Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David.Mestel (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 29 January 2009 (resp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Not offensive any more than "This user is straight but not narrow". Korodzik (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. CharonX/talk 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Er, OK - now I've actually read the point you were making above. Sorry. Opera hat (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep pretty much the least inflammatory way of wording it. DGG (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per my input on another MfD here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
See Category:Sexual orientation user templates. David(Talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman&oldid=267277601"