*. I'm sure any one who endorses a political party committing genocide wont succeed as opposed to banning all political UBX as you and Beeblebrox proposed... because I doubt that'd work; people are too opinionated A8 UDI 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is about following the guideline. It's not about free speech or whether the box might be a useful way of identifying an idiot, or whether other offensive userboses exist - these things may be fair comment, but they are not good countervailing arguments because none of them are supported by any policy or guideline. Beeblebrox has pointed out that we have no clear definition of "divisive and inflammatory", but I think he or she is wrong to suggest that this is "the crux of the problem", because we are not dealing with a borderline case here. Policy says "userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive", this userbox is very clearly both, so the algebra is simple. -- FormerIP ( talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

  You say it very clearly is both, but give no reason to suggest it is divisive or inflammatory. It is because it is? The userbox doesn't advocate genocide. It doesn't advocate a criminal act. It doesn't advocate anything in fact. It just says the user identifies as a national socialist. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

What is considered inflammatory and devisive is determined by consensus in discussions such as these. If you're for National Socialism, admit it and be counted. But there's no reason to blindly fight against consensus just for the sake of argument. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(E/C) To quote Justice Potter: I know it when I see it. Someone self-identifying as a member of a hate group is disruptive. I really don't think it's a matter of controversy to assert that the Nazi's and KKK are hate groups. Nor do I think this somehow trends towards a Christian asserting the same of Wiccans. Is there a reason not to trust the common sense of the community and simply deal with these things as they crop up. To try and explicitly define divisive or inflammatory seems a bit beans-y. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• So we should just delete it because because? Come up with some grounds on which to actually delete it other than base emotion. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

To quote from my reply above: "...self-identifying as a member of a hate group is disruptive". It doesn't help build an encyclopedia, or the community of editors, and likely detracts from it. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• A number of people identify the Republican party of the United States as a hate group. Should we ban userboxes supporting the US Republican party? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• And if you're seriously arguing that we can't somehow summon the common sense to distinguish between the Republicans and the Nazi's, I think I'm out of productive things to say. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm pointing out that the criteria is ambiguous and subjective. If we're to delete userboxes based on the idea that a given userbox supports a hate group, then there needs to be a metric of what a hate group is, as opposed to subjective identification of same. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• So? If you don't like the fact that WP:UP is subjective, then you should try to gain consensus for a more quantitative policy and discuss changes on the relevant talk page. And on a more practical note: we don't need a quantitative metric, that's (one of the reasons) why we have MfD. It allows us to establish whether the userpage (or box) breaches a qualitative policy. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 03:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't take it personally, Bfigura. He's not reading anyone's replies. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Right, I'm just spewing a bunch of bullshit that coincidentally has something to do with the topic at hand. Amazing, that. Can't figure that out? Try commenting on content rather than editors. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As a matter of fact, you've scarcely made a single relevant comment. You've been reposting the same one over and over - "show me the policy". Never mind that people have pointed out WP:FREE SPEECH, WP:BATTLE, and the userbox guideline itself. Never mind that a number of us have pointed out that this is where policy is made. No responses to those people - you just move on to the next thread. Not surprising, from a self-identified troll, but no less annoying. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• When you can figure out how to keep a civil tongue in your head, I'll respond to you. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The evidence shows otherwise. [1] [2] Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Kafziel, that sort of talk isn't really called for. Would you consider striking it? -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Absolutely not. Arguing for argument's sake is the very definition of trolling. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry you do not like my method of discussion. That does not give you leave to personally attack me. If and when you decide to entreat with me in a civil tone, I will be quite happy to discuss why SOAP and BATTLE do not apply. Until such time, I have no intention of discussing matters with you because of your apparent unwillingness to abide by WP:NPA. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You already had the chance to reply and didn't. It really doesn't matter; my arguments stand whether you answer them or not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• When you're ready, I'll be here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

"Base emotion"??? Are you actually challenging me to demonstrate that finding Nazism offensive is not irrational, Hammersoft? Put simply, if someone puts the userbox on their page, then they are implicitly (but ever so clearly) stating that they either (a) support or (b) deny the historical reality of the Holocaust. That's an inflammatory and divisive message to convey. -- FormerIP ( talk) 21:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• No. That's a red herring. I never made any comment regarding how rational it is or is not in finding Nazism offensive. The userbox makes no mention of the holocaust, and doesn't suggest it didn't happen. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It simply isn't possible to intellectually separate the two things in the way you suggest. Subscribing to Nazism (in 2009) entails objecting to orthodox views regarding the Holocaust, as surely as being a Christian entails taking a position regarding the existence of God. You don't actually need to spell it out in either case. It isn't plausible that someone could put the Userbox on their page without fully intending to convey an inflammatory and divisive message. Do you honestly think differently?-- FormerIP ( talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• You're still asking me to chase a red herring. On what objective grounds should this box be deleted? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

On the grounds that it contravenes WP:UBX, because it is inescapably inflammatory and divisive, because it is not plausible that someone could make use of it without intending to convey their objection to received ideas about the Holocaust. -- FormerIP ( talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Are you aware that there are active politicians who advocate national socialism? How would you suggest a person create such a userbox? I understand you find Nazi Germany offensive. So do I. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of them, and they are inflammatory and divisive, so if they created a userbox, it would be likely to be contrary to WP:UBX, I imagine. Policy isn't that users are allowed the freedom to express themselves through userboxes, it is that they may not create inflammatory and divisive userboxes. -- FormerIP ( talk) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• The userbox doesn't link to national socialism. It links to Nazism, which is exclusively the national socialist party of Germany from 1933-1945. The intent of the userbox is clear, as it leaves no room for interpretation. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the position(s) of Hammersoft and Beeblebrox. They have summed the situation up nicely. fucking edit conflict Crafty ( talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep What to say? Free speech and tolerance is a two way road. We cannot simply "tolerate" the expression views we approve of (at least marginally), and ban the expression of views that we do not approve of. And while I'd be more than happy if fascism, national socialism, neo-nazism and their ilk were to be contained in a small simple article titled "horrible atrocities, now extinct" I cannot deny people right to declare themselves followers of those mindsets. Or we may just mandatorly replace all userboxes and userpages with "This is a wikipedian. Wikipedia is great."... Charon X/ talk 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Funny how everyone voting "keep" actually claims to be against it. Is there anyone here who actually likes Nazism and would like to have the box on their userpage? Anyone? Or is everyone just here to try out for the debate team? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well that effort isn't gonna get you a place on the team, Kaf. Seriously - take a powder babe. :) Crafty ( talk) 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It's a valid question. Since this is not a vote, but rather an attempt to identify consensus, it's worth knowing whether anyone actually feels that this specific userbox is useful and important, or if everyone is just playing the devil's advocate. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Do we delete userboxes if they're useless and/or unimportant? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Quite often. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I can only echo the sentiments that provoked my keep !vote. Wikipedia permits political userboxen. As loathesome as it is, this userbox falls into that category. It's thin edge of the wedge stuff. Personally I think all political userboxen should be prohibited. Possibly userboxen in general. another fucking edit conflict Crafty ( talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

And how, exactly, do you suppose all political userboxes would be deleted? With a first step such as this. But that first step is always stymied by editors arguing against their own purposes by playing the devil's advocate. What's the point? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Well, I don't care how they do it on your Wikipedia anymore than you care how they do it on the French Wikipedia. If we deleted things because they're useless, I can think of some kitten huffing userboxes that should be up against the wall too, not to mention "vetern editor" userboxes that are by definition divisive; all editors in good standing are equal. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Most of mine aren't actually userboxes; they're created on my page with wiki formatting. But go for it. You won't see me saying I wish they were all gone and then arguing to keep them. And don't think I didn't notice you glossing over another valid argument and trying to change the subject. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• When you're ready, I'll be here. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete all userboxen. While some might help one editor find another with similar interests, I suggest that the whole endeavour has seriously backfired and caused more consternation and division than benefit. — Huntster ( t @ c) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

that suggestion belongs at the VP, and not here. The question is whether within our current policies this particular one should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep NOT CENSORED. The other Wikipedias may follow what rules they think themself obliged to, but the box is not illegal in the US. I do admit I do not quite see the point of this (why not "interested in" instead of "advocates" but in the US which is where the foundation and the servers are, it is not illegal to have this material. In my opinion, that is just as it ought to be. Suppression of political ideology tends to be counterproductive. Essentially all of us would probably be willing to go to any lengths to prevent this particular one actually taking hold--which in my opinion is also as it ought to be--but in the US that is another matter. The European democratic tradition is different in this regard--I suppose other countries have their right to it. But enWikipedia is not censored. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed - but at the danger of rehashing the userbox wars, WP:NOTCENSORED is really concerned with articlespace ("However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."). I'm unsure how a userbox is "relevant to content". Black Kite 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

DGG, what would be your counterpoint to it being just plain offensive and cannot be anything other than polemic, against UBX policy... especially the political UBX? Granted, believe me I hate censorship but I just believe somethings, somethings, cross the line. A8 UDI 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I don't think anyone is advocating censorship here. I'm certainly not, and I haven't really seen any arguments to that effect. This is about the user namespace and the guideline's specific provision against divisive userboxes, for this very reason. Look at all this wasted time and effort, between this MFD and the ANI thread that started it, and nobody on either side of the discussion actually has any interest in putting it on their userpage. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If anyone put it on my page, I'd object strongly. If Gr8opinionater put it on his page I'd be upset we had such a person around, and I'd certainly keep close watch over what he did. I would understand, but still disagree, with a feeling that he must not do so. But he has put it on a page together with similar ones for a large number of things that he specifically states on his actual user page he strongly dislikes, and does so in a context that makes it clear to me he is simply identifying all the most unpleasant of the past & current possibilities. Why should that sort of use bother anyone? The penumbra of NOT CENSORED is broad enough to cover it here also. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant here, DGG. And the fact that the userbox is not illegal in the US is not relevant either. If you want to argue effectively for a keep, you need to argue that the userbox is not "inflammatory or divisive", because that's what WP:UBX says we must not allow. Otherwise, your !vote does not count. If you disagree with WP:UBX, then you should take it to the relevant talk page. -- FormerIP ( talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

He was responding to arguments made by some of the delete voters, so by your logic their votes "don't count" either. Let's face it, any political standpoint is going to be seen by somebody as "inflammitory and divisive." As repugnant as Nazism is, all this userbox says is that the person posting it identifies themselves as a Nazi. It does not make any specific statements against any particular persons or explicitly condone a specific course of action. If there was a userbox that said "This user thinks white people should kill all the Jews and take over the world" that would be different. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Then consider it different, because (as I said earlier) the userbox doesn't link to national socialism. It links to Nazism, which is exclusively the national socialist party of Germany from 1933-1945. Nobody can legitimately identify themselves as a Nazi anymore, because there's no such thing. It would be akin to identifying oneself as a member of the Black Panther Party. It doesn't exist. There are countless other types of fascists and national socialists, including neo-Nazis and what have you, but the only Nazi party was Hitler's. Between the link, the photo, and the flag, the userbox leaves no room for interpretation about what else it might mean. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:UP#NOT, item #9: Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia... It would be nice if we lived in a world where ALL political groups were value-neutral; however that world is not the one we live in. Naziism is by its very nature a polemical political group, and a user self-idetifying with the Nazi Party and its goals and aims is no different than a self-identifying pederast. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that "everything goes" and, while we want to allow freedom of expression at Wikipedia, some ideas are beyond the limits of even what Wikipedia should allow. This is not the same thing as self-identifying as a member of the Labour Party or the Christian Democrats or the Republican Party; the use of this userbox serves no purpose EXCEPT to pick a fight or stir up controversy, so it should go. -- Jayron 32 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you seriously believing the bullshit you're saying? Do you have any proof of the userbox being used in militant or aggressive ways? The box barely has any transclusions to indicate that anyone is using it to vandalize, stir emotions, or promote Nazi ideals. Political userboxes on WP are meant for people to identify with a certain political tendency, out of a personal preference, not to affect their contributions. If their political identity does start to affect their work on WP, rules and regulations will prohibit the person from continuing to edit the project. What you people are doing with this proposal is more fascist than fascist Nazism. Either delete every Stalinist, Nazi, Maoist or Anarchist userbox from WP, or stop resorting to this emotional, hissy-fissy bullshit and let people choose their own future on WP. -- UNSC Trooper ( talk) 09:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that little rant might actually be the best reason for deletion posted so far. Congratulations. Black Kite 10:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I think your little reply is actually a very accurate reflection of why ignorance and emotion prevails over common sense in controversially-themed debates. Congratulations yourself. ;) -- UNSC Trooper ( talk) 10:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia policy as pointed out by Jayron, and common sense. Yes, "the criteria is ambiguous and subjective" in a pedantic sense, but so is life. This is so far down the useless idiocy path that the ambiguity is negligible. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Just because a border is not sharp does not mean we cannot identify some things clearly on one and clearly on the other side. This one is clearly on the offensive, divisive, unproductive side. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is a collaborative website to build an encyclopedia. We are not here to fight the good fight of FREEDOM or anything else. This is not a supreme court establishing precedence – we just have to decide whether having a userbox with an image and logo that promote Nazism is helpful. It's not emotion telling me to delete; it's common sense. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There are two things that the wikipedia community has repeatedly endorsed as completely disruptive to collegiate editing here: advocating pedophilia and advocating racism. This clearly falls into the latter and, hence, is quite disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per WP:ENC. Declaring oneself a nazi does not help make an encyclopedia. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as argued by Bfigura: "Someone self-identifying as a member of a hate group is disruptive." This is more disruptive to the encyclopedia than being told that an editor is a Democrat or Republican. ~ YellowFives 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Actually this whole conversation is entirely moot because nobody actually has this userbox on their user page. So it really makes no difference whether it's kept or deleted. Why it was ever nominated as being divisive when it it's not even being used is perhaps an interesting question, but since it's not, there's not much point in continuing to debate this. Change my vote to Who cares? Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oddly, yesterday it was in use by 10 different editors. Now it's not. What the? I find it hard to believe 10 editors decided to remove it on their own. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like they were removed under the guideline of WP:UP#NOT, specifically #9. I didn't do it, but I support it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• So who removed them? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• All Socialists in, or All Socialists out - other advocates of socialist hate groups for instance Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists seem to have numerous userboxes also (despite the Holodomor, Great Purge, The Killing Fields, Gulags, Great Chinese Famine and numerous other extremely controversial events). To delete one and not the others would be hypocritical. All of the socialist userboxes in general are divisive IMO and I would support deleting all of them, or non at all. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • All or Nothing isn't a good argument to make here. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Why? Crafty ( talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Because it's not how Wikipedia works. We're not binary switches, we're human beings. Reality doesn't have to be all or nothing. If you support deleting all of them, then supporting this deletion is the first step and then you can nominate more. Mass nominations are always trainwrecks. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I see. Does The Hand share that view? Crafty ( talk) 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

All or Nothing is just a essay, not an actual policy. The comparison is clearly relevent here IMO, so we don't end up with hypocritical practice in place. If people can give a shout out to Chairman Mao and Uncle Joe Stalin on their page, why not to Adolf Hitler? I don't see the difference, both instances promote extremist figures and are divisive. The only difference seems to be the former socialists had a higher kill count than the latter socialist. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

And you are free to nominate those as well. It's not hypocrisy to support deletion here - it's precedent. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Considering I pointed you to the essay, yes, I share that view. Taking an "all or nothing" approach is generally not a good idea. It's a scorched earth program, which takes out everything whether it's appropriate or not. Deal with this article first, then we can deal with the others. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - It is fucking shameful that we are even discussing this. Speedy WP:IAR deletion should have been commonsense. Rami R 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete because we're not supposed to have userboxes that are inflammatory or divisive and Nazism is inflammatory and divisive. That's why there are protestors at Nazi rallies. Other userboxes may also be inflammatory and divisive, and I'd be happy to see them deleted, too.-- chaser ( talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:USERBOX, the relevant guideline, states that "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." This one certainly is. That guideline also states that userboxes may not contain material that would not be permissible on a userpage, and this userbox is arguably a "polemical statement" under WP:UP#NOT #9. Besides all this, this userbox is inherently offensive while contributing nothing positive to the encyclopedia (indeed, it may have a negative effect). There should be limits to free speech on this website. What ultimately amounts to hate speech must not be tolerated. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:36, 11 November 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.