Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FerrousTigrus/ub/non-bias hitler

I think we can agree that, um... we shouldn't be supporting Nazi ideologies. All these are either alt-right, pro-Hitler, or pro-alt-right-movements

Anyway, violates WP:UBX especially the "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." and "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." requirements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I probably would have voted keep on the first one but it's already been speedily deleted. User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist and User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/AltRight2 are promoting white supremacy, so those are clear delete. User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/AltRight ... "deplorable and proud" wasn't just a rallying cry of the alt-right, it was used by all sorts of people as an expression of opposition to Clinton in response to something she said. But, in this case, the page is called "AltRight" so delete that one, too, for the same reason as AltRight2. Le v!v ich 19:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/AltRight; simply saying what is pretty much that I support Trump is not enough for deletion. Once again, being inflammatory or divisive applies to every single userbox and would apply equally to "this user hates the alt-right"; however, I don't think many people support deleting that. Similarly, "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising" would similarly, if applied consistently, apply to every single political userbox; clearly, that isn't happening, and this should either be applied consistently or not at all. Either have a consistent standard or don't have one at all. Neutral to the other 2 due to me being unfamiliar with Third Positionism and the use of alt-right to mean various things. Zoozaz1 talk 19:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of explicitly pro-Trump boxes, and you'll note they're not being nominated here. But alt-right is explicitly white supremacist. Weird thing is that User:Dwscomet also made anti-alt-right templates. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nobody will see the title of a userbox; we judge it based on the content, and the content is normal trump supporter content. Zoozaz1 talk 20:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoozaz1: I could see just renaming it, if it weren't for the image, which calls for deplorables to join the alt-right. I think that a similar userbox without the image, and without the name, would be well within the range of acceptable political posturing, but a call for deplorables to unite with the alt-right - as per the sign being held - is not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 20:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user who created the userbox seems to still be active, so I'll put a message on his talk page asking him to change the image. Zoozaz1 talk 21:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the image has been changed, I hope some editors might reconsider deleting it. Zoozaz1 talk 03:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image change now makes it a BLP violation because it suggests Trump is alt-right (i.e. a white supremacist), and I don't think reliable sources support that categorization. Le v!v ich 19:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Man whatever I am gonna get rid of them, like I said I am no right wing person, voted for Clinton and plan to vote Biden. I will take away the left wing and center userboxes along with my Zionist and Anti Zionist userboxes. No more political userboxes from me. Dwscomet (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine if it were renamed as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 03:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is that weird Adam? I make userboxes about everything. I am a black man that voted Hillary in 2016 so of course I am no alt-right person but I know there are some who are pro-trump.. Same reason why I am a die hard fan of the New York Yankees yet I made a userbox that says "Go Red Sox".. Dwscomet (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yankees userbox - per Yankees suck. Le v!v ich 03:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (Go Sox!)[reply]

How dare you?! The Red Sox don't deserve a userbox, only the Yankees should be afforded that honor. My !vote is delete Red Sox userbox. Zoozaz1 talk 04:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
This one is a delete for me, at least for the first and third userboxes. While I must confess I do not fully understand the terms "alt-right" and "third positionist", if these terms are directly related to white supremacy, white nationalism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, as is suggested in their respective wikipedia articles, then these terms do reflect extreme positions which, unlike opposition to same sex marriage, exceeds the acceptable bounds of normal political discourse and would likely be inflammatory and divisive. If someone can show the terms "alt-right" and "third positionist" can have a neutral, non-hateful meaning, I am happy to reconsider my position. --Dps04 (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. As for the second userbox, I see Zoozaz1's position and I'll remain neutral for now. The message it self is not a problem, though I recognize the name of the userbox as well as the image contained therein can potentially be a problem. --Dps04 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image literally is a call for deplorables to join the alt-right. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 20:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nazism, fascism and similar racist ideologies are incompatible with participation in Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but saying "This user is a Deplorable and proud!" is none of those (and the image will likely be changed). Zoozaz1 talk 21:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A userbox template that is called AltRight2 would still be unacceptable if it had an image of a flower bouquet and said "this person wants to be your friend". No userbox should exist under that name. Some editors who refer to themselves as "deplorables" may not be affiliated with the alt right. If they wish to show a userbox that says so, they ought to rename it without creating a redirect, which is almost the same as deletion. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objections to a new template about deplorables, with more appropriate images. But that's not the template in question, and that particular template is only used by three users, none of whom have edited in months. Any attempt to rescue it is a little bit of a distraction; the "deplorables" line is clearly not the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 22:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NONAZIS. Miniapolis 22:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP is not a platform for content that does not help us improve the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not delete every single userbox? Just like all others, they communicate about an editor's area of interest. Zoozaz1 talk 23:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A user box proclaiming that someone, even Hitler, should be viewed in an unbiased way is not polemical, nor is it a negative about others. Nor is one proclaiming that the user holds some particular position (and one that most will need to follow the link to even recognize, at that). I would favor banning all political userboxes, but unless and until we do that, there should be no censorship of unpopular views, even pro-Nazi views. If anything, it may alert other editors should an editor with such a user box get involved in a dispute over an article where those views are relevant. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's an argument that could possibly hold up. White supremacy is, in and of itself, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:WORLDWIDE, and a host of other core policies. Also antithetical to non-white-supremecist users sticking around. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 03:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument is not true. Wikipedia, at least as an encyclopedia, cannot take a stance on where white supremacy, alt right, or the like really sit, and certainly not by policies like NPOV. We have to cover that area neutrally and use sources which speak to it as being a "bad thing" (of which there's more than enough to establish that), but otherwise, wikivoice has to treat the subject neutrally - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and all that. Wikipedia via the Foundation can certainly speak as an agency beyond the spoke of an encyclopedia to condemn things like this but that's not what at play here. The argument being used here is by extension of eliminating these userboxes, that anyone with these views should consider themselves a persona non grata, which is completely against the principles of the open wiki. As long as these people come and want to edit, openly share they are alt right or believe in white supremacy, but do nothing to otherwise disrupt the normal work that goes on, we should have no concerns about how they use userboxes like this, or other ways they state their ideological position. If they come on openly sharing their alt right side, and then proceed to disrupt WP by, say, trying to whitewash legitimate criticism from Trump's article, then we can talk behavior problems and the use of admin action to deal with that. As we would anyone else that came in with a self-stated bias and made a problem. I also point out that both WP:NOT#CENSOR and the General Disclaimer remind editors that they will likely encounter other editors with views they will find offensive or controversial to them, and basically as long as those views are not directed to any specific Wikipedian or group thereof, this is normal and we expect all editor to cooperate and get alone. So, DES' argument actually does hold up as these boxes go against no policy. --Masem (t) 06:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just read this and am extremely disturbed.. NPOV does not call for moral relativism and taking a stance that Hitler was just one man among many and that we’re documenting his life work is not in fact NPOV, but a radically pro-nazi stance that is not neutral. Neutral point of view does not call on us to abandon our values as a community, and as a community we are welcome to tell some people they are not welcome here. Nazis are not welcome here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disruptive editors are not welcome here, and most commonly those that have show they subscribe to the far right positions (like Nazi views) will be disruptive to a point, and they are gone. But we cannot pre-judge editors until they start making contributions (save for the 0.01% of cases where usernames give away the intent), and this is what much of this is coming down to is refusing to give people the respective due they should be allowed to have, and creating the double standard about ideological views. --Masem (t) 04:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no double standard: violent leftist groups overwhelming don’t edit Wikipedia because they want to tear down the system, and Wikipedia is part of that system. If you point out a Shinning Path guerrilla I’ll happily block them for advocating kidnapping and terrorism. Violent right-wing extremists tend to want to use the system and engage in meta spaces because they want validation. We’d block left-wing extremist who tried to do that as well. Just because one group of violent radicals doesn’t attempt to edit here doesn’t mean we welcome the opposite end with open arms. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I of course agree with you. Anyone advocating kidnapping or terrorism should not be allowed. The problem is you are conflating supporting the alt-right with inherently supporting violence. The first sentence of the alt-right article says it is "loosely connected" and later is says that "There is no unifying manifesto behind the alt-right and different people who describe themselves as "alt-rightists" express different beliefs about what it wants to achieve." You will find violent ways to achieve that broad ideology, just as you will find non-violent ways; the same can be said with any ideology, such as capitalism, communism, or liberalism (of course one could argue that the alt-right comparatively supports more violence, but that doesn't change the broader question). In other words, give me a specific alt-right group that advocates violence and we should ban them. But the real counterpart to the alt-right movement that would need to be banned is communism or anarchism, given the vast differences in opinion in both ideologies and the predilection of many of their supporters for violence, often against a specific group of people (the wealthy) while the existence of peaceful means to achieve their goals as well. Zoozaz1 talk 05:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don’t want to quibble over the alt-right stuff in this thread as I was more dealing with the broader aspects of policy there, though I’m sure someone more active in those areas like Jorm or GorillaWarfare could: I was more replying to DES and Masem’s positions on white supremacy and Hitler. The violence on the Hitler end is obvious. The violence used to enforce white supremacy historically and today isn’t Hitler level, but it’s still violence. The arguments they present are based on a flawed understanding of what NPOV that assumes we take no moral stance in our writing. We take the stance of reliable sources, and discount fringe views. Reliable sources consider Adolf Hitler to be significantly worse than just evil. So do we. That’s not bias, that’s not reporting neutrally. Reliable sources consider white nationalist extremists to be one of the biggest risks of violence in the world today: we report that, and we don’t have to not take a stance as to whether political violence over race is good when dealing with internal matters.
        That brings us to the speedily deleted user box: Anyone who creates or uses a userbox that says Adolf Hitler should be viewed in a non-bias point of view as just another mad man who ruled a nation. will be blocked indefinitely as that is a radically pro-nazi point of view, not a neutral point of view. Pointing out that policy doesn’t require us to pretend Hitler was just one guy nor to tolerate people who do is important in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, sorry for not reading the previous discussion (I still don't think it's a good idea to ban alt-right userboxes). I might agree with you on the deletion of that userbox, I hadn't previously seen its content. On one hand, we're not talking about white supremacy, or abstract ideologies (although that is a part of it). We are talking about someone who systematically murdered millions of people in a way that was unparrelled through history; one the other hand, comparing him to madmen like Pol Pot or Stalin is something I disagree with but could respect, so I think deleting that one's a tricky question. Now if it didn't say mad man then that should be speedily deleted for sure. Zoozaz1 talk 05:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        TonyBallioni It seems to me that you are confusin the rules for article and draft space, where NPOV applies, with those for user space. Uou are also confusing taking a political or philosophical position with advocatign violence. I have no sympathy for supporters of Hitler, I have familial reasons not to. But I think allowing editors to freely declare their veiws, whatever they might be, as long as they are not explicitly advocating violence, is the besat way to deal with them. They are not so special and dangerous that we need to say "Oh dear, Evil! Erase them!". If we ban such userboxes peoploe with such views will still edit Wikipeedia, just a bitless openly. I also thinkj people here are confusin disrupotrive conduct with nasty beliefs. I don't like to hear trhat people believe in bigotry of any sort, or in Naziism, or white supremacy, or any sort of racial or ethnic prejudice. But I will not stop such views from existign by refusing tio listen. And I will not allow the fact that peopel do hold such views to drive me away froma position of basic justice. UIt is basic justice not to condem a person for political opnioons, rather than improp0er actions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All and burn with fire. I question why some folk are suggesting we keep the Third Positionist one, being blatantly white supremacist. We should resist, with all power, the normalization of such ideologies.--Jorm (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but Keep the two alt-right userboxes. Hey... we have userboxes supporting ANTIFA which some claim is a terrorist organization. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is a substantial difference between deleting userboxes that show support of ideologies such as the alt-right and the Third Position (which are centered around hatred of groups of people based on their race/gender/religion/etc.), and deleting userboxes that show support for Antifa (which is not). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note:: The creator of the userbox User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/AltRight has changed the image contained into a MAGA hat, although the name "alt-right" remains. Dunno if participants wish to re-evaluate this userbox in light of this. --Dps04 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh - I see these as different from the userboxes which explicitly take a position of discrimination. The alt-right and third positionists represent a pretty wide range of perspectives. There's a lot of discrimination involved there, but it seems at least one step removed. I'm certainly not defending those positions -- I just think it's different. I'm also not so enthusiastic about bothering to delete userboxes when someone can just copy/paste the template text into their own userpage, as I mentioned at VPI. [to be clear, this is about the latter three userboxes -- the first was deleted before I saw] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alt right is explicitly a white nationalist movement. How is that one step removed from discrimination? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't followed the trajectory of the term too closely. That may have been where it landed. I'm recalling e.g. this On the Media episode which basically taxonomizes the alt-right into white supremacists, trolls, anti-feminists, and the conspiracy theorists. Undeniably repulsive garbage cocktail, but it doesn't seem entirely synonymous with white nationalism such that alt-right absolutely means discrimination against non-whites. Granted, it probably means discrimination against someone, but it's messy. Hence filed under "eh". I'm not really keen on delving into the finer points of the alt-right at the moment, though -- my day is stressful enough. I'm also less interested in these MfDs since it was shown (as mentioned at VPI) that whether or not this is deleted has no actual bearing on whether or not people have the exact same userbox content on their page without this userbox template. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alt right is unequivocal that it "is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States". I understand not wanting to delve deeper on an already stressful day, though. Regarding the issue that one could manually construct an infobox on the userpage, that is true, but in my view that could be handled case-by-case. By deleting these userboxes we at least don't make it as easy as transcluding a template, nor do we imply to users who come across these userboxes that such content is acceptable to have on one's userpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and WP:NONAZIS. There is a reason a picture with nazi imagery is besides the lede of Alt-right. Isabelle ^🔔 15:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:NONAZIS. It is quite ironic how even such ideologies continue to exist in liberalized societies which destroyed the promoters of such worldviews. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NONAZIS. Outspoken support for the alt right and Third Position is not just another political opinion, it is an unequivocal statement of hatred directed at a wide group of people that one would be expected to be able to collaborate productively with on the project (people of color, Jews, women, and queer people to name just a few). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per GorillaWarfare and per WP:NOTAFORUM & WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NONAZIS Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep based on the fallout from the anti-gay marriage userboxes; this is a kneejerk MFD to take at this time and needs more thought out discussion. We lost a major admin today over the double standard related to that closure, and targeting these is showing the same problem. The mere existence of words in a user box should state nothing against nor should be taken as offense directed at any editor (I've explained this more at Jimbo's talk page), and the problem trying to tie the NONAZIS essay is that we're not considered the net behavior of the user that includes these userboxes on their page. If they edit without any disruption even if they are a proud alt-right member, we should not give a damn about that. It is when that ideology spills into editing behavior (main space or talk space) that then we can then apply NONAZIS and quickly remove the problem editor. Mind you, I think there is a ripe discussion needed overall on the general purpose that userboxes serve - if they continue to serve a purpose - and that might mean these boxes, as well as others that otherwise profess an ideological stance, may need to go, and that's a fair call, but we have to be aware of what one bad MFD has caused here and what this MFD could cause again. --Masem (t) 05:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I still don't for a moment think that making Wikipedia a hostile environment for minorities by allowing anti-minority userboxes is going to help Wikipedia.

I don't want to argue against banning white supremacists. The moment they start acting white supremacist-y, they should be out of here. But this is MFD, not a request to ban users. Removing a userbox from someone's page is NOT actively banning the editor, even though your entire argument hinges on the idea that it is. We don't need to consider the "net behaviour" of some hypothetical editor, because the people using this userbox aren't the ones on trial here, the userboxes are.

The question isn't "should we ban these editors?", It's "should we make discrimination as easy as poking a little pre-formatted Userbox code into your page?"

And, if someone leaves because we won't let them preach white supremacy on their userpage, GOOD. I am all for this. Because that means that they felt SO STRONGLY about their right to discriminate that the deletion of a damn userbox is enough to make them leave. If white supremacists feel as if their views aren't welcome on Wikipedia? Yeah, they aren't. Discriminating against other races are the exact opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. That's literally the point of WP:NONAZIS.

To quote the summary of WP:NONAZIS, "Racists are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. They will almost inevitably lack a neutral point of view and be a POV-pusher. If you think you've spotted one, see if you can find a number of supporting diffs and if so, report them straight to the incident noticeboard. Also report racist imagery on user pages on sight." Racist imagery bad, but racist userboxes are quite alright, eh?

You're making a knee-jerk argument in favour of white supremacists because you're upset at the fallout from anti-gay-marriage userboxes being deleted. Frankly, you should probably be apologising to the anti-gay-marriage people for basically comparing their position to white supremecists and (if we're including the deleted userbox) literal Hitler fanboys. Because I don't think people who disagree with same-sex marriage should be pushed off Wikipedia; and the whole point of WP:NONAZIS is about how extreme racism - you know, the kind of racist who would want to advertise it on their userpage, perhaps with a convenient userbox? - is incompatible with Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 07:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the user boxes in question actually had the user identifying themselves directly as white supremacists, but instead with political ideologies that are frequently aligned with the principles of white supremacy, but not necessarily always the same. Taking either the Third Position or the AltRight ones as examples of that. Are they popular positions to take? No. Are they inherently "anti-minority" positions? Not any more than a strong conservative (politically speaking) stance generally takes on issues related to minorities. The Alt Right encompasses white supremacy ideals, but not all of the alt right is necessary white supremacy. A member of these groups can be anti-minority, but, say, unlike a member of the KKK, this is not a guarantee. So no, identifying with these groups is not a anti-minority association by default. The about Hitler was trying to make a point about how we should historically reflect on Hitler as a another "mad man" that wanted to rule the world and had nothing to do with an anti-minority message either. If these specifically were anti-minority messages with no other way to be read, (eg "This user is a member of the KKK", or "This user likes burning crosses on people's yards." would be one type), then absolutely, that's a clear anti-minority message and needs to be removed. But simply an associate with the Third Position or Alt Right is not necessary that situation, and making the leap of logic that this must be anti-minority is inappropriate. So one problem here is making a massive group assumption that is inappopriate.

To further point out, NONAZIS is an essay and has no weight of policy, whereas WP:NOTCENSOR and the General Disclaimer, which warns all editors that they will be encountering editors with controversial points of view and are expected to cooperate with them, are policy. I don't expect editors to stay quiet about users with controversial views that are disrupting WP, either through poor editing behavior or through harassing behavior to other editors, but if this users have expressed these controversial views (such as saying their are alt right via a user box) and do nothing disruptive, we expect everyone to tolerate them, and that gives little reason to remove the message on the userbox that simply has the user asserting their association.

I absolutely agree we want to avoid making WP a hostile place for minorities or any group, but at the same time, we can't cater to that, which this, as well as the anti-gay marriage MFD, were basically begging towards. As I spoke on Jimbo's page, messages on user pages (including pre-canned userboxes) that either are broadly considered offensive or vile (such as "I believe we should kill all X") absolutely should go and aren't tolerated. Messages that are specifically targeted at WPians or groups of WPian directly by name or direct inference also are inappropriate per harassment rules. But what happened at the anti-gay marriage thing that is happening here that is not appropriate is claiming that messages that are otherwise acceptable in the real world ("I am a member of the alt-right") is being both presumed to mean it is a anti-minority message (which one cannot say that is necessarily the case) and that it is directed towards WPians specifically, which none of these appear to be so at all. The same faulty logic, I can argue, were I atheist, that a Christian user that says "Jesus is the one true savior" is offense to me and needs to be removed. There's a whole host of slippery slope fallout by taking a generalized statement and calling it as a problem that is hurting WP editors that we need to remove them. There is real and honest abuse that some editors get from others, and let's not mix up an editor's good-faith statement of their ideology via canned code versus actual degenerate insults and the like that some editors actually are getting that are far more serious. There are places and messages that we've had to deal with in the past that are hostile and must be dealt with, but to be reacting to a canned set of words stating ideological affiliation that are not directed to any specific WPian/group of WPian as something inherently hostile and that must be dealt with, is far too reactive and sets a bar too much that anyone that feels the smallest bit of slight can claim removal of nearly any userbox. There is an appropriate balance to what we allow editor to say about themselves on their userpage that should not be seen as attacks on WPian editors directly, even if the message the editor is saying may be considered controversial to a group of WPians. Policy says that's how we work around here. --Masem (t) 12:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(To add, I detest these groups in question, just as I strongly support gay rights and deplore those 1-man, 1-woman arguments. I only speak up because of the situation of the double standard these MFDs are creating that could apply across many other possible cases.) --Masem (t) 13:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of the alt right is at odds with our own article on the subject, which is quite clear that the alt right ideology is by definition a white nationalist ideology. "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States." Your statement that "The Alt Right encompasses white supremacy ideals, but not all of the alt right is necessary white supremacy" is simply not true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
White nationalism is not the same as white supremacy, though, that's critical. The latter is a more extreme version that is clearly anti-minority, whereas the former can verve to that. Alt right/white nationalism may be a hostile ideology to minorities, but it not inherently anti-minority in a hostile minor. (SPLC actually describes the issues around that pretty well, as it being more "pro-white" [1]). Certainly there are those in the alt-right that have gone more extreme that think that to maintain white nationalistic goal that requires suppression of minorities - white supremacy - but that's not the entire movement. I certainly don't agree with any of the alt right/white nationalist claims, but these are not inheriently "bad" positions that can be taken as offensive messages to WPians that we can act on. --Masem (t) 14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the distinction between the terms, but I strongly disagree with your suggestion that white nationalism is not inherently anti-minority. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: First, these userboxes include hyperlinks. So while the exact definition of "alt right" (and its relationship to white nationalism) might be a matter of some debate, the reader will read This user is a part of the Alt-Right and think "Alt-Right? What's that?", and then they'll click on the link, and read (first sentence) The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States. And if the reader clicks on "far-right" and "white nationalist", they'll come away thinking, "Holy shit! Wikipedia allows its editors to announce and promote racist beliefs?!" Because of the hyperlinks, one can necessarily say that the userbox promotes white nationalism. If an editor considers themselves to be a member of the "alt right" but does not believe in white nationalism, then they shouldn't display a userbox that links to alt-right.
Second, in article space it's important to make the distinction, but in the context of this debate, there is no difference between white supremacy (the belief that non-whites are less than whites) and white nationalism (the belief that whites should have a white-only nation state). Either a person believes in discrimination based on race, or a person does not believe in discrimination based on race. Arguments that some forms of racial discrimination are OK and others are not -- what I would call the "50 shades of Nazi gray" -- are irrelevant, because the "bad thing" here is discrimination based on race, not any particular kind of discrimination based on race. We're long past the point of "I'm not racist, I just think Blacks should return to Africa" (which was once an acceptable view, even espoused by people like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln), or "I'm not racist, I just think white people should have their own nation state" (what white nationalists say today). Userboxes that promote discrimination based on race -- any discrimination based on race -- should be prohibited. (Same with the SSM userboxes: they promote discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. That some people who oppose SSM don't necessarily oppose homosexuality is not the point; the point is opposition to SSM is support for discrimination. Similarly, support for white nationalism is also support for discrimination.) Le v!v ich 15:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this userbox here:
Ex This user wishes greater emphasis was placed on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Sp

By clicking on the links editors/readers know that Wikipedia supports freedom of speech and expression. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if they click the userbox link to Freedom of speech, they'll see a hatnote directing them to Wikipedia:Free speech, which is quite clear that The First Amendment forbids government censorship of expression; it does not prevent a public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation from deciding for itself what words and images will be presented on its websites, and how. In sum, in the United States you have the legal right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives. But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write‍—‌even if it's "The Truth".... Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not an anarchy, and not a personal blog or webhost.... Wikipedia is a private website, hosted by the privately incorporated Wikimedia Foundation and governed solely by the Board of Trustees of that Foundation. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, is free to establish its own policies and practices regarding who may edit here, and is not subject to regulation by the governments of the United States or the States of Florida and California in this respect. As a private website, Wikipedia has the legal right to block, ban, or otherwise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its content, with or even without reason.

I too support free speech, but I do not support the assertion that people should face no consequences for their speech—up to and including being asked to leave a private website if they are unwilling to contribute without advertising via userbox their support for discrimination against various groups of people. xkcd #1357 puts it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point... I still see an issue regarding getting rid of one side's POV though. Do you think its a good idea for Wikipedia to take political sides? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If establishing a safe community for people of color and queer Wikipedians is "taking a political side", then yes I do. I also disagree with your suggestion that deleting a userbox showing support for the alt right is "getting rid of one side's POV". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination based on immutable characteristics (e.g. race, gender) is not a "political side", it's a moral issue. The whole point of this is that Wikipedia promotes a safe community that is free from discrimination, and we are right to do so. People who believe otherwise are free to believe otherwise, and they're free to voice those beliefs... just somewhere else, not on this website. Le v!v ich 16:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of Wikipedia serving as a platform for political issues worldwide is what is driving editors away. You have good intentions I will say that for sure.... but we as a neutral encyclopedia can not be an advocate for certain points of view. My worry is that keeping the userboxes that are "inviting" will also say to the world that Wikipedia supports this position, and if you disagree then you are not welcome here. I respect other people's beliefs as long as it does not become personal or get in the way of editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to say "I believe people of color are inferior to white people" or "I believe LGBTQ people don't deserve equal rights" in a way that is not personal and that does not interfere with editing with those groups of people. Wikipedia articles must follow WP:NPOV; Wikipedia as a community can say that people should not advertise via userbox their points of view that will inherently make entire swaths of its editing community feel unsafe and unwelcome. This is not a historic MfD that is for the first time determining what people may and may not put on their userpages; it's a line we've drawn many, many times in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many right wing editors do you think use Wikipedia? We have already lost a major admin and this could be a large swath of editors that would be lost over decisions made over userboxes that are allowed for one side and not the other. You keep getting hung up on what you feel is right and wrong rather than looking at it from a worldwide perspective. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating "right-wing" and "alt-right". I have no issue with right-wing editors using the site or sharing their political beliefs so long as they are not advertising bigotry against groups of people. It is not a partisan stance—if there are leftist userboxes out there that are doing the same, they ought to be deleted as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP's NPOV policy means we can't take a stance in Wikivoice at all on , say, whether LBGT should have rights or not. We have to report what is documented (which generally is, that most of the world now thinks this should be the case), but since this is not universally-agreed to across the global, we cannot presume it as a basis in Wikivoice. While we can stand for the idea that all humans should be treated equally in wikivoice, the variations in global views (not just Western views) makes it impossible for Wikivoice to speak towards these directly. That's WP:RGW. And again, I'll point to the fact that we warn editors that this is a community that will have controversial views and they must be able to work within that; this is policy and well-advertized to all those that volunteer to edit. We're being asked, to be blunt, to make this a "safe space" with steps like this, and that is not appropriate at all if WP is to remain an open wiki. We absolutely must deal with abuse and harassment directed at WPians to make them feel safe otherwise, absolutely, but these userboxes are not anything like that. --Masem (t) 16:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth am I advocating we change Wikipedia articles to take a stance on LGBTQ rights? We are drawing a line here around what is appropriate in userspace; WP:NPOV applies to encyclopedic content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Levivich's point: (Same with the SSM userboxes: they promote discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. That some people who oppose SSM don't necessarily oppose homosexuality is not the point; the point is opposition to SSM is support for discrimination. Similarly, support for white nationalism is also support for discrimination.) So by the same logical, I would argue that those that show support for Christianity/Catholism are also discriminatory towards LGBT due to that inherent bias in the faith; that those that support pro-life on the abortion debate are discriminatory towards women; the GOP is party that is generally anti-minority overall so anyone identifying with them is discrimatory, and so on. Obviously these are faulty arguments, but this is the slippery slope problem with the current noms; anyone can now find offense in these boxes that are seemingly normal in discussing political and ideolical positions, and say we must get rid of them (the general problem with userboxes in general) There are groups that by mere association with them you would have anti-minority associations - the KKK as a prime example and we'd get rid of those on sight. But white nationalist is not wholly that, as noted, and say we have to get rid of it all because only a subset is a problem is faulty logic. --Masem (t) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The place I'd draw the line is promoting discrimination based on immutable characteristics. So I'd allow Christian, Muslim, conservative, or pro-life userboxes (none of which are inherently discriminatory), but not allow userboxes promoting the Roman Catholic Church, GOP, or Wahhabism (or alt-right or third position). Le v!v ich 17:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that shows where more of this problem lines, because that line is highly subjective and that this created double standards. I don't disagree about the GOP having these possible traits, but that means we'd eliminate GOP boxes but leave behind those that are pro-Democratic party, which is a clear double standard. That's why either we have to get rid of any and all type of such userboxes so there's no questions at all, or recognize that the line has to be more objective than this subjective measure being asked for here. --Masem (t) 18:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I support the deletion of alt-right userboxes but would not support deleting Roman Catholicism or GOP-related userboxes unless they were also paired with an explicitly discriminatory or bigoted statement ("This user is a Roman Catholic and therefore opposes gay marriage", etc). While there are Roman Catholics and members of the GOP who hold explicitly discriminatory views, the Venn diagram is not a circle as it is with the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the issue I point out that being alt right or even just white nationalist is not explicitly discriminatory; its the step into white supremacy that is, and while I'm sure that a Venn diagram would show a massive overlap of alt right into white supremacy, there would still be a segment outside that. And we (Wikipedia) should not be discriminating those views as long as their behavior is fine, just because some make an assumption about the classification. Goes back to my point about the different between direct statements intended to intimidate WPians that are a problem to deal and those that are simply controversial on the larger scale but not directed at any specific editor/group which we have told editors they are expected to learn to cooperate with. Again, we have a double standard being applied here that reflects the large problems that have been happening with WP trying to force a specific worldview in both editing space and mainspace; we have to be more neutral than this. --Masem (t) 16:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
White nationalism is explicitly discriminatory because it advocates separation of the races. Le v!v ich 16:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all forms of it (see the SPLC link I provided above). Yes, at the core, it is about arguing distinction in the races, which is can easily lead into discrimination , no question. This is certainly not a comfortable topic and not a majority ideology obviously, but again white nationalism itself does not promote violence or harm to non-white in the same way that white supremacy does. I'm all for disallowing advocacy via userboxes where there is clear association with hate speech or the like, as with white supremacy, but white nationalism does not fall under that at a broad scope. --Masem (t) 23:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination isn't just about promoting violence or harm. Sometimes it's about telling people to use a different water fountain, or go to a different school, or sit in a different section of the bus. Telling them to go to a different country isn't better than any of those things – it's decidedly worse. It's still hateful, discriminatory, and racist, and does not belong in a collaborative encyclopedia any more than it belongs in society. – bradv🍁 00:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically like Christianity, Muslim, or most other religions, or like most political parties? Further, those are also very Western positions (which may seem dominate but not always) and not universal to the world population. There's no objective line when you take that stance, which is what make this a double standard. Which begs back to that it would be better to question if we should allow userboxes on any political/ideological identification in the first place so that we can't play these games of a double standard. --Masem (t) 04:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – userboxes that make other people feel unwelcome or discriminated against have no place in a collaborative environment. That's not a political statement, that's integral to what Wikipedia is all about. – bradv🍁 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all userboxes - as per nomination and WP:NONAZIS. Wikipedia's policy against Nazis also targets those from the alt-right (most, if not all members, of the alt-right hold racist, bigoted, hateful and derogatory views that are unsuitable for Wikipedia) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anyone can just recreate these userboxes by using "Template:Userbox" so the discussion and outcome is moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we have WP:G4, isn't it? Lev!vich 02:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would only apply to a template. Userboxes can be created manually on one's userpage using other templates (or just stylized css). for example — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, we wouldn't have Userbox lists suggesting that you declare yourself a white supremacist on your page after deletion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 07:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh I see what you mean. Surely this issue (manual recreation of deleted userboxes) must have come up and been resolved somehow during the userbox wars? Lev!vich 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't want to pick a fight, but surely an administrator doing that is questionable? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 23:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering the closing statement of that MfD, which highlights the message of the userbox as divisive and discriminatory, it's pretty questionable, yes. Isabelle ^🔔 00:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
        Well some of the userboxes from SSM are re-created (User:Techie3/marriagebox, User:Techie3/onemanonewoman), and their speedy deletion G4 tags have been contested and subsequently declined and removed on the grounds that these two userboxes have never been deleted and there is a change in wording (from marriage is between one man and one woman to marriage SHOULD BE between one man and one woman). Not commenting on whether the tagging or decline of the tag is appropriate (and there are appropriate channels to challegnge the action made), but given the G4 tags have been contested by multiple users (see their template talkpage) and declined by an admin, they are probably not good candidates for speedy deletion (which by definiton pretty much requires the items tagged to be largely uncontroversial). --Dps04 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Welp, there goes my G4 theory. Le v!v ich 04:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh for crying out loud. That's not some uninvolved admin. Don't know if they should qualify for CSD but someone else should be doing it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale I wrote in WP:BLOCKNAZIS which is very much in line with what Gorillawarfare wrote here. Also, to Masem’s point: NONAZIS and BLOCKNAZIS evolved out of frequent user space, project space, and talk page disruption. Not direct edits to articles. This is because unlike the extreme radical left (think violent revolutionary Marxists), who typically think the system is rigged so they don’t even engage with it, the far-right usually attempts to fight the system from within, so the type of disruption we see from them is usually more in the meta spaces than in direct creation of articles: their goal is to be taken seriously. NONAZIS and it’s sub-essays (I wrote a few of the subs, such as BLOCKNAZIS and CRYRACIST) were intended to address this problem not only the problem of mainspace content.
Under BLOCKNAZIS displaying some if not all of these user boxes would be grounds for an immediate indefinite block regardless of what else the user has done. Not all admins subscribe to this position, but the block would be upheld at AN. Having made many such blocks before and gone through the review process. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This approach makes thoughtcrime a reality, which is absolutely not acceptable. We absolutely must only judge by actions, not words alone. A user with a plethera of userboxes that speak dangerously could be a problem, absolutely, that's an "action" that we can judge. But again, one user box like the AltRight one, with all other actions presented by the user within scope and non-disruptive, with full civility to all other users, is zero harm, and the idea that there would be a ban of that user just for presenting this box is a terrible position for any editor of WP to be presenting, going against the entire notion of the project. --Masem (t) 04:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem We absolutely must only judge by actions, not words alone so if someone threatens to kill me, that doesn't count? They'd actuallly have to muder me first before you'd agree to take action? I can't support that idea. Let's try something else: I suggest that userboxes that "attack or malign an entire class of people based on immutable charcteristics" are unacceptable. That's something we can agree on, isn't it? Then I would further suggest that userboxes that say that the editor is a member of a group that is known to attack or malign an entire class of people is also unacceptable. Our ethos is, I hope, one that is steeped in heterophily, the love of the different: We like having our arguments challenged, because that improves the quality of our work. To participate in the editing community, you must agree that people with different views from you are allowed to fully participate. Political groups that deny that entire classes of people the right to exist reject that position. Much of alt-right wants to deny non-whites the right to live in the same country, for example. To declare yourself an adherent of that ideology is not compatible with participation in a collaborative editing of an encyclopedia. Vexations (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been clear that if an editor's messages present harm, abust or harassment directed at a specific WP editor or group of editors is absolutely grounds for block/bans/etc. That's policy and we absolutely have to be far less tolerant of that type of messaging. But when it is a message that is not specifically directly at any editor or group of editors (explicitly or implicitly), and when the ideology being proposed is not explicitly based on a type of hate or violent basis (eg of the ilk white supremacy, KKK, Nazis), then this is just a message of identify with a controversial ideology that cannot be used to take action against that user alone. The reason is that our policy WP:NOT#CENSOR and our General Disclaimers openly state that we will have editors with controversial viewpoints and we are not going to take action to prevent others from not having to hear them -- unless they become disruptive and then we will block or ban them. Now just because groups like alt right and white nationalism may start from a position that one race is different or superior to the other means absolutely nothing about the specific editor professing to be one, as long as they don't put that POV at all in their editing or in discussion. But instead, this overall discussion and points being made is being made counter to exactly what our NOT:CENSOR policy says: there are editors that are troubled by this ideology (which yes, I can understand why), but are so troubled they want to remove this messaging - and based on this discussion and NONAZIS essay - any editors that align to alt right from WP just because they feel threatened by it. NOT:CENSOR and past discussions elsewhere have said that WP is not going to make a safe space here for every possible slight in the world. We will deal when editors are personally attacked as soon as some judgement can be made (and we still need to be better at this), but we can't protect them from ideas that are neither directed at them specifically nor specifically about violence/abuse/hateful language a priori (on words alone). It's why the 1-man, 1-woman userbox closer was also problematic; it was a non-directed, non-abusive ideological box that created this double standard that some ideologies are acceptable but some aren't on WP, which is pretty much against the intent of the project.

To add, To declare yourself an adherent of that ideology is not compatible with participation in a collaborative editing of an encyclopedia. is against the open wiki mantra of WP because we don't ask people to declare any ideology upfront, and we only judge what their behavior is if we find there is a problem. We assume good faith from all contributions, which is what is flat out being ignored here. I mean, I know the last 4-6 years in terms of being an American citizen have ben harsh and there is a strong hatred to the alt-right and everything on that side of the spectrum and Nov can't come fast enough, but we have to be better than this, and unfortunately, we're losing that. As editors we can personally take sides on that but as a project we have to be more impartial to the entire thing, and recognizing when we are potentially eliminating voices on ideological claims alone (or in this case, preventing them from using userboxes to speak their ideology) is something towards returning us to that impartiality. Editors may not be comfortable with that, but that's expected by design of the project. --Masem (t) 13:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per NONAZIS and NOTSOAPBOX. Softlavender (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be plenty of precedent against keeping userboxes supporting extremist ideologies: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Alt-right pepe; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1 (Fascist, Totalitarian, Nat Soc) And to Masem, it would be helpful to the discussion if you stopped conflating mainspace with userspace (wrt WP:CENSORED). There is a huge difference between a swastika displayed in a museum, and a person walking around town while waving the nazi flag. I don't care how good a builder that person is, I'd still not work with them, and would expect them to be arrested for hate speech. Isabelle ^🔔 19:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]