Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes

User:UBX/redheads

This and the following were deleted by User:Krimpet on August 4, and restored after a lengthy deletion review. They should have a proper debate, but they are indeed inappropriate and unhelpful to building the encyclopedia, and as the admin who restored them it is my sincere hope that they will not be around for long. The full list:

• User:UBX/redheads (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/redheads|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:ISD/BBW (edit | [[Talk:User:ISD/BBW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bluedenim/Brunettes (edit | [[Talk:User:Bluedenim/Brunettes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bluedenim/Blondes (edit | [[Talk:User:Bluedenim/Blondes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction (edit | [[Talk:User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:UBX/TranswomenSexy (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/TranswomenSexy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) speedy delete per CSD G7 PC78 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• User:Affused with holy water/Loves beautiful women (edit | [[Talk:User:Affused with holy water/Loves beautiful women|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chick Bowen 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Strong Keep for the hair colors, and weak keep for the BBW. These are no more encyclopedic than many other userboxes. If we delete these, then we might as well start deleting userboxes stating where people eat or what they drink. BBW has a possibly improper image, and the use of "sexy" on the bottom three are possibly problematic, but the hair colors are innocent.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all, though I don't think it's necessarily helpful to bundle them all together in a single MfD. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. That said, I have no desire to keep the one I created myself, and have tagged it for CSD G7 accordingly. PC78 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the hair colour ones - they're not divisive or inflammatory, and they're all residing in the appropriate place - userspace. The arguments to endorse at DRV smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep per the rationale in these prior MFDs: userfied userboxes are given a wide degree of freedom. Opening this can of worms could lead to most of userspace being deleted. We're here to build an encyclopedia, but having a little fun once in a while won't kill us. –xeno (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Amended slightly to cover the hair colours - I don't see how saying that one likes a particular hair colour is sexist. Neutral on the other ones. –xeno (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unhelpful to helping the project. Food and drink userboxes, I agree may be useless too, but there's a higher probability of pizza-lovers writing about pizzas than redhead-lovers writing about redheads. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not going to touch that line.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I use a bright-line rule to determine the worth of a userbox. Fans of TV shows and music bands often write about them on Wikipedia, so those userboxes might help the project. Religious and political beliefs also influence what is written about. Preference in women? Not so much. (Though I agree to some sexuality userboxes too, because LGBT people tend to write about LGBT subjects). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ahahah. Read what you wrote again. Carefully. naerii 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the point about higher probabilities. I don't think writing about pizzas would be more common. Intriguing comparison, though. Noroton (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all per User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Brunettes userbox. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the userboxes based on hair color...neutral on the others. I think that userboxes in userspace should be held to the same standards as userpages...and saying "I like blondes" is completely fine to put on a userpage. The others...well, something about them rubs me the wrong way, but not enough to say delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep for the hair color userboxes per Bedford, Xenocidic, and UsaSatsui. Neutral on the others. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete sure a lot of userboxes are not encyclopedic. But let's try to keep sexist connotations out of the userspace. These do not build a community, and alienate our female editors. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some who used them were females.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and some women refer to other women by nasty sexist epithets. Some women are victims of physical abuse at the hands of other women. What's your point? ~Eliz81^(C) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's yours? I don't see where abuse of women or sexual harassment fits into this at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because some female editors used the userboxes doesn't mean it's not derogatory and sexist. ~Eliz81^(C) 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How do these userboxes imply that women are inferior or somehow not as good as men? And how are they insulting in any way, besides maybe the word "chick" (which I would think the majority of women do not find derogatory)? I'll answer for you: they're not. There is nothing wrong with a statement about what kind of person attracts you, and such statements do not demean the women (or men) they're directed at. I think the problem here is you don't like them, so you're claiming there's something inherently flawed with them when there isn't. There's valid arguments against these userboxes, let's not bust out the BS "they're demeaning to women" one. It doesn't hold water. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my original delete comment, as well as the other numerous and perhaps better-worded rationales on this page. The problem here is that a lot of female editors, not just me, and even some male editors think these boxes have no place in userspace. Since you apparently have never been subjected to objectification and being picked apart and rated on your various physical attributes, perhaps you should consider yourself quite lucky. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongy-wongy speedy-weedy delete - sexist, divisive, offensive, not conducive to building a community of editors, utterly inappropriate on a project like Wikipedia and garners a very poor image of the project in the eyes of the public. Would this be acceptable in the workplace to have anybody have this on their desk or on the door of their office?? So why here? - Alison ^❤ 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, how many cubicles have signs on them saying, "this worker has earned 7 awards", or "this cubicle has been trashed 12 times"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the former, none of the latter ... that I know - Alison ^❤ 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. At a minimum the BBW, shemale, and sexy chicks have to go. The rest of it isn't appropriate either. Way to make everyone who is not a hetero male uncomfortable.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Because Lord forbid men admit they're attracted to women. Honestly, what is wrong with us? And for the record, males also have different colored hair and females do tend to prefer them too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Because men can admit that they're heterosexual, but that doesn't give them the right to view women as objects. Naked pictures? "Sexy chicks"? I'm sure that relates to women as equals. If the preferences didn't include the pictures, I think you'd find fewer objections.--Thalia42 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You have a point on those particular userboxes, (and note I don't support keeping them), but specifying hair color preference? I don't believe so. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm wondering if these are considered any worse than any of the other stuff at

User:ISD/Userboxes/Sexuality. A reasonable number of these are similar, I think. Things like "This user is a slut" and the 'Bear' series. Maybe not, I dunno. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• relist individually. --Random832 (contribs) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe there are some copyright issues here. The photograph in the brunette USB is of Sharon Shannon and the image page says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed". It is not attributed. the blonde USB is of Ana Hickmann and it is from Flickr. Also are there not privacy issues in using pictures of living people totally out of context? I support deleting those two but Have no view on the others. --Bduke (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The images can be replaced with those of other women (or men). --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• • That is just what I did. The blonde one is now VERY appropro.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp how we handle attribution of images on Wikipedia. The image page is where that occurs. You do not see attribution commentary below pictures anywhere else on wikipedia. No licensing problem to worry about here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. I do find our use of images confusing, so generally keep away from them. The image of Sharon Shannon seemed to be different from others. I now see it is not used on any wikipedia article, even on Sharon Shannon. I still think it was a privacy issue to use it on a userbox, particularly one that is sexist. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't really like the idea of spreading this out further, but I do think that there really does seem to be two "classes" of userboxes here: the "hair-color" ones (where there seems to be a general leaning towards keeping) and the other ones (a general trend towards deleting). Maybe they should be split into two MFDs? --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As nominator I have no problem with this, if someone else wants to take the initiative and do it. (I think my two actions thus far in this dispute have been enough for me, though.) On the other hand, folks can just make their positions clear in their individual comments, as they're now doing. Chick Bowen 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely delete the 'sexy chicks', 'transwomen' and 'BBWs' userboxes - to many people, they are tasteless and offensive, and are of no obvious use to the project. Preferably delete the hair colour ones as well, but they seem much less problematic (although they're not serving any useful purpose either). It may be appropriate to relist these userboxes as two separate groups, as UseSatsui suggests above. Terraxos (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep/ Let's stop walking on eggshells and policing user space and get back to building and maintaining an encyclopedia. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not one of these userboxes are conducive to the atmosphere that this project was enabled for. It sets the tone and precedent for more garbage we will eventually allow into userspace. Alison has it right (sexist, divisive, offensive), and its just too sad to see so many editors in favor of them. Also Xeno, I'd like to point out that the MfD's you provide do not establish grounds for retaining. Both of them demenstrate what the user likes, while not describing another person (as these userboxes clearly do). Let me ask the questions that no one has yet: are these userboxes more likely to offend than others? Are they likely to inflame users already in debate? Do they go beyond personal choices and step into an area that is questionable? I say yes. Delete them all, again. Synergy 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone gets steamed up because they see that a particular user likes brunettes then I think that's a problem with that person being too sensitive, not the userbox. I'm not particularly "in favour" of these userboxes - I just think it's ridiculous that we're even considering deleting them in the first place. Of course, if you're mainly focusing on the "sexy chicks" or "big beautiful women" then I suppose that's a horse of a different colour. I agree the MFD should really be split so that we're not arguing at cross-purposes. –xeno (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True, it could always be that an editor could just be a little too sensitive. But seriously, why do we need to know which hair color on women other editors prefer? This isn't about a philosophic ideal, a religion, or a spiritual choice. If it were just about that, I'd suggest tolerance. We just see it differently I suppose. Synergy 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no slippery slope. We do not have to delete this to prevent the heat death of the universe. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as I did before, per my original rationale - this is a freaking encyclopedia, not a dating site. krimpet✽ 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that I also took the liberty of re-deleting the "shemales" one which shouldn't have been lumped in with the rest - it's an obvious speedy candidate due to its blatant use of an insulting epithet. krimpet✽ 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Your re-deletion is an abuse of admin tools, and that box should be undeleted for this MfD. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • A flagrant abuse of admin powers, I'd say, given that these deletions were all overturned at DRV. PC78 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - Wikipedians by attraction? (Even if we ignore the implication of sexual attraction.) My eyes are drawn to all sorts of visual stimuli. If I walk in a room which has a shelf of books, I tend to go "check them out". So while that's an "attraction", it's (obviously) not sexual (depending on the content, I suppose), and I would presume that my inclination of enjoying the company of books would be fairly useless for a userbox. There are those who just must go check out a Camaro if they see one. Or a roller coaster. Or horses, for that matter. But being atttracted to something may or may not have anything to do with being interested in collaborating about it, or in any way would even indirectly help other Wikipedians in collaborating with you. (Compared to those who list - for example - a political or religious bias on their userpage for presumably just such reasons.) - jc37 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sexist, divisive, pointless, and I'm gobsmacked that we're actually having to have this discussion. When did so many people on Wikipedia take leave of their senses? Rebecca (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all The userbox wars are over, people. We have a hand full of users who are way to easily offended at some humor userboxes. There is nothing here that is greatly offensive or disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • • I'm not sure if we're actually considering the shemale one or not, since it's currently deleted, but consider myself neutral on that one. I strongly disagree with the deletion that was on the heels of a DRV, but the only users currently using it appear to be just trolls or throw-away accounts. I'm already getting burned as it is sticking up for the principles of deletion (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They are sexist, and they are offensive. But hey, I'm just a woman, probably just being easily offended, right? Rebecca (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, YOU think that are offensive and sexist. Thinking does not make it so. I think Korean food is disgusting and inedible. --mboverload@ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all User boxen wars are over people. --mboverload@ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Just an FYI, your comments may be ignored by the closer as not directly commenting on the content under discussion. Talking about the so-called "userbox wars" is meta-reasoning and as such should be avoided in most cases.

  Also note that Wikipedia:Consensus can change. - jc37 06:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as Alison and Rebecca have articulated above. These are utterly inappropriate and in no way are they fostering collegiality, let alone helping to build an encyclopædia. The fact that we are here debating is evidence enough. --cj | talk 06:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  The fact that Wikipedia has a debate about something is evidence that the topic of the debate is not helpful? wat? -- Ned Scott 06:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, no, Ned. The fact that Wikipedia has a debate about something is evidence that the issue is divisive. That much should be self-evident, I would have thought - Alison ^❤ 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's divisive because people like you are being a spaz about it. Stop being a baby and go work on an article. Getting your feelings hurt because someone likes blonds is absurd. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ned, are you kidding here? Not only is this an egregious personal attack on another editor (being a baby? getting feelings hurt about hair color?) but "spaz" is an incredibly derogatory term for those with cerebral palsy and other disorders (see spastic). Please strike this comment immediately. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  While I'll let Ned speak for himself, my read of the above was that he didn't intend the "sideways" slights that you noted. So please don't take them to heart. Though I will say that claiming that someone is "being a baby" (which I think he did intend) could be considered to be "borderline", at least by me YMMV. - jc37 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'll strike out the baby bit, but the use of the word spaz was not in reference to cerebral palsy. I can be an asshole from time to time, but I don't make fun of people with disabilities. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, but that's what sp*z means, you m*ng :) (just using that to show an equivalent term that is also nowadays considered politically incorrect.) By using the term as an insult, you're implying there's something wrong with people with the condition as people, to the extent that you use it as a derogatory term towards the conventionally-cerebral. That's so g*y. :)Sticky Parkin 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean women by "people like you", yes? Because you will note that all the female editors here have spoken out for deletion. And maybe THAT should give you a clue about why the user boxes are a problem. If an entire (rather large) group considers them offensive, maybe they're offensive even if you don't see it.--Thalia42 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I did not give a clear opinion earlier (I had just woken up|). I have to agree with Rebecca and Alison. These useboxes would be unacceptable in the workforce these days. They should not be acceptable here. Also the internet is already quite blokey enough, without us trying to make it more so. --Bduke (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All. As stated previously, these are offensive and utterly devoid of merit. Wikipedia is not a dating service, nor a place to make others uncomfortable by expressing your (irrelevant) preferences. — Werdna • talk 08:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  If people are made uncomfortable by these expressions, then they will likely be made even more uncomfortable by our uncensored article space content. They're only offensive when you lack a sense of humor. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I don't think that you really can make a sincere case that these are intended for humerous purposes.

  That aside, I don't believe that articles, which are intended to be from a NPOV, are comparable to userboxes. - jc37 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  While there is likely truth to the statements about preference, I do believe humor is a factor for making them into userboxes. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Avoiding offence trumps "having a sense of humour". Accusing somebody of "not having a sense of humour" when they are offended by something you say or do is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. There is absolutely not a single "sense of humour", which, if not possessed by a person, makes that person a humbug or interfering. Anybody trying to use humour as an excuse for poor taste has obviously not yet broken from their coccoon in which it's okay to make fun at some minority group's expense (because that minority is absent from said coccoon). — Werdna • talk 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all, inappropriate and detrimental to the community we are trying to foster around this encyclopedia. As Wikipedia:User page states, content on user pages "is only permitted with the consent of the community," and it's quite clear that a good slice of the community is offended by this sort of thing. I don't see any arguments presented as to the positive value of these userboxes. --Stormie (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of userboxes people could find inappropriate. I could call up about 10 userboxes that use the F-word for deletion that offend me pretty badly, and I know I'm not alone. Or perhaps someone is offended by gays, or the war in Iraq, or one of the hundreds of other userboxes out there that has something that will piss people off. I don't buy it as a valid deletion reason, expecially in userspace, where people do get a fair amount of license for personal expression (which these boxes are). People could get offended by anything...it's probably about time they reacted by ignoring it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there really one that says in so many words "this user is offended by gays"? I don't think that one would stay up.:) Sticky Parkin 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowlegde. I menat that someone could be offended by a userbox stating the user were gay. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been, in the past. User:PatPeter made a bunch of 'antigay' ones which were speedied with ensuing drama - Alison ^❤ 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Plain wrong. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete discourages female editors- the thing is not the content, so claiming we'd be offended by article space content doesn't apply, but that we want a collaborative atmosphere that encourages women being able to contribute to the project as well as men. Userboxes like this might make women think they're going to be 'pounced' on, or that they're editing alongside desperate teenage boys or something. Theses boxes are immature and for want of a better word 'unprofessional'. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What, seriously? I honestly can't imagine any reasonable person cruising userpages, seeing a box that says, "This user likes blondes", and becoming offended...or worry that they're going to be hit on...or worrying that all of a sudden they're going to be stalked by rabid Wikipedians. I can't even see it making anyone mad. At most, it might get an eye roll or a chuckle. Some of you are reacting to these userboxes like they say, "This user believes women are property", or "If you're a woman, get in the kitchen and make me a sammich". --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had put something like these userboxes on my door at work, if we worked in the same place, would you say the same thing? Sexism is banned in the work place, at least in my country. It should be totally unacceptable here also. --Bduke (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone put anything like any userboxes on their door, I'd think they were an idiot. However, if someone -told- me this in the workplace, I wouldn't care too much. Not that there's any real comparison between an office building and a volunteer, collaborative online project, of course. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is where we disagree quite profoundly. First, I think that sexist behavior is even more unacceptable in an an office building filled with volunteers rather than paid workers. Secondly I do think wikipedia is similar to an office building filled with volunteers, but online. Third, whether people are idiots is not the point. Idiots do not realy offend people. Sexist behavior does. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not sexist. It does not, in any way, imply women are inferior, nor is it disrespectful. Being attracted to women doesn't demean them. And idiots offend me plenty. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well no, that's not the point at all. Sexism is not simply considering women to be inferior; there's the whole matter of objectification. Even the language in the userboxes shows that, "This user is into redheads." - that's redheaded women, y'know? People? Sounds trite but it's not. And there's noting wrong with being attracted to women but there's no place for going "phwoarr!!" on your talk page - Alison ^❤ 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's fine to be attracted to women but there's no need to be sleazy and overly full-on about it, as these boxes are. Clearly these boxes are raising more than an eyeroll or chuckle, as can be seen here. Sticky Parkin 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - harmless. naerii 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the currently restored userboxes, as they are no more offensive than userboxes such as User:UBX/straight or User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay, which there is a clear consensus to permit. If we're going to allow statements of sexual preferences in userspace at all, there's no basis for the deletion of these userboxes -- mere prejudice and hatred towards particular non-disruptive sexual preferences hardly constitutes a satisfactory argument for deletion. Of course, sexual preference userboxes that would actually cause grave injury to Wikipedia's reputation, such as the infamous template:User paedophile which was speedily deleted by Jimbo Wales himself, would be considered disruptive, and are still subject to speedy deletion in any namespace. (Note that this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, since the issue is not the mere existence of other sexual preference userboxes, but the current pattern and practice of permitting them, a situation analogous to arguing that an article should be kept because articles of a similar nature are almost always retained at AFD. Indeed, typical AFD outcomes have been employed in the process of codifying our notability guidelines). John254 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - censorship is lame, Krimpet. LFOD (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all with extreme prejudice - this is an encyclopaedia we are working on, not (as pointed out above) a dating site! None of these assist the project in any way but they do harm how the world outside WP sees us when they can find editors being so puerile and pointless. You wouldn't plaster this sort of thing all over your front door so keep it off WP too. --AlisonW (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• The outside world doesn't give two excrements about user pages, much less their userboxes. This is simply "IDONTLIKEIT"--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I take many media (press, tv, radio) enquiries daily and people out in the real world do, indeed, follow discussions like these and look at user pages, so please don't try to tell me why I think these reprehensible 'user' boxes should be removed asap. They bring us into disrepute and make it appear that editors are little children who don't know how to behave in decent company. I don't see any reason why other WP editors should endorse publicly-accessible sexist behaviour by a few people who haven't a clue about their responsibilities. --AlisonW (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

lolz @ Bedford taking on Alison Wheeler. What next ... - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider what's actually being suggested by proponents of deletion. Is it seriously asserted that

This user is attracted to red hair.

is "puerile and pointless... publicly-accessible sexist behaviour" but

pornThis user enjoys pornography.

which is not up for deletion, and is a sort of userbox that, by consensus, is permissible in userspace, is perfectly wholesome? It's fairly obvious which userbox would be more offensive to most of our readers. John254 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Nuke 'em all, I say. Neither of those are conducive to building an encyclopedia - Alison ^❤ 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not against you Alison, but could we seriously stop lumping all this stuff together? I think judging each by its own merits is a very important concept and we should not abandon it to speed up the process. --mboverload@ 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested, actually, in how far userbox deletionism would be taken. Should we delete the entire contents of User:Allstarecho/SexualityUserboxes with the exception of gender and gender-identity boxes, which are necessary for the correct use of personal pronouns, since, after all, a user's sexual preferences and sexual politics are broadly irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia? John254 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See, it turns out that many, if not most of our userboxes serve only to identify personal demographic characteristics which aren't relevant to collaborative encyclopedia writing -- except for the fact that permitting editors a degree of personal expression on their userpages encourages users to contribute valuable content, instead of leaving Wikipedia in disgust. Please see Wikipedia:Editors matter for a more complete explanation of this issue. John254 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with personal expression, per se. Nothing at all, until it encroaches on others' editing experiences or the reputation of the project. It's just a matter of applying common sense to all this - Alison ^❤ 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what exactly "encroaches on others' editing experiences or the reputation of the project" is precisely what we have a disagreement over. The outer limits of userboxes acceptability are clear -- User:UBX/Dog owner is unquestionably acceptable, but template:User paedophile is disruptive and brings the project into disrepute (though we actually had a wheel war over it). The userboxes being discussed here, however, lie in a rather large grey area -- which, I claim, should be elucidated in a reasonably coherent fashion. I see little reasonable basis for the claim that userboxes which broadly assert sexual preferences (such as User:UBX/straight or User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay) are acceptable, but userboxes which expresses desires for certain hair colors aren't. John254 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I now agree with Alison's position. However, I am still disgusted with the process and lack of process surrounding these boxes. If they were kept per DRV no admin has the right to delete them without a proper AfD. Only an executive decision by Jimbo or someone at his level should have that ability. However, this is all said and done now and these should be deleted - if only because I'm sick of the whole thing. --mboverload@ 02:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete 'em all per Sceptre, although I think his comment about redheads needs a little refinement. Some userboxes are a distraction from good, wholesome encyclopedia-building. Noroton (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't say "high probability", I said "higher". As in, there's a higher probability of Lithuania winning Euro 2012 than San Marino, but it's still very unlikely. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the ones about hair colour. What's the issue? They're not offensive or demeaning. Admittedly they do nothing to build this encyclopedia, but there's no harm in them. And you know what harms this encyclopedia much, much more than people wasting time putting silly, harmless userboxes on their user page? The Fun Police. Because that's what this whole stupid discussion boils down to; a couple of people appointing themselves as Fun Cops over the rest of us. Reyk _YO! 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• But that is the issue here. Whilst we can enjoy what we do WP isn't something to create fun for editors - we are writing a scholarly text! "They're not offensive or demeaning" may be accurate in your view but, reading all the above, it is not a view that is agreed upon by all, possibly not even by a majority. You have it exactly right when you state "Admittedly they do nothing to build this encyclopedia" and that is the point of justification - or not - for a userbox. Many are finding these (and, indeed, some others) objectionable and they do nothing useful for the project. Delete them and move on. --AlisonW (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I have to utterly and completely disagree with you. Unrelated to this discussion. There is nothing wrong with fun distractions at Wikipedia. This is not a PhD thesis. Wikipedia SHOULD be fun. Again, unrelated to this discussion. --mboverload@ 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be fun for all, and there are plenty of other ways to keep it fun that don't disturb others. With all the options we have, we can afford to close a few that move us away from encyclopedia building and toward socializing in ways that make a lot of women uncomfortable. If the boxes could be used to help build articles, there would be a better reason for them. It's easier for editors to get along when we don't have them. Noroton (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about intent. The basic purpose of WP is not to create 'fun' for editors; enjoyment/fun are a side-effect only and the sort of behaviour / POV engendered by these userboxes is not conducive to wider participation. --AlisonW (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen a lot of people saying these userboxes are offensive, but I've seen no explanation as to how they're offensive. I suppose you could argue they could be seen as reducing people to a single physical characteristic, in this case hair colour. But then, I don't see you or anyone else arguing against the "User identifies as straight" or "User identifies as gay" userboxes which also merely express someone's personal preference without condemning or belittling anyone. As for whether the userboxes are necessary or contribute anything to the encyclopedia, well, that's an argument about userboxes in general and not these ones in particular. My personal view is that if it's on someone's user page and it's not doing any harm, then let it be. I see my own user page as somewhere I can brag, rant, be creative, be childish, and let off steam, and I think my work on the actual encyclopedia is better for it. If some self-appointed arbiter had come along when I was just starting out going "You can't have this! You can't have that!", especially for reasoning as weak as I think this discussion has been, I probably wouldn't have hung around. That's a much better way of alienating people than merely commenting on hair colour. Reyk _YO! 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• How many female editors need to say that they find these sexist, divisive and pointless before you will entertain the possibility that women (and yes, men too) find these sexist, divisive, and pointless? Making claims of oversensitivity and the fun police seems a moot point when this many women (constituting a minority of Wikipedia editors, I might add) have spoken up about this. Isn't it just possible that it is more offensive than some of you were willing to entertain initially? How many women have to outright say it's sexist before you'll believe us? ~Eliz81^(C) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• The argument that these userboxes are demeaning to women because many of the editors supporting their deletion are female is no more tenable than the argument that the editors supporting deletion should be ignored on account of their gender. Since it's unacceptable to use an editor's gender as an ad hominem argument against their position, it's likewise unacceptable to use one's gender as a inverse ad hominem argument to support an otherwise unjustified claim. Editors who claim that these userboxes are "sexist, divisive, and pointless" have so far utterly failed to meet the burden of proving their claim on any rational basis, since they have have absolutely refused to explain how userboxes expressing sexual preferences are normally good wholesome stuff (we're certainly not going to delete, for example, User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay), but userboxes expressing preferences for women of particular hair colors are absolutely vile misogyny that must be purged from our servers. John254 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• What about the compromise versions ("such and such hair colours are beautiful")? –xeno (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Stickty Parkin, others. Sexist, divisive, pointless; create atmosphere hostile to women. I am revolted that despite multiple people stating this, somehow Reyk feels it is the "Fun Police" trying to stop "harmless" fun. If the userboxes created an atmosphere hostile to an ethnic group, would it still be the "fun police"? I know some great Nigger jokes, and some Jew jokes, and some Chink jokes. I guess I should make some "harmless" userboxes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, the claim that these userboxes are "Sexist, divisive, pointless, [and] create atmosphere hostile to women" has been repeated in various forms ad nauseam. What has not been explained, in any satisfactory manner, is why userboxes expressing sexual preferences are acceptable (we don't see users with torches and pitchforks clamoring for the deletion of most of the contents of User:Allstarecho/SexualityUserboxes), except that userboxes expressing preferences for women of certain hair colors are absolutely disgusting, and must be deleted forthwith. Irrational hatred, prejudice, and bigotry are never satisfactory reasons for deletion. If a Wikipedia administrator were to, say, nominate User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay for deletion on the purported grounds that it creates a hostile environment for heterosexual male contributors who would fear sexual advances from editors who displayed the userbox, the nominator would probably be summarily desysopped and blocked immediately. The real question here is not "do we delete these userboxes due to unfounded prejudice?" but rather "what sanctions should be imposed on the users responsible for the hatred expressed here?" John254 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and in any case it has little to do with my argument. There's a big, big difference between offensive "Nigger" or "Jew" jokes and these userboxes. Those sorts of jokes play on hurtful and insulting stereotypes. But if someone says "I think redheads are beautiful", what's wrong with that? There is no stereotype that says people without red hair are bad or stupid for some reason (and yes, if someone made a "dumb blondes" userbox I'd oppose that). Your comparison is a poor one. Reyk _YO! 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Those sorts of jokes play on hurtful and insulting stereotypes. But if someone says "I think redheads are beautiful", what's wrong with that? Oh, it's definitely less hurtful, but it plays off a larger, more generalized stereotype of women as being treated primarily as sex objects for men. There is no clear equivalent for a woman's userbox treating men in a way that hurtful because the userboxes, even the ones about hair, play off of widespread attitudes in society that insist (not too strong a word) that women go to great lengths to make themselves not just beautiful but sexy for men. There is constant pressure on women in advertisements, movies, videos and elsewhere, to the point that seven-year-olds are getting into sexy clothing, and I'm not referring to seven-year-old boys. There is nothing like this for men in any society I know of. (And the big-beautiful woman box may be playing off of ideas of a fetish or just an attitude that even big women are looked on largely as sex objects.) Wikipedia editors are skewed toward young males, and we should be doing a little bending over backwards to welcome more women. The hair user boxes aren't a huge deal, especially when you don't look at the larger picture, but there is a larger picture. Do people who have or are in favor of the user boxes all want to demean women? I'm sure most don't, but it's less a question of what people mean than the message conveyed. Obviously, the world's not going to end over this, and there are exceptions, this stuff tends to be more offensive to just the kind of serious people we want to attract to Wikipedia. Also, it's not a very good seduction technique with most women. Trust me on this, you're better off with something more innocent-looking, less physical-oriented, although I admit I've never tried seduction on Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all. What does any of this have to do with "creating an encyclopedia"? --Kbdank71 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  As described in Wikipedia:Editors matter, permitting self-expression on userpages encourages editors to contribute. This is why we have userboxes, most of which have subject matter not strictly related to Wikipedia. John254 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - redheads and the other hair colours at any rate. I express no opinion at all on the others - not even a neutral. What harm do they do? How can they be considered offensive? Like it or not people's perceptions of beauty and what is sexually attractive is frequently based on physical charecteristics. It's just a bit of fun for user's homepages. If we were talking about breasts or genitalia then possibly that would be inappropriate but expressing a preference for a hair colour is acceptable even in polite conversation. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (Currently dating a georgeous redhead)
• Keep for now. While these userboxes are of little value and bad taste, so many of the user boxes are of similiar bad taste that I'd think that this has to be dealt with on a policy basis, rather than simply deleting a few. Though I really don't see the value of userboxes at all, apart from the ones that indicate language skills. Surely the rest of them are simply turning Wikipedia into MySpace? Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

Color me stupid but can we come to a compromise? This is a community, after all. --mboverload@ 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we ignore the childish requests for censorship and continue on with our lives? LFOD (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are beyond "MY SIDE" or "MY SIDE" now. If we don't come to a compromise then we will all be left with a bad taste in our mouth. Without a compromise whichever way the closing admin goes will be seen as a betrayal. --mboverload@ 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with preference in hair colo(u)rs or body sizes and/or shapes, but with idiotic political correctness censorship. Should we now label bin Laden a freedom-loving freedom-fighter? Oh wait, we already are... LFOD (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you consider something just fine doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who is into political correctness. And name calling rarely helps a discussion. Let's just all agree that quite a few women, and a number of men, find these user boxes to be offensive. Now let's see if we can reword/change them to eliminate this problem. That is, after all, the definition of compromise.--Thalia42 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

|---> Compromise on Hair Color boxes

What if we changed the text of the haircolor boxes to “This user thinks redheads are beautiful”? I personally think that is kind of complimentary. Would this be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Of course, that only remedies the issues with User:Bluedenim/Brunettes, User:Bluedenim/Blondes, and User:UBX/redheads -- the other userboxes also require the sort of individualized consideration that is difficult in this mass MFD. We have everything from the relatively innocuous User:UBX/redheads to the outright disruptive and disparaging User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction all in the same discussion. John254 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I can live with that. We can also make it scholarly and say "This user studies redheads".--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  I have revised the hair color userboxes in accordance with the proposed wording. John254 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

|---> Compromise on Loves sexy girls

What if we changed the text to "This user thinks women are beautiful? Would that be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. John254 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest "This user loves beautiful women" to preserve the userbox's meaning. John254 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• What's wrong with it as is? LFOD (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the userbox is that it's at MFD, with a substantial disagreement amongst established users as to whether it should be deleted. Resolving disagreements of this nature on Wikipedia necessarily involves compromise, not doctrinaire adherence to "delete everything" or "keep everything as it is" positions. John254 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the value of having this user box in the first place? You figure there are large groups of hetero males out there who consider sexy/beautiful women to be unattractive? I think compromising on the hair color ones is fine. But Wikipedia is not a dating site. There is no appropriate rewording that does not objectify women.--Thalia42 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I now understand that it is immoral, sexist, and degrading to have a preference in the colo(u)r of a woman's hair, but it is absolutely fine to concern oneself with the gender of an individual. LFOD (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't respond to someone that takes a compliment as an insult...? --mboverload@ 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

|---> Compromise on Big beautiful women

What if we changed the text to "This user thanks that women of ALL sizes are beautiful"? Would that be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would involve a serious change in the userbox's meaning. We should either retain the substance of this box or delete it, not put words in the mouths of the users transcluding it. John254 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone want to make the new one? --mboverload@ 04:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is using this particular userbox. I'd say let it go, into the cold black yonder where userboxen go to die. –xeno (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)