Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus is quite clear, both numerically and in terms of strength of argument, that these templates for display on Wikipedia user pages - which broadly speaking express opposition to same-sex marriage - violate the guideline on userbox content restrictions (

WP:UBCR
) because they are "inflammatory or divisive" and "propaganda [or] advocacy", as prohibited by that guideline. The "delete" opinions also make reference to other policies and guidelines relating to the discrimination of others on Wikimedia projects.

The "keep" side makes the argument that pro-same-sex-marriage userboxes would also need deleting for the same reasons, to which others reply that such userboxes are not similarly problematic because they do not express discriminatory intent. This question cannot be decided in the present discussion because such other userboxes have not been nominated for deletion here. Sandstein 07:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/onemanonewoman

User:UBX/onemanonewoman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions states:

I honestly can't see how this could possibly be anything but inflamatory, divisive political/religious advocacy, and is pretty explicitly homophobic. That it hasn't been deleted yet says a lot about Wikipedia, none of it good.

FPs 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, while we're at it, let's roll in (all from Category:Marriage user templates):

All of which are quite similar. Should users be able to have userboxes that say that they explicitly discriminate against some group of Wikipedians? I can't see how that can possibly be within Wikipedia's culture.

FPs 00:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

* (edit conflict) Delete per nom. Time for this one to go; we can address Rhododendrites' other two above (and any similar) later. Miniapolis 01:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all No need to turn this into a timesink. Miniapolis 02:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - imagine if it was anti-interracial marriage. Some things, just no. Lev!vich 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on my !vote rationale: delete all based on the application of our existing
      WP:PAGs say, these userboxes add nothing of value to the encyclopedia, but risk doing harm (by alienating editors), and therefore they are bad for the porject and should be deleted. Lev!vich 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete: all of the above per
    WP:UBCR
    :
  • "Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.", declaring that you believe other individuals families/relationships/marriages are illegitimate/unreal or shouldn't exist is both rude and offensive and a personal attack against someone's family structure.
  • "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.", declaring that you believe other individuals families/relationships/marriages are illegitimate/unreal or shouldn't exist is both arousing or intended to arouse angry feelings and tends to cause disagreement or hostility between people.
  • "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.", stating a divisive opinion against inclusive marriage is political propaganda, religious advocacy, and an opinion piece on current affairs and a political issue.
Userboxes are for letting others know about you, not stating what you think about other people and their families. All these divisive userboxes advocating against other's human rights and inclusive marriage need to be deleted.   // Timothy :: talk  03:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I sympathize with not having these userboxes on Wikipedia, I disagree that there is a strong grounding in policy for it.
I'm not quite sure how one can personally attack a family structure; yes, people may feel offended (and they have good reason to be) but you are not personally attacking anyone; you are attacking an institution that some people are committed to and feel strongly about.
While I can't dispute that this is inflammatory and divisive, so is every single political userbox. That rule seems to apply based only on the preferences of the people who comprise the vast majority of Wikipedia, Western educated men (not everyone in Wikipedia is that, of course, and I haven't checked anyone's user page specifically) not on what the other side might find divisive. Huge amounts of the world view gay marriage as inflammatory and divisive; why not delete userboxes supporting gay marriage? The point is that this is an arbitrary and useless critereon that clearly was not intended for a blanket deletion of what would extend to quite literally anything.
Having an opinion, clearly, does not mean you are spouting propaganda simply because another editor disagrees with that opinion; by that logic one could call every userbox propaganda. And there is no evidence that it is religious advocacy, nor is there any mention of religion in the userboxes. "An opinion piece is an article... that mainly reflects the author's opinion about a subject." One sentence does not comprise an article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really don't think we need to warn people who used the box. Let's assume the best case, that this was used innocently out of ignorance or thoughtlessness. Yes the box does promote discrimination and is inflammatory, but they might not have intended to do so, many may have assumed the box was acceptable simply because it existed. A warning might also stir up controversy where none existed and none is needed. I don't think it's necessary to warn the creators either, but if anything is done, I think a gently worded comment is all that would be appropriate.   // Timothy :: talk  22:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main template is fourteen years old. I suspect that the notification would mainly serve to put a final message on the userpages of long-gone users, some of which might use their real names, fossilising a note of their possibly decades-given-up views to anyone who looks.
FPs 23:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a matter of natural justice, and having a discussion without minimal notification of stakeholders. Editors transcluding the userboxes about to be deleted are stakeholders, and are a particularly biased group, likely to speak against deletion. If they are long inactive, then notification may not make much sense. An idea: The proposal is to delete the userboxes, after which the translcusions will be cut, which will appear on their watchlists, but too late to contribute here. So, now that we see a strong likelihood of deleted, remove the transclusions, now, relist for seven days, and if they are active and what to contribute here, we can hear them, before the close. Otherwise, if this goes to DRV, not notifitying the stakeholders is a very good reason to overturn due to the procedural failure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense at all to me. The discussion is advertised as it should be. The creators of these templates have also been notified. Feel free to post to other venues like WikiProjects, etc. if you wish. The idea here is to get community input, and you're suggesting pinging hundreds (sigh) of people who are passionately on the same side of the debate. This isn't like an article where you might consider pinging people who have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia article; it's people who want to show off a particular ideology using a little snippet of text someone else has created. There's nothing wrong with that in general, but it doesn't entitle you to be pinged en masse to a discussion over whether that ideology is appropriate for a userbox. They can absolutely participate, but no to canvassing them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This MfD playing out without notifications to the editors who chose to transclude the template amounts to a judgement on these editors, which will be taken to imply that they may not re-create the same userbox, and yet they were not invited to the discussion. Hundreds of people passionate about this debate? Because there are so many, you don't want to invite any of them? MfD is a backwater, advertising is minimal. As a matter of natural justice, any editor who was not notified of this discussion cannot be punished for re-creating the userbox, whether in an identical form, or otherwise. Notification of stakeholders is not canvassing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about listing at CENT? Lev!vich 06:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:CENT would be good, as I think this MfD is headed to change a precedent. Minimally, a post at
    WT:UP, because that's where the results will be documented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I think they should be deleted as well Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I can see both sides of the issue here. One one hand, we shouldn't allow bigotry on Wikipedia, and promote viewpoints that exclude a group of people for no reason despite their sexual orientation. However, this is also a global encyclopedia, and this viewpoint is quite common throughout the world. Gay marriage is illegal basically every independent country in Asia (except for Taiwan) and Africa (except for South Africa). Yes, opposing gay marriage is wrong, but it's also probably more common than supporting it worldwide. Personally, I think we could just delete all political userboxes, but that might require an RFC.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can agree with this. I don't mind having all political userboxes deleted so that we can get away from the trouble once and for all, but this would require community-wide participation amd approval in an RfC. Or if the community believes all userboxes opposing same-sex marriage should be deleted, they can also decide so in an RFC. No way could all of this be handled in a MfD with limited reach. I call again for the nominator to procedurally close this discussion and start a community-wide discussion on our userbox policy and/or the future of political (including anti-same sex marriage) userboxes. This issue is very contentious, as we can see from the three previous nominations of this template (or similar templates) for deletion (and a DRV), all resulting in no consensus close. Really need to sort this out once and for all with community wide input--Dps04 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that there's a fundamental difference between something that declares active prejudice against a minority and declarations of (non-extremist) political parties one belongs to, or support of a minority. "I am a Democrat" or "I support gay rights" will not make any but the most particularly-thin-skinned feel personally attacked. These clearly do. Further, the first two of the nominations you cite were 11 and 13 years ago and closed no consensus, the only other was six years ago and has two voters. Looking at the voting so far, it appears that, after a decade since the last half-decently-participated-in debate, the consensus is now for deletion. The only thing that withdrawing this would do is lump it in with a lot of things that have substantially less harm to the project. There probably are other harmful categories - I'm not sure Wikipedia needs abortion views being declared either way, for instance - but most of the others are relatively harmless. We don't have any transphobic or racist userboxes, as far as I'm aware. But we do have a collection of homophobic ones. I think Wikipedia's better than that.
        FPs 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • @Adam Cuerden:, I understand your concerns and I respect your views. Still, I fail to appreciate how a statement reflecting personal views towards marriage, which (unfortunately, I guess you could say) is shared by a substantial minority if not majority of the worldwide population, and a view which is not specifically directed at anyone but merely reflective of one's belief of the institution of marriage and family values, would automatically be dismissed as "bigotry", "hateful", "reactionary impulse" or "homophobic". A common argument is the right to marry is a fundamental human right, and thus denying same-sex marriage is by definition discrimination. As much as I personally support this argument, we ought to respect the fact that people are entitled to hold a view different than ours. I hate to play the devil's advocate, but I have to do it here. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not prescribe same-sex marriage as a fundamental right. Article 16 reads: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. I am not saying the Declaration is authoritative. All I am saying is, as much as I hate to say it, same-sex marriage is still not, at this stage, a universally accepted fundamental right to the extent that all opposition is unthinkable and must be condemned and shut down by default (unlike, for example, issues like interracial marriage, nazism and slavery). I insist on my position: it is sad to see so many people opposing same-sex marriage even up till today, but it is more sad to see so many people okay with indiscriminately shutting down one side of the debate in what I perceive as one of the most important and controversial issue of our times --Dps04 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying I think someone who holds that position should automtically be kicked off Wikipedia. But
FPs 03:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You are equating userboxes, which don't align with your personal beliefs/POV to a personal attack, but you don't cite any evidence that a personal attack has occurred. Do you have any evidence that editors who display these userboxes are personally attacking other editors on talk pages or discussions with abusive, defamatory, or derogatory language based on sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs? Are they engaged in disruptive behavior when editing articles, talk pages or discussions, incapable of editing in a neutral manner, can't collaborate with other editors?
WP:PA, which is policy, says Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. If an editor is in compliance with our core policies and guidelines when editing articles and discussions, why shouldn't they be able to have a userbox displaying their personal political/religious beliefs, if it doesn't negatively affect their editing and discussions. I don't feel like I'm being personally attacked by an editor who displays a userbox that doesn't align with my personal beliefs on marriage or other political/religious issues. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm pretty sure I was clear what I meant by personal in that statement. You're
FPs 16:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a distinct difference between feeling like you have been personally attacked and personally attacking someone. There is no specific person that that editor is attacking, and simply disagreeing or opposing something does not constitute a personal attack. This is equivalent to having a userbox saying "I am opposed to insert sports team here" taken down because a member of that team feels they were personally attacked. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia disagrees. In Wikipedia:No personal attacks:
A person from a country that bans homosexuality would not get away with attacking homosexuality on Wikipedia, and the fact that parts of the world have prison or death as consequences would not be a protection to them. The idea that we should allow discrimination in order to cater to such things is definitely not the kind of Wikipedia most of us would want to edit. You may, if you like, suggest deleting pro-equal marriage userboxes after this closes, but they simply don't have equal harm. Who is discriminated against by a message of support? That's kind of like saying that you couldn't have a Holocaust Remembrance userbox without allowing Holocaust denial ones.
FPs 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman, can be defined as a religious belief. Describing a group of editors who express their religious beliefs in a userbox as divisive, inflammatory, homophobic, disruptive, bigots, are personal attacks directed against another editor or a group of editors. Just like we shouldn't marginalize a group of editors based on sexual orientation, we also shouldn't marginalize a group of editors based on their religious beliefs. While I may have a good-faith difference of opinion about their religious beliefs, this user respects the beliefs and religions of others, because tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion have always been essential for collaboration among Wikipedians. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, your equation of religious beliefs with homophobia, as if it's a central tenet of religion, is far more offensive to religion than deleting these services could ever be.
FPs 18:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia does agree. "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases" is what is prohibited; saying "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" is none of those. Zoozaz1 talk 19:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom. We should not be creating a hostile work/volunteer environment.--Jorm (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Queerphobia being legalized in some countries is no reason for it to be acceptable here. Isabelle 🔔 12:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - I see the folks here who want to delete these userboxes from
    WP:ANI. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I also didn't know you could call people who have Christian Faith bigots believing in a particular god means you can't be a bigot? Who knew. Denying that people have the same rights to marriage is an excellent example of bigotry @Junglecat:, no matter what book you use to defend it. StarM 16:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the 19th Century, the Epistle to Philemon was used to justify slavery as part of Christianity. William Wilberforce cited his Christian faith as why he worked to stop the slave trade. Which was more Christlike?
I'd imagine many Christians, including myself, would be quite upset to learn that homophobia is an inherent part of the faith.
FPs 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't homophobia... its an active political global issue. Some countries still have civil unions with laws that give the same benefits as marriage. Getting rid of info-boxes that go against your political views in general is only going to make Wikipedia more biased. Should we delete userboxes that support Trump? I'm pretty sure he has said plenty of offensive things with some comparing him to Adolf Hitler. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then again... User talk:The Moose/Archives/2020 1#Political Userboxes "Trump stuff. I'm inclined to either delete absolutely everything beyond the blandest statements or nothing. We're going to have Wiki War III here otherwise." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because politics (where one should be neutral) and human rights are different issues.
FPs 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Human rights also goes into freedom of speech, but we are going off topic. Political issues are always divided into groups of people who firmly believe that their side is right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either have userboxes for both sides of political issues or delete them alltogether. This is not about who is right or who is wrong, its about maintaining a neutral point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally what I was saying about the Trump stuff, but this isn't political.
FPs 18:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no reason we can't allow political userboxes while forbidding discriminatory userboxes. Lev!vich 19:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As others have already pointed out "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" is not discriminatory. Nobody is required to use these infoboxes, it can actualy inform other readers that this is a subject to avoid when engaging in discussion. I know the last thing I would want here is a heated discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely discriminatory. Believing "marriage is between one man and one woman" is believing marriage is not between one man and another man, or one woman and another woman, or one non-gender-binary person and another person. That's discriminatory. It's just as discriminatory as believing "marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race". BTW, believing that marriage is between one adult and another adult is also discriminatory; it's discriminatory against child marriage. But the difference is that it's OK to discriminate against child marriage, whereas it's not OK to discriminate against interracial or same-sex marriage. Lev!vich 20:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its discriminatory to those who have grown up with those moral values. Its why people vote for Trump, support the 2nd amendment, oppose abortion, and illegal immigration. You don't have to agree and may think these things are also discriminatory against x, y, or z... but we have to give a balanced point of view with the political infoboxes we do have. For the record I am fine with deleting all of the political infoboxes. What good do they do other than provoke others? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Topical: I put this similar userbox up for deletion about a week ago.--Jorm (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it turns out, some people are uncomfortable with seeing certain popular political opinions. Our options are to either prohibit userboxes which express objectionable political opinions (ie all political opinions), or to just continue having some people uncomfortable. Personally, I would recommend the former, but failing at that, the latter is an acceptable option. What is not an acceptable option is to just prohibit expression of views which are disliked by people participating in MfDs, thus specifically creating a situation where people of certain specific political-ideological groups are subjected to one-way uncomfortable political expression of others while shielding the other direction, and where an implicit message is broadcast about whether certain ideological groups are equally welcome on Wikipedia.
    If preventing exposure to expression of certain political views is a priority, it must be even-handed. We can be principled in either direction, but we can't be biased in favor of whichever political views editors think are good and right at the moment, or else we will drive off people from swaths of political spectra, and fail in our goals. --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you and that is what I was saying before. Either we have political userboxes or we don't...this should be moved to
    WP:PUMP for a community wide discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's a false-equivalency argument. If we allow a userbox that says "This user believes slavery is wrong", that does not mean we also have to allow a userbox that says "This user believes slavery is right". Lev!vich 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Slavery (unlike opposition to same sex marriage) isn't allowed in the majority of countries on the world, nor is it supported by billions of people. Zoozaz1 talk 21:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Slavery isn't a political issue though. I don't know a single country where there is a debate about outlawing slavery or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So let's create a long list of forms of discrimination ordered by the number of countries where it is still prevalent/controversial, and make sure Wikipedia protects that bottom half (we wouldn't want to discriminate against anyone's discrimination because "it's political"!). Or we could just decide that we want to create a welcoming atmosphere for everyone, including marginalized groups, and say that even if some forms of discrimination aren't yet illegal discrimination in every part of the world, it's still not appropriate here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm sure you're aware, whether or not certain types of government actions are discriminatory are a matter of heavy public dispute. Taking a stance against various political ideologies does not create a welcoming atmosphere for such people. If we prioritize avoiding discomfort from people's opinions, we can do that. Or not. But not only against some opinions. --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the alternative view... we risk being seen as biased towards one side and drive away another group of editors who x considers y bigots. Nobody wins with one side getting their way in politics unless the grounds are firmly established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly not interested in the "you're discriminating against [me/whomever] for not letting [me/whomever] use this website to endorse discrimination" arguments (what's implied here and across many comments in this thread, whether intentional or not). This isn't a "both sides" issue when it comes to creating a welcoming atmosphere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually dislike both of these arguments. Certainly, there are far more people in the world who would be more likely to say, "just because you allow expressions of opposition to same-sex marriage, doesn't mean you have to allow expressions of support" than the reverse, but I really don't want to say that being a small ideological minority is what makes or breaks the line on any political issue. Similarly, things shouldn't be contingent on the status of public debate. --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Neither slavery nor same-sex marriage is a political issue. Both are human rights issues, but both get painted as "political issues" by those whose agendas benefit from such messaging. In the US, for example, abolition of slavery was once as much a "political view" as same-sex marriage is today—a part of each presidential candidate's "platform" for several election cycles. We should not create a hostile environment for editors by allowing the promotion of views that suggest some people deserve fewer rights than others. Armadillopteryx 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Same sex marriage is a political issue per the article on Same-sex marriage with cited references - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Same-sex marriage says in the lead The recognition of same-sex marriage is considered to be a human right and a civil right as well as a political, social, and religious issue. Lev!vich 22:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I caught all of those which are placed to maintain a
    WP:NPOV in different countries. Its still labeled as a political issue though in countries where Same-sex marriage is not legal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    (edit conflict) None of the (four) citations in the footnote at the end of that sentence supports the claim for the term "politial issue" (one is a dead URL, though). I can appreciate that this language is currently used given that there is still debate about the subject, but that doesn't mean it is an accurate characterization. Knowledgekid said above: Slavery isn't a political issue though. I don't know a single country where there is a debate about outlawing slavery or not. I pointed out that the same debates about slavery have very much taken place, and that matter is now trivially seen as only a human rights issue—though we could surely dig up old RS calling it a political view. Or point to places where slavery is still currently practiced. Armadillopteryx 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, some people are concerned that Wikipedia offer a welcoming and inclusive environment. But not to bigots.
depends on a Supreme Court decision passed in their own lifetime. Sure, we live in a time when Federal judicial nominees are unwilling to stand up for Brown vs. Board of Education, but in the immortal words of Dr. King, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
(Re first two sentences.) I can't tell whether this is being ironic. I assume you don't actually agree with trying to drive off editors who oppose same-sex marriage, right? --Yair rand (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They go to Conservapedia. What would you do if anyone added a userbox saying that they believe marriage means two people of the same colour? This is exactly the same. And yes, I do mean exactly the same. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Independent of the userbox or similar, please. Should we welcome editors with that opinion or not? --Yair rand (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as they don't define themselves as such. If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They can go to Conservapedia where they belong. What would you do if anyone added a userbox saying that they believe marriage means two people of the same colour? This is exactly the same. And yes, I do mean exactly the same. My recommendation for anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is not to get married to someoen of the same sex. There are no valid arguments to oppose it for anyone else. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No... driving away editors because you disagree with their views is not a workable solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not anyone's job to gatekeep who is allowed on wikipedia; we define people by their actions, not attributes like opinions, race, or sexuality. If they add unsourced, unreliable, non-neutral content as they may (or may not) be prone to, by all means they shouldn't be here. But dismissing someone out of hand people you disagree with before they even do anything is against the heart of what wikipedia, a freely accessible and editable encylopedia, is. Zoozaz1 talk 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you just said. I simply disagree with the means. Of course we should work hard to make gay marriage acceptable and bend the universe torwards justice, and we do that by providing reliably sourced, neutral content that lets people see for themselves the illogicality of discrimination. We don't do that by banning those we disagree with. Censorship is not a way to fight discrimination; engagement, discussion, and neutrality is. Did abolitionists convince people by censoring pro-slavery positions? No, of course not. They convinced people through the basic truth of human dignity. And yes, it is an undisputable fact that the world is often hostile to gay people; it is not, however, our job to
right great wrongs. Our NPA policy does enough to provide that welcoming environment without needing to censor people's opinions. "Fighting" is not in abrubtly ending debate and casting off those you disagree with; it is the debate itself. Zoozaz1 talk 22:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's the problem with that. Separate it from gay marriage, thinkg Loving vs. Virginia. What we have here is a userbox that tells married gay people - a group that includes my best friend and, separately, one of my best man's children - that your marriage is not valid. Place that statement in the context of institutional discrimination against gay people.
Again, move it out of the context of equal marriage. Would we support a userbox advocatign "black lives matrter"? Yes, of course. Would we support one advocatign "all lives matter"? That would be deeply problematic. But how about one that says "black lives don't matter"? That is what we are saying here. "one man one woman" is exactly equivalent to "black lives don't matter". Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why someone may interpret it that way. But there is a difference between saying that "I disagree with an instution that you support" versus "Your life doesn't matter." Those are two clearly distinct things. There are plenty of people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds while respecting gay people. And I agree; it is horrible and bigoted and justifiably offensive. But I reiterate, Wikipedia is not the place to
right great wrongs; society as a whole has righted the illegality of and opposition to interracial marriage, and that is and should be reflected on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, society has not yet rectified the illegality of and opposition to gay marriage, and it is not Wikipedia's place to do that. Zoozaz1 talk 22:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The suggestion we would permit a BLM user box is disturbing. The suggestion we would not allow other opinions to be expressed is quite simply shocking. That sort of commentary seems almost calculated to confirm the worst suspicions of those who see deep rooted left leaning bias in the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
plenty of people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds while respecting gay people → "plenty of people who [think their own religion should determine the law] while respecting gay people [as long as they don't want to be equal]" — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zoozaz1, ""User supports gay marriage" is righting great wrongs. "User oppposes gay marriage" is wronging great rights. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unacceptable for pro-BLM statements to be treated differently than anti-BLM statements. There is not one set of rules for one side's viewpoints and another for others. --Yair rand (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL in Category:Marriage user templates or Keep ALL - picking sides IS politics and rejecting a particular view. Wikipedia isn't supposed to care (much) about an editor's POV, only how they edit. Delete only one side and now you're caring about what the editor thinks and believes. Ravensfire (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking for my opinion on the question of SSM? If so, I would be happy to discuss that off-wiki. This discussion has already veered deep into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If you are asking whether I think Wikipedia should take sides in a hot button cultural/political debate, my answer is categorically, no. I believe every box in the category should be deleted per Ravensfire. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed that the sentence modifies this box by a few words, "of the same race". I'm not asking for whether you support/oppose same-sex marriage (or interracial marriage). I'm asking if you would likewise treat userboxes as a "both sides" issue such that allowing e.g. "this user supports interracial marriage" would be equally unacceptable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did miss that. My answer is the same. I support Wikipedia policy and guidelines that prohibit the use of user boxers that promote or advocate for any issue or cause that is controversial or likely to cause offense. Such a box would certainly fall under that heading. I also note that some are openly equating opposition to SSM with support for slavery, which is as shocking as it is offensive. This entire MfD is extremely dangerous because it is asking the community to take sides in the culture wars and there appear to be quite a few who are ready and willing based on many of the comments here. This should be procedurally closed and moved to the Village Pump for an exhaustive community discussion about where we want to draw lines and whether or not the community wants to formally take sides in one of the most heated topics of debate in the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It's a matter of debate or difference of opinion only as long as we continue to give it legitimacy as such. And it's well past time. World is too big to be fixed easily but, fortunately in this case, Wikipedia is not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, you are advocating that Wikipedia abandon its longstanding policy of neutrality and take sides in a highly contentious cultural issue? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blind and absolute neutrality is for the article space. Yes, I am suggesting that we can as a community take a stand outside of the article space and should when it is not that complicated a choice. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FPs 17:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This debate is going in circles regarding the issue being political or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you or one of about three others keep responding to every comment to claim it's political.
    FPs 17:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The debate is no longer about whether some userboxes should be deleted, but rather whether we allow opposition to same-sex marriage to even exist on the encyclopedia. That is why I insist such a fundamental issue really deserves a community discussion in the form of an RfC. The only reason I didn't add this MfD discussion to
WT:CENT) is because I still feel this entire issue is better discussed in a community-wide and better advertised forum instead of what we have here. --Dps04 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Userboxes have a certain amount of "Wikipedia-approved" to them. They also encourage broadcasting your opinions to all. While someone may be able to have views against same-sex marriage and be a productive Wikipedian, it is certainly not in Wikipedia's interest to actively encourage them to spread them.
FPs 20:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The key in that phrase is Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases. Simply saying that I think that marriage is between one man and one woman is not an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase. Zoozaz1 talk 18:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lets simplify the issue a bit, shall we. I think every user in good standing can agree with the statement that, just because something is classified as a "human right", it does mean such a right must necessarily be absolute. In other words, it does not follow that a human right may never be restricted under any circumstances. For example, "Freedom of speech" is a universally recognized fundamental human right , yet there are restrictions to this fundamental right as explicitly allowed and documented in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (Article 19(3): you cannot use freedom of speech to defame others, and national security is a legitimate reason to restrict freedom of speech).
Therefore, the necessary point of dispute is whether the "right to marry" is a human right that is absolute, in the sense that any restrictions to such a right must be banned, and any support for the imposition of any kinds of restrictions towards the right to marry will be automatically labelled as "homophoic", "bigotry", and "hateful" (and thereby disallowed under
WP:UBCR). I personally believe the right to marry should be absolute, but unfortunately I also recognize much of the rest of the world hold a different view than mine, and with much regret, I do not believe the idea of an "aboslute right to marry" is, as of 2020, the prevailing worldwide view to such an extent that any opposition is outside of the Overton window, or otherwise so extreme a view to hold to the extent that it would be automatically labelled as inflammatory or divisive under the userbox policy, unlike other well settled issues like interracial marriage, slavery and the like. The sheer wording of the Universal declaration of Human Rights
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. does not support the notion that the right to marry should be absolute in respect of same-sex couples. Not saying the declaration is right in this regard (I certainty think the declaration should be refined in many areas), but this does lay support to the argument from the opposing side that the right to marry is not absolute as many users above automatically assumed.
Disclaimer: I am in no way opposed to same-sex marriage. What I am doing here is stating the legal interpretation with regards to the right to marry. --Dps04 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI I have opened a discussion at the Village Pump regarding issues raised here. That discussion may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe that's the first time I've seen an admin so blatantly canvass for an ongoing XfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this behavior is coming from an admin is astounding. I get you don't like people being labeled as bigots but maybe if people didn't show support of bigoted ideals, then people won't think they do. And this is absolutely canvassing because you didn't list this in a neutral way, you just listed all your complaints and issues with this. You are letting your biases effect your editing too much here.Valeince (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at the VP. I believe that I have made my views clear on the narrow subject covered by this MfD and see no point in repeating myself endlessly. So I am moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless you are going to remove the ones that endorse same sex marriage as well to avoid any sense of hypocrisy, I think a bit of tolerance and respect for those who hold traditional views wouldn't go amiss. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to be clear here... we are talking about an editor's belief. That being said:
I do not support Donald Trump:
Am I going to remove signs in front of Trump supporter houses saying they support Donald Trump? No
Am I going to be repulsed by people who support Donald Trump? No
Am I going to respect that others have a different opinion than mine? Yes
Everyone is entitled to their political opinion. I am so sick of seeing the violence going on in the United States with this "US vs THEM" mentality. If Same sex marriage is legal where you live then let them have their opinions as it isn't going to matter anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Homophobia. is. not. a. political. stance. I am so sick of this "us vs them' mentality and leads to people thinking because you support rights for all, you are discriminating against other's homophobia. It doesn't work like that. Valeince (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can support Homosexual rights but equally be opposed to same sex marriage. Ask Christopher Biggins. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you can't. Homosexual rights are 100% linked to the right to marriage. If this random person you linked to, doesn't think so, then good for him, but he's not a supporter of homosexual rights. Valeince (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he's a homosexual himself.... The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a person can support some gay rights and still oppose gay marriage. People used to say things like: "I'm not racist I just don't believe in interracial marriage" and "Well, this black person opposes interracial marriage, too, therefore it's not racist." Lev!vich 19:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it helpful to know what people's biases and viewpoints are, even if they offend me. FWIW I've strongly supported gay marriage since the mid 80's Hobit (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: these userboxes are homophobic, some very explicitly so. Equating a view against same-sex marriage with a view in favor of same-sex marriage is simply wrong. A view that endorses denying people civil rights isn't allowed within the umbrella of "freedom of speech". One's rights end when the other one's rights begin. People don't have the rights to oppose other people having rights. El Millo (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Comment Since we are now at the point of the discussion where we tell others "some of my best friends are gay and they agree with me", it might be worth reading the Same-sex marriage article on wikipedia, which states: Social science research indicates that the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them, with research also repudiating the notion that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Telling other people on the community that you are against them having equal rights is both disrespectful and stigmatizing. It's punching down. It would be the same as having a userbox saying "I believe you are only a woman/man if were born as one." These userboxes (the ones marked for deletion, that is) exist only to be combative and make LGBTQ people feel unwelcome. Isabelle 🔔 20:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALL of these political userboxes exist only to be combative. Like it or not... you aren't going to be friends with everyone because each person has their own sets of views. You may feel that you are making others feel welcome while at the same time driving other editors away. We should make ALL editors feel welcome regardless of their beliefs as long as it does not interfere with their editing or gets in the way of cooperation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, and expressly oppose the idea that deleting these userboxes but not those supporting gay marriage is "picking sides". We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here. These userboxes run the spectrum from opposition of gay marriage to "not recognizing same-sex relationships" (whatever that means) to expression of bigotry towards a particular sexuality ("heterosexist"). All of them serve to convey the message that a user thinks various other users are less-than due to their sexualities, which is unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One can welcome LGTBQ Wikipedians without banning different opinions on the narrower and debated matter of marriage. And I will also note that I do support deleting the heterosexist userbox. Zoozaz1 talk 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One may think they are doing so, but the proud display of a "different opinion" that LGBTQ people don't deserve the same rights as our straight counterparts is one that will make me feel unwelcome regardless of whatever else an editor may try to say to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it can make people feel unwelcome; where I disagree is in the necessity of censoring it to make them feel welcome. A far better solution is having a welcoming community that respects diversity (including that of thought) where those with differing opinions can express them (until it becomes a clear personal attack.) Zoozaz1 talk 20:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zoozazl,
Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. If people would like to discuss their personal thoughts on same sex marriage, there are multitudes of venues outside of Wikipedia for that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I am nonetheless uncomfortable with a small group of select editors determining the boundaries of speech on the platform. Zoozaz1 talk 20:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing this is a discussion open to the entire en-wiki community, then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase; I am uncomfortable with any group of editors determining the boundary of speech on the platform before society itself has conclusively decided. Zoozaz1 talk 21:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discomfort or no, that ship has fully sailed. There are plenty of "free speech" platforms out there where you can say whatever you like (in fact I write Wikipedia articles about them sometimes). Wikipedia is not one of them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you; Wikipedia should not have absolute freedom of speech (userboxes against interracial marriage or Nazism should not be allowed). Wikipedia should not, though, determine the answers to actively debated political questions. That is not Wikipedia's place but the place of society; once society decides, then we can follow. But as an neutral encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not decide what is correct or incorrect, or moral and immoral, until society has and should not be taking a stance on controversial political issues. Zoozaz1 talk 21:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are applying the
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rationale here but, as far as I understand it, that pertains to the article space, not the userspace and the rest of the community. El Millo (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This entire discussion is a bit policy-light. Userboxes don't have a whole lot of policy governing them. I just think it is good practice for an encyclopedia to abide by the principle of
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and neutrality both in the article space and outside of it. I'm stating my opinion similar to others who are stating that we should pick a side on this topic. Zoozaz1 talk 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
In some places (including within the United States), interracial marriage remains quite taboo. In many places (including the United States), it's perfectly legal to express Nazi views. And yet anti-interracial marriage or Nazi userboxes are disallowed on Wikipedia, and rightfully so. We can't even get all members of society to agree the earth is a sphere, so I think waiting around until "society decides" (and managing to define who "society" is and at what threshold something is a "decision") is going to be a tough sell. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LGBTQ users are of course most welcome here, this goes without question. The question though, is whether users who respect LGBTQ individuals in good standing, yet disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage (due to their beliefs on family / religious values) welcome here? I understand your opinion, but I have to disagree with the assertion that all the userboxes nominated in the MfD convey the message that a user thinks various other users are less-than due to their sexualities. There are two userboxes or so which I believe fall into this category and should be deleted (as I indicated in my first message above), but that's about it. --Dps04 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So long as those users don't feel the need to advertise to the editors they are collaborating with that they believe they don't deserve rights, I have no issue with it. But a not-unsubstantial number of people, including members of the LGBTQ community, have said the userboxes make them feel uncomfortable, which to me is reason enough to delete them. It's a userbox; is it really worth fighting to retain a userbox at the expense of an entire swath of our editing community? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the deletion of a userbox which bothers me, but rather the wide-reaching implications this MfD would potentially have on the future of the encyclopedia. If this MfD is passed, I take it to mean that there will be a de facto blanket ban on any form of opposition to same-sex marriage being expressed in userboxes (or possibly otherwise) anywhere on Wikipedia (because if not this would defeat the purpose of this MfD). This wouldn't affect me personally as I am not an opponent of same-sex marriage anyway, but if you are worried that retaining the userboxes may drive away entire swath of our editing community, I similarly am worried that forbidding opponents of same-sex marriage to voice their view (at the same time allowing supporters to voice theirs) would similarly drive away users from our community. As to the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is automatically bigotry, I expressed my understanding of the current status of the right to marry above (with reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and am not repeating here. In any event, thanks for contributing to the discussion and please be assured while I dont necessarily agree with your view, I do see your point and understand your concern. --Dps04 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of things that people aren't allowed to say via infoboxes, and this is a reasonable addition to the list. I'm sure there was the concern people might leave the project in protest due to the previous decisions, but they were made anyway because they were the right thing to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you welcome LGBT Wikipedians while telling them that their marriages are invalid? Before answering, consider, as noted above, how your argument changes when the spouses are of opposite genders but different skin colour. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same way we welcome Americans offended by anti-American userboxes, or Iranians offended by anti-Iranian users boxes, or even Republicans offended by anti-Trump userboxes; by simultaneously recognizing the value of a free society and open debate while explicity including and welcoming everyone in that free society (provided, of course, that the view is not both odious and rejected by what amounts to the entirety of that society). Zoozaz1 talk 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these anti-American and anti-Iranian userboxes you're referring to? Not to veer too far off-topic, but surely we don't have userboxes for people who wish to express hatred for an entire nationality of people? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not great with my searching skills, but we have anti-Israeli userboxes; when I say anti-American I don't mean anti-American people but anti-American government, and the same with Iran. I'm sure there is at least one template against American imperialism. Zoozaz1 talk 22:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an enormous difference between expressing your distaste for a government, and for expressing your distaste for a group of people. Saying a group of people doesn't deserve the same rights as another group because of their sexuality is much closer to the latter than the former, and so an anti-American government userbox is really not comparable at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With that, I disagree with you; saying an institution, marriage (yes, based on your identity, but the opposition is directed at gay marriage, not gay people), you belong to is immoral is quite similar to saying a state, an instution you belong to, is immoral. That being said, I agree with you on the heterosexist userbox that that is closer to hating a people and should be deleted. Zoozaz1 talk 22:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, people who are opposed to interracial marriage should be able to have userboxes too, since they're opposed to the "institution" of interracial marriage and not the people involved. But you've already said you agree that that should be disallowed. You can wordsmith all you want to say people are opposed to gay marriage, or women's suffrage, or the employment of [pick a protected class]. But in the end, it is opposition to that group of people having the same rights as anyone else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we did get off-topic. My main argument is that we shouldn't ban userboxes, for the sake of a free platform, unless they are clearly rejected by what amounts to the entirety of society. Zoozaz1 talk 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "entirety of society" includes large numbers of neo-Nazis, so that doesn't make sense. FWIW, an anti-Zionist userbox is also unacceptable (though opposing Zionism is not in any way the same as repudiating the rights of the state of Israel to exist). Vaguely waving at all the openly-admitted homophobes is a fallacious argument: everyone knows that racism is bad, and there's an enormous literature on closet racism and the way that people act racist without saying the quiet part out loud. You're basically saying that we can support homophobia because it's a more acceptable form of bigotry than racism. That does not really seem to be a good argument for a userbox advocating bigotry. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? You don't belong to the institution of marriage. Marriage is a right, and these people are in favor of denying people rights based on their identity, which is discrimination and, in this particular case, homophobia. The comparison between this and being opposed to Trump is ludicrous. El Millo (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why there is now a discussion at the
    WP:UBCR where it says "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." I also want to repeat that we are a global encyclopedia not just for the United Kingdom, the EU and the United States of America. In countries where same-sex marriage is illegal the issue remains divisive and userboxes supporting same-sex marriage can be seen as advocacy. These are two things that hit the same areas where userboxes are limited. As such.... we seriously need to evaluate our political userboxes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman_4th_nomination&oldid=1138703789"