Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David.Mestel (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 27 January 2009 (keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:59, 27 January 2009 by David.Mestel (talk | contribs) (keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:UBX/onemanonewoman

Previous MfD overturned at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21#Same sex marriage userboxes (closed). I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref for Australian law: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/maa2004165/sch1.html, see also: Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion. I am assuming that wikipedia editor opinion will match public opinion. In any case popular and unpopular opinions are allowed to be expressed in userboxes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'd agree with that - in my experience Wikipedians tend to be less prone to petty bigotry than the general populace. But even if it is, because a lot of people agree with something, even if it's offensive to others, that's OK? Interesting approach to a collaborative environment. Black Kite 07:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Quote from Barack Obama to be sure. If it is good enough for the President, it should be neutral enough for WP. No insult, no attack, no reason to delete. As I noted before. Collect (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as a non-inflamatory political statement, with no objection to removing all political Userboxes equally should that be the community consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Default to Delete Political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes. This is pretty much the policy in a nutshell. Once you start allowing soapboxing about controversial issues--even mild, polite soapboxing--the result is an even bigger disruption, the likes of which we saw during the userbox wars. The only issue then is whether or not you support default to delete or default to keep; expressions of opinion in userboxes are not important enough to justify a default to keep. Bullzeye 07:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Rightly or wrongly, that's not our policy or practice. In fact, GUS resolved precisely that many userboxes on "controversial issues" would be kept (or, at the very least, not categorically deleted) but situated outside of template space (as contemplated in the migration process, which provides in pertinent part that "all controversial and divisive userboxes...will be migrated out of template space into userspace" , which cannot be reconciled with the proposition that the idea that "political or social statements on controversial issues do not belong in userboxes" enjoys the support of the community as "policy in a nutshell"). It may be that there no longer exists a consensus for GUS and that out of the instant discussion will spin, as Tony and Doc have urged in other recent MfDs, a broader consideration of the elimination of all non-'pedia-related userboxes, and it is perfectly fine in the meanwhile, of course, to submit that we should look with disfavor on all polemical userboxes (a position to which I am not, I should say, altogether unsympathetic, and one that I might ultimately adopt), but I don't know that one can rightly say that it is established policy that userboxes that express divisive or controversial positions on political or social issues are unwanted and established practice that such userboxes are deleted (but cf. WP:NOT, I guess). Joe 07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well put. I believe my interpretation, however, is still valid. The general rule of assessing value (for posts, pages and userspace) onwiki goes like this: 1)Does it aid in the construction of the encyclopedia?, if not, then 2)Does it cause disruption?. Controversial polemic statements are a form of disruptive editing, because they use soapboxing (however mild) to promote a controversial POV. This foments an adversarial attitude that undermines the entire concept of neutral collaboration, and causes time, energy and good feeling that could be used to improve the project to be wasted. Every bit of soapboxing we tolerate on one side only encourages more to occur, either in support or protest. If we had a solid article edit for every post wasted on dealing with controversial userboxes, we'd have enough to write 100 FAs.Bullzeye 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - as with 99% of userboxes on politics, religion or sexuality, anything that starts with "This user believes that..." should go. Pointless, irrelevant to editing the encyclopedia (unlike some userboxes), often needlessly divisive, and who cares anyway?? Black Kite 07:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as Jclemens. I think I am prepared to say that the net effect on the project of the preservation of a class of templates that express necessarily controversial views on extra-Wiki matters is negative, such that those userboxes probably ought to go, but even as policy follows from practice, it is to be preferred that we do not work broad changes to policy at insular XfDs, and so this must be a "keep" pending the community's considering the larger issue. Joe 07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The userbox states a point of view that is not designed to offend or exclude, but affirms a belief. This is no different than similar userboxes with comparable points of view such as --
  • "straight but not narrow" which implicitly accuses those who disagree of being homophobic
  • "straight but not narrow" which also implicitly accuses those who disagree of being homophobic
  • "GayPride"; would a userbox asserting pride in being heterosexual be permitted, or seen as an attack and devisive?
  • "Proud to be a lesbian"; 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"; 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 08:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You mean "equal rights" the universal egalitarian social principle? Or "equal rights" as expressed as a petty political euphemism in the same-sex marriage debate? Btphelps, for the record I would also like to see all of those AFDed the same as this one. Politics is politics, and coming down on one side over the other simply furthers the systemic disease. Bullzeye 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as I expressed in the previous AFD, while not agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the userbox and while desiring that all such userboxes expressing personal opinions should be deleted, it's clear we need to be fair about that and not adhoc. Since this userbox does not express a grossly negative or bigoted view of people it doesn't cross the line that I'm willing to delete without a clear policy resulting in the deletion of all such user boxes Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, inflammatory and unnecessary. How does this userbox contribute towards building a free encyclopædia? It doesn't. All it contributes to is building up ill feeling and distrust between editors. We'll be better off without. Lankiveil 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete. Per above. Bigotry has no place here. — Jake Wartenberg 12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Personally I choose to only use userboxes that are about wikipedia. However this userbox is not inflammatory or incite any threatening attitudes. If the community wants to ban all nonwiki related material from userspace then go for it but that will never happen WP:SNOW. 16x9 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as with any userbox whose text fits the pattern "this user believes that right/privilege X belongs only to subgroup Y", this is inherently divisive and incompatible with a collegial editing environment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That works the other way - what about the right to freedom of opinion? Are you saying that right should be restricted to a subgroup of wikipedia editors? As for collegiality, I was just wondering whether dissenting opinions should actually be encouraged in the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view overall. Opera hat (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, users are entitled to their opinion and this is one of the more reasonable ones. If it was an opinion held by Islam as opposed to Catholicism and other branches of Christianity we would be unlikely to be having this discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently divisive. When seven million Californians registered that opinion in a vote, all hell ensued. It's really not worth it. Sceptre 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not offensive any more than "This user is straight but not narrow". Korodzik (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:UBM. Let me explain a bit. This is an unpopular mindset, and a mindset I disagree with (If people are happy marrying each other, who am I to tell them "not allowed", just because they happen to have the same gender.) That said, I feel it is not offensive any way that would violate any relevant policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc.) and there are many opinions around about everything. Whether meat is murder or simply tasty, if nuclear power could save the environment or rather would destroy it, if one believes in "true love" or rather would "hit" whatever he can find. And people seem to forget that they are not entitled to their opinion to be the one, universally correct one. And not even the opinions of the majority of the people are not rarely "off" (A couple of hundred years ago everyone would have told you that the world is flat - some even claim that today). So there are only two ways to handle people showing their opinions - either allow them to do that, or don't. If you don't allow them, start packing all those "this user wants world-peace" boxes too - its an opinion and if the guy advocating "nuke them all" is not allowed to say his thing, how come your opinion gets special treatment. And believe me, that option causes LOTS of drama. I encourage you to read WP:UBM. Or you can accept that some opinions run against your world view and tolerate them. And if you see an user that states with an userbox genetic-engineered gerbils are the best thing since sliced bread... well, you'll know to take a closer look at his edits to Gerbils. CharonX/talk 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • commnet 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)