Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 15

Hi! I just started making UserBoxes. I have made two so far, this one and this one. They look great on my end, so, as they are wrestling related, I went to the Wrestling Userboxes collection intending to add them. The NJPW userbox did exactly what I wanted, no issues. When I posted the Suzuki box, different story. I posted the NJPW box under the "Companies" header and posted Suzuki's under "Superstars." When I publish it, though, the single userbox listed in the "Ring of Honor" section totally vanishes. I thought maybe I could avoid whatever the problem was by putting the box higher on the list instead of the last item, but no matter where I put it, this poor other Wikipedian's UserBox ::poof:: disappears. Anybody have any idea why it would do this? As I said, this is day 1 of UserBoxes, so it's perfectly likely that I've screwed up somehow. I appreciate any help! Cheers! FireWalkWithMe27♣(talk) 00:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template limits for details. —⁠andrybak (talk

) 01:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's good news. Looks like I'm not as incompetent as I had feared. And just to prove it, I split the pages myself. Thanks for the help and getting back to me so quickly! Cheers! FireWalkWithMe27♣(talk) 01:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any situation where a userbox needs to be moved from userspace to Wikipedia or template space? If so, how would these userboxes be handled? Would the original userbox be kept, redirected, or deleted? Do we need to provide attribution to the original user? JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I genuinely don't get how to add one to my page. This is getting annoying because I've been searching the last 2 months; I've had a user for 3. 😑 MarioFyreFlower (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarioFyreFlower: Browse userboxes in the galleries. For each one that you like, copy the name including the curly braces, like {{User:Faizhaider/Start}} for instance. Edit your user page, paste the code for each userbox, and then publish your changes when you're done. Note that you must be editing using the wikitext editor (I think that's still the default for new users), not the VisualEditor. – voidxor 23:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

On Commons it has been suggested in this deletion request to delete a file used in a userbox on 100 pages. The argument is Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Feel free to join the discussion if you have an opinion on the use of files in userboxes. --MGA73 (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the past deletion discussions on some userboxes, e.g.

1. WP:CIVIL
   : "Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged"; "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative" and "Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project"
2. WP:AGF
   : "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it".
3. WP:BATTLEGROUND
   : "Wikipedia is not a place to [...] carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice [...]"
4. WP:HARASS
   : "Harassment of an editor on the basis of [...] political beliefs [...] is not allowed.
5. Wikimedia Terms of Use: "You may find some material objectionable or erroneous: Because we provide a wide array of content that is produced or gathered by fellow users, you may encounter material that you find offensive [...] or otherwise objectionable. We therefore ask that you use common sense and proper judgment when using our services".
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Therefore, it is proposed that the "substantially divisive" part and the "Avoid verbs (often followed by the word "that") which may be used to suggest negative comparison and would thus be potentially divisive, such as: believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes" part are removed from

"...believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes..." - The problem with the words isn't so much "This user believes XYZ is good", it's that they are used to say "This user believes XYZ is bad" - And I'm using a nice example. Stick to talking about yourself, and not about others. - jc37 17:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's rather the opposite. If you write "This user supports traditional marriage", under current wording, you would unleash a hell of accusations (as in my case). But if you write "This user believes Marxism is bad", nothing happens. In fact, we even have an

WP:CREEP. Brandmeister^talk

18:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like

WP:WHATABOUTX

.

As for your "support" example, it has an implied polemic. (That one opposes other forms of marriage.) - personally, I don't care if you want to state your biases on your user page. but such statements still need to stay within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - jc37 18:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many userboxes that may be regarded as having an implied polemic, like pro-choice userbox or death penalty userbox. As I showed above, this is not an argument. Brandmeister^talk 19:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's sad that any editor runs to ANI or whatever to 'whine' about something they've seen on another user's page. It's frustrating to see Wikipedia moving more & more to the extreme of censorship, concerning user pages. What's next? You can't express your support of the Yankees, as it might offend Red Sox fans? You can't express being proud you're 6-feet tall, because it might offend shorter people? You can't express you're a track runner, because it might offend people who are in wheelchairs? Or you can't express you're proud to be (or even mention that you have a gender) either male or female, because it'll offend the opposite gender or an editor who doesn't believe in there being 'only' two genders, or any genders at all. I ask, how much farther will this Wiki-community push towards censorship, go? PS - It's thus true. It's human nature, for many of us to preach tolerance, but practice intolerance. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are just false equivalences and strawman arguments, where you're not taking into account the actual reasoning behind the removal of this userbox: that being "straight and proud", just like being "white and proud", is an expression most commonly used by hate groups as a form of discrimination against non-straight and non-white people. That isn't the case for either Yankees vs. Red Sox fans, tall vs. short people, or track runners vs. people in wheelchairs. Those using this userbox in knowledge of what this phrase means are discriminating, and those using it unaware of it are better off not using it either, for they might be misconstrued as discriminating. —El Millo (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Each of us see it in a different way, don't we? PS: I'd rather we not start a circularly discussion, alright? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here folks: a userbox was deleted and some people's feelings were hurt by this. I would expect to be called "triggered" or a "snowflake" by people who complain about "outrage culture" if the shoe was on the other foot and I was
  Wikipedia:Drop the stick is up there on the list of essays that everyone cites and agrees with but no-one follows, but I'll add one more to its citation count. — Bilorv (talk
  ) 18:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You can express your pride in whatever you like, on your userpage. I won't be offended & make demands that you remove it. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You're pretty much right that the Wikipedia community is rather hypocritical. I'm going to link

hurt you." The UBCR criteria is really just interpreted as allowing for deletion of political opinions that enwiki (from a US centric perspective ofc) doesn't like. Being against gay marriage was in the American political mainstream a decade or so ago so it was OK to have that template, now it isn't so the template has to go. Same with fascism and some communist userboxes. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to

|Chess}} on reply) 19:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• A question relevant to what to allow: Why are userpages allowed to have any non-Wikipedia-related content? --Yair rand (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• I currently feel pessimistic regarding the userbox war issue. I don't think removal of words from the userbox policy is going to change the attitudes of the "community". It's only ever going to be people voting to determine what we're allowed to express on our user pages, issue by issue, usually in a hypocritical manner justified by twisted language, appeal to emotion, and shame tactics. This is why I believe it's in our best interest to stop using userboxes that aren't directly related to editing Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles, nurture prejudice, argue with those with varying cultures, and discriminate on the basis of beliefs, then we should stop provoking those kinds of conflicts by expressing our pet issues. We're not here to debate social issues. It's time to stop. I want to go back to when not every facet of life was an ideological battleground. What a waste of time. MarshallKe (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

TBH, there'd be no fuss at all about userboxes, if we all stopped trying to control the content of each others' user pages. It's like, if we don't like what in somebodies yard? let's stop going over to that yard & simply ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right, and it would be easier if we didn't have a whole bunch of people misunderstanding and misusing Paradox of tolerance in violation of the paradox of tolerance itself. MarshallKe (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I said (broadly) the same thing in the above-linked ANI drama, but I guess I'll say it again here. Political userboxes are one thing, and one could put together an argument to the effect that they are inherently divisive and ought to be prohibited. What we're talking about here, however, are userboxes that seek to deny the rights of a particular minority group – rights which, in my jurisdiction and in most of the Anglophone world, are already enshrined in law. Saying that 'I believe that marriage is only valid between men and women' is nonsensical: the state defines what marriage is, just as surely as it defines tax law, nationality requirements or the correct procedure for acquiring a driver's license. A userbox declaring that one does not accept the marital status of gay couples is, in my view, just as absurd and offensive as a userbox declaring that "This user believes that women cannot take out a mortgage in their own name", or "This user believes that descendants of slaves are the rightful property of the owners of said slaves": it ignores the current legal situation (and is thus absurd), and it ignores the feelings that affected people are likely to experience when coming across such a statement (and is thus outrageously offensive). I can not (and do not seek to) regulate people's private opinions, and I don't seek to remove people who hold them from this community, but they should not be permitted to put such divisive views into userboxes (or state them sans userbox on their userpage) because they are a barrier to effective collaboration. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • How can one be castigated for supporting something that is legal in their country? Majority of countries have traditional marriage only, it doesn't mean you can accuse the governments of those countries of homophobia, etc. In other words, you can't impose the moral standards of one country onto another country. This is exactly what I mentioned in my proposal above. And the marriage law has been also regulated by surveys and referendums, like Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey where opinion of the opposers is equally valid. Brandmeister^talk 07:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    Brandmeister I'm talking about the statement "marriage is between a man and a woman", which you had on your userpage - it's objectively false (unless you restrict it by explaining that you're only talking about certain jurisdictions). There are plenty of countries where marriage between men and men, or women and women, is legal and entirely normal. You might think that ought not to be the case, but it is the case, and you can't believe that away.

    This is the English Wikipedia - in most of the Anglophone world, homosexual marriage is legal, and entirely normal. It's fair to assume that most of our readers and editors will come from the Anglophone world, and that many of them will be gay people who are married. Please try to put yourself into the shoes of one of those people, who clicks on your name in a discussion, or after seeing an edit you made. Perhaps they wanted to stop by to give you a barnstar for something you've done, or to congratulate you on a particularly fine piece of writing. They arrive at your userpage, hoping to make a wikifriend, and their eyes alight on that userbox: a statement to the effect that you believe their way of living isn't just wrong, it doesn't really exist. Their marriage isn't a marriage, it's a sham. Can you imagine how upsetting that would be? Can you see why I think it's divisive, hurtful, offensive?

    There are some things which you can think privately, or have a nuanced conversation about with people who you know will not be upset by them, but which ought not to be put in a box on your user page for anyone to stumble across. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    What I wrote was "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" (emphasis mine). This doesn't preclude some middle ground, e.g.

    WP:AGF, at least. As do talks like "This is the English Wikipedia" or "This is the Anglophone world". Brandmeister^talk

    15:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    Brandmeister, I know you wrote "This user believes...". that's what I've been trying to say to you: your beliefs cannot change objective reality. In the countries where many (probably most) of our editors live, it is an irrefutable fact that marriage between gay couples exists. Your belief, as stated, is objectively wrong, and indefensible.

    Your dismissive response to my question about a well-intentioned editor arriving at your talk page to see an attack on their very way of life is deeply disappointing. Where has this 'believes in man-and-woman marriage' verbiage come from? Who, in the history of humanity, has ever said that men and women can't be married? Everyone believes in 'man-and-woman' marriage, that is not up for debate; what your userpage statement did was to deny the existence of other kinds of marriage. That is why people find it so offensive. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    That's exactly what I was writing about above. When you start arguing over someone's else belief here, especially demanding the removal of some userbox, this is a direct violation of

    WP:CIVIL and a host of other policies I listed above. The bottomline and the very spirit of Wikipedia is getting cooperative without criticizing someone's else beliefs and viewpoints. If we can't uphold those standards of cooperation and mutual respect in practice, then we're not what we officially pretend to be anymore. Brandmeister^talk

    07:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    I do not believe I have been uncivil to you, and I have not, and do not, question your good faith: I know that good people can hold such views in good faith. I question judgement, not the good faith, of anyone wishing to put that particular belief on their userpage, for the reasons I have set out above. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    One may disagree and question anything on someone's userpage. But when they start to tell what a user should or shouldn't have on their userpage, they are crossing the red line set explicitly in the aforementioned policies, guidelines and in the Wikimedia Terms of Use. This what Masem has called "thought policing" below and I agree with him. I've been in Wikipedia for 16 years now and never criticized editors for their userpage content. Even if you question someone's judgement or belief, the bottomline is building an encyclopedia. I hope I've made myself clear now. Brandmeister^talk 12:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    You've made yourself clear, but I continue to think you are mistaken, and that expressions of discriminatory views are divisive, counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia, and do not belong on user pages. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    The problem is that editors here and in deletion nominations disagree on what constitutes "discrimination" or "discriminatory views". This difference in interpretation effectively results in attempts to suppress or marginalize a particular view or belief. Yet,

    WP:USERBOX doesn't mention the word "discrimination" or "discriminatory" at all. It says "substantially divisive", but this applies to a vast array of views and beliefs. Views on abortion, gun control, euthanasia, capital punishment, and so on are all "substantially divisive", but are allowed. That's why I propose to get rid of the "substantially divisive" part and associated restriction on "believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes" altogether, because it creates unnecessary problems. Brandmeister^talk

    12:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    Where there is room for disagreement, we rely on community consensus. The other issues you list could all be divisive, I guess, but there isn't a consensus that they are sufficiently divisive to justify a prohibition on mentioning them on a user page (although personally, I wouldn't mention my own views on those topics on my userpage, I don't see why it would be relevant to my activities here).

    I don't accept that these are unnecessary problems - or rather, I don't understand why it is a problem for anyone not to have a particular statement on their userpage. Nobody is saying you can't hold that view, but the consensus of the community is that you shouldn't put it on your userpage.

    If we lose the 'substantially divisive' verbiage, and retain only the 'inflammatory' part, we'll still be in the same position of arguing the toss about whether something is sufficiently inflammatory as to be prohibited. I'd probably support the addition of verbiage about a prohibition on 'discriminatory views'. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• The problem you fail to grasp Brandmeister is that you're employing false equivalence in your arguments. People choose their political ideologies (like Marxism) and they choose to take positions on other political issues like abortion or the death penalty. People do not choose to be gay. LGBTQ+ people should enjoy the same rights as every other human and a more apt comparison would be an infobox stating something like "This user believes marriage should be between two white people" which as absurd as it sounds, gay people find your statement equally absurd and offensive. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • They aren't false, the principle is the same. If one says "I'm against gun control", it may offend supporters of gun control, because it infringes on their right to live safely. If one says "I support capital punishment", it may directly affect those who are against it. I have nothing against LGBT per se, but when one starts to castigate people for their support of traditional marriage, per
    double standards and should be dropped. Brandmeister^talk
    07:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"the state defines what marriage is", actually for a vast number of the human population and almost all of human history, religion and custom has defined what marriage is. 'Outlawing' a view because it is outside a recent 'Anglish', largely secular, interpretation of marriage seems drastic. There is no attempt to even engage with the possibility that it is perfectly possible to have respect for gay people, wish to honour their stable relationships, but believe that marriage is a distinct thing. In certain Greek city states homosexual relations between men were open and were the norm among the elite, those states also practised marriage solely between men and women. For them marriage was largely about legitimate offspring and family alliances, not about personal relations. Were they all homophobic bigots despite being gay? I'm personally not opposed to gay marriage, and am not religious but am fairly appalled at the level of anger here when someone declares an opinion on their user page which has actually been the dominant one throughout human history and probably remains the dominant one across the world now, or at least a very widely held one. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Defining people from historical cultures as homophobic bigots would be anachronistic - you can't apply modern standards to ancient cultures like that. But you're right: for most of human history, marriage was a very different thing to what it is now. For most of human history, marrying children was fine (particularly for elites). Rape within marriage wasn't a thing in the UK until alarmingly recently, and women having property rights independent of their husbands is a fairly new idea too. Lots of things have changed about marriage over the years, and presumably they will continue to do so. The context of this discussion is the modern world, in which gay marriage very much exists, and I do find it problematic that someone would have so little regard for the feelings of their colleagues that they would have a statement like that on their userpage. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK is the place that I am familiar with, there, only very historically recently, a debate occurred about the extension of civil marriage to include gay people. There were many people who spoke up for the continuation of civil partnership, but who were opposed to gay marriage - some were gay people themselves. Some I don't doubt adopted this position as a smokescreen for homophobia, some I believe genuinely believed that marriage was an inherently man-woman institution. The assumption throughout the above discussion and the ANI is that anyone having a view that was - and maybe still is - a very widely held, possibly majority, view should be banned/pilloried/blamed, called homophobes,{gay-haters?) regardless of the rest of their behaviour. I'm going to drop the matter here since no one is going to agree AFAI can see. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, I appreciate that you said that you want to drop the matter, and so I apologise for the ping, but there is something that I'd like you to know. In this thread, and at ANI, I have been at pains to point out that I am not looking for anyone to be banned, or even pilloried, over this. I want people to recognise the potential for hurt and division that these views can create, and to accept that sometimes there are things views that don't belong in a userbox. I'm a man in my mid-forties; if I were to survey the opinions of the elder members of my family (many of them Roman Catholic), I expect that I would find a lot of them agreeing with the idea that marriage is only for men and women. I don't hate my older family members (far from it), and I wouldn't seek to exclude them from this community if they wished to contribute here. If they were to create accounts though, I think that they should keep opinions like that to themselves though, for the sake of community cohesion. I hope that makes sense. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with the statement "This means that an editor shall not be deprived of self-expression on their userpage" as this is still a platform managed by the WMF under their rules. I do believe they encourage free expression but this does not mean this is an open platform to state your beliefs because that is not part of the educational mission of the WMF.
• That said, given that we do allow editors to use user pages (and UBXs) to express who they are in the interest of promoting better collaboration, and some of those UBXs are going to be political, religious, or ideological that others will not agree with, we have to recognize that some messages will seem offensive to one group while perfectly acceptable to another. I disagree strongly with the statement in question "Marriage is between a man and a woman" to start, and I do recognize that to any person of LGBT or those supporting LGBT that this is an offensive statement. But at the same time, it is the belief of at least one major worldwide religion (Catholism, which is only slowly coming to try to reconcile this), and thus it is hard to call the quoted statement universally offensive, nor is it specifically directed at any editor or a specific group of editors. I understand its arguments that LGBT editors would feel attacked but again unless there's other behavior that an editor making that statement is using it to attack other editors, its a clear broad statement without any specific on-wiki target.
• Two problems can extend by considering this type of language as offensive and inappropriate for userboxes (or on userpages in general). First, it leads to a slippery slope that any perceived offensive statement could lead to problems with that language. To extend on the example, if someone say "I am a Catholic", it could be read that they must support marriage only between a man and a woman, and thus a LGBT editor could take offense at that and demand its removal. Or, as a different example, one could take the last four years of US politics that asserts that they identify with the US Republican party could similarly be taken as an offensive statement. Obviously I don't think the UBX cautionary language was meant to go there, but this is what slippery slope we are on now.
• The other problem comes to dissimilar treatment of ideologies. An example brought up at the AN was if someone had a UBX saying "I'm proud to be a man." It could be taken this could be read as promoting male dominance/etc. and would likely be deleted. But we had UBXs that said an "opposite" statement, such as "I'm proud to be a woman.", no one would blink an eye at that, we would want editors to show that in general. Similarly would be a case of "I'm proud to be white" vs "I'm proud to be black". Or to use the example above, a statement "I believe marriage can be between any two consenting adults regardless of gender", while fully acceptable to LGBT, may be considered offensive to Catholics. That's generally the whole nature/problem of ideology is that by supporting something, your view is going to be vastly different from someone else, and could be taken as an offense.
• So going back to UBXs, to me, there are two solutions. First is the offensive factor - we have to recognize that while there are statements that some will take offense at, we should only looking at those that to the near universal numbers of civilized nations and people would be taken as offensive. How marriage is defined is not one of those, but it would be statements like "I think we should kill all (people of race X)". And of course, statements where it is clearly directed to editors on WP (not broadly beyond WP) should also be dealt with. Secondly, it is the wording factor; when writing a UBX around a political/ideologic factor, one should consider if replacing the key term(s) with their "opposite" would create problems or show some discrimination in how they can be read. Again, back to the "I'm proud to be a man" or "be a woman" shows this at play, but rewriting to be "This editor identifies as male/female/etc." would be a much more neutral statement in any of its forms. --Masem (t) 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't about being offensive, it's about being discriminatory. I believe marriage can be between any two consenting adults regardless of gender is not discriminatory no matter how offensive it might seem to a Catholic. I'm proud to be white isn't offensive per se, but it is so closely related to white pride that it is a discriminatory statement. If white people were commonly discriminated against for being white in some country, then the userbox wouldn't be discriminatory coming from an editor of such country. Of course, this hypothetical editor would want not to be misconstrued and would clarify its meaning someway. Anyone can be offended by anything, we're talking about discrimination. —El Millo (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Even if talking discrimination, we're still on that slippery slope and potential misbalance, as well as the fact that we are then engaging in thought policing. I fully agree the statement "I'm proud to be white" is, without any other context, close to a statement of white pride. That said, we can judge the context of that editor's stance by reviewing their edit history. If they're spending the bulk of their edits on race-related pages and clearly editing in a pro-white and/or anti-minority stance, then obviously we have a problem. But if the editor has no obvious signs of POV based on that statement, then its really really hard to call it discriminatory. Same with the statement about believing marriage is between a man and a woman - unless that editor is going around and their edits show a clear anti-gay marriage/anti-LGBT trend - its very difficult to call that discrimination between the editor is clearly not acting on that idea. But right now, with what's established, we're now policing their thoughts just because some editors feel that statement will lead to discrimination on WP. We absolutely should not be prejudging that at all with a statement without any context. (This is the same issues that have been raised about the user essay
      WP:NONAZIS to pre-judge users without judging actions based on what they claim they are). Some of the issues here can be resolved with wording choices, making statements more factual than subjective, but I think we're also being a bit too quick to judge something as discriminatory and problematic without considering full implications of how that can be stretched to other areas. We already warn users that they are in an open wiki, a collaborative environment where people are bringing different viewpoints to the table, and also that civility towards other editors is expected and thus discrimination specification against other editors is unwelcome, but we can't be too far over this line to consider discriminatory statements that apply well beyond WP's bounds and not only within WP, since that's going to lead to some people to find some discriminatory factor in any ideological statement and argue against it. I am 100% on board to make sure UBXs (and user pages in general) do not contain material that is intended to specifically harass, insult, or discriminate against specific editors or groups in the context of WP, as that is something we have full control of, we just can't control the rest of the world and what is considered discrimination or not outside that. --Masem (t
      ) 17:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

      Masem I don't have a 'This user is a Roman Catholic' userbox, but if I was filling in a census form, that's the box I would tick (as opposed to 'atheist' or 'not sure'). I support the right of gay people to get married in a registry office, and to have their union recognised by the state and by their peers (in the same way that I would recognise a marriage between two people who had previously been divorced, despite what the church says about that). I would not support the state enforcing their views on religions though, and so I would not be in favour of forcing Catholic priests to conduct marriages between gay people. In other words, religious views on marriage are complicated, and I do not think that the 'thin end of the wedge' argument you seem to be deploying above is appropriate. There is not going to be any purge of 'This user is a Catholic', or Muslim, or Jew, or whatever, based on some vague suspicions about uniform views that those large bodies of people are purported to hold. What we should do is make it clear that specific examples of discrimination - such as saying that marriage between gay people isn't a thing - are unacceptable, in the interests of community cohesion. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

      • I too am uncomfortable with Masem's extended Catholic analogy, as I identify both as a practicing Roman Catholic and as a queer individual who wishes to be married (by the state, if that's the option given) someday. Saying that pro-gay userboxes are somehow offensive to Catholics is a myopic worldview. An actual anti-Catholic userbox would be something along the lines of "This user believes that those who don't support the

        Know-Nothing" would suggest an anti-Catholic view, because, unlike broader political or religious affiliations, one of the central tenets of the Know-Nothing party was anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. I also recognize that this is a tangent, but it's one that strikes a little close. — GhostRiver

        22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

        • I will stress that I'm not saying at all that right now, a UBX that says "I am <of a specific faith>" is currently treated as discriminatory nor likely would be. I am pointing out the slippery slope in what I think when editors find "discrimination" of broad statements that apply to a world view and not specific to WP only, and take that to imply discrimination applied at the WP level - the example that if editors consider a broad explicit statement about anti-gay-marriage (not specific to WP) to be discriminatory, then they could also see a statement about following a religion that implicitly has an anti-gay-marriage view as being discriminatory. And that leads to more and more cases of implicitly offensive views being seen as problematic. Basically, going off what this discussion and the relevant MFD, I'm concerned that the language in the UBX guidelines which at least to me is meant to maintain civility between users, is being used to police world views that do not have any specificity to WP, what the guideline wasn't set up for as that's not what our civility policy is about.

          Also as pointed out in the related WP:ANI thread, there's some inconsistency going on here too. This userbox User:Sundostund/Userbox/LGBT3 which arguably is still anti-gay marriage was kept (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sundostund/Userbox/LGBT3) after it was nominated after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination led to the deletion of the one that said "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman." Now, it is perhaps that that statement in the "LGBT3" one is less harsh, less direct about the message, or otherwise doesn't outright speak anti-LGBT: "This user opposes the legalization of gay marriage, but does not necessarily oppose LGBT rights in general." There's a handful of other aspects I could see here too (marriage as a function of the church, verses civil unions as to serve the human rights factor, for one), which is why I think that we should be considering the language of such UBX before deletion to see if there is a way to rephrase it to make the statement less offensive. (And to be clear, I don't support this view either, its just an contrasting example). --Masem (t) 23:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

          • And to extend my slippery slope caution, while this thread at ANI has been properly dealt with and closed
            WP:ANI#Wikipedia Endorsing Murderous and Extremist Ideologies via Userboxes?, it shows the problem if we are looking at the messages of user boxes as being offensive directly to WP editors when no such direct message can be inferred from how the statement is worded in the UBX. Obviously, if that message is coupled with incivil editing behavior that pushes that POV, then that's a problem. --Masem (t
            ) 18:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Good callouts Masem. Another example of an intractable, mutually offensive, fundamentally different worldview is whether society is A) androcentric, patriarchal, and oppressive against women, or B) gynocentric, matriarchal, and oppressive against men. So now we have to start debating what *what is true* and *what does discriminatory mean* and it's like, why do we even need to be having these holy wars on Wikipedia when none of this has any bearing on writing Wikipedia articles? We agree on
    WP:N for the purposes of writing articles that describe things. That's all that's needed to do Wikipedia. We don't need to pull in our emotional baggage and cultural identities here. MarshallKe (talk
    ) 17:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• WP:UP#POLEMIC. -- Softlavender (talk
  ) 04:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Getting into a big discussion in the context of userboxes is a mistake IMO. The issue isn't the combination of html and css used to display a message but the message inside. As we've seen, when userboxes are deleted people are capable of reproducing the same content on their userpage without a userbox (or having never used the userbox to begin with). To the extent a conversation should happen about what's appropriate for a user page, it should really happen at Wikipedia talk:User pages or perhaps even Wikipedia talk:Civility, if not a village pump. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The rationale cited in such deletion nominations has been
    WP:UBCR (for example, here), so it's natural that discussion is taking place here rather than elsewhere. Brandmeister^talk
    15:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You're not wrong, but the core objections are clearly to the messages themselves, so it seems like a bad idea to restrict discussion to userboxes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• It all comes back to human nature. Those who preach tolerance? practice intolerance. I can only hope (look at my own userpage), that editors don't start demanding that 'country' flags be removed, because they believe it's a symbol of separation between humans 'or' my message below it is removed, because it offends monarchists. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • GoodDay, please read what I wrote here. Please stop pretending that displaying a country flag or stating your republicanism makes Wikipedia unwelcoming and hostile for any sub-group of this community or is discriminatory material which implies violating their innate rights and equality and/or is demeaning and judgmental. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

We shall have to disagree, concerning userboxes & flags. Even if an editor's got a Nazi flag or userbox on his userpage, I wouldn't call for its deletion. If he/she isn't promoting nazism across the project, then we should leave his or her userpage alone. That's just my opinion & I'm not looking for a debate on it. FWIW, I don't use any userboxes on my userpage & only 3 on my user-talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You can't keep posting takes like the one you just did and not expect other contributors to push them back, and that is one fucking terrible opinion to have. I'm glad very few editors share it, though it's still disturbing to know that some people here want to defend hate speech. Isabelle ^🔔 02:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's not a matter of disagreement, it's that you are absolutely and deliberately and perpetually not addressing the issue(s) at hand. No one cares what you or I like or don't like or what your or my personal opinion is. Your extremely transparent continued deflection of the actual issue (and polic[ies]) at hand in favor of your own drumbeat concerning freedom of speech is pointless soapboxing at its worst. If you cannot address the issue, your participation is merely disruption. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Wandering around with accusations of homophobia or discrimination are unhelpful in that regard, to put it mildly." But if we abandon an attempt to restrict divisive statements in userboxes, isn't that just another form of expression that we would have to accept? Consider a userbox saying "This user believes anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobic bigot." The user might defend it as their genuine belief, not directed at any one individual. But I would certainly understand why another editor visiting their user page might take it personally, just as someone in a same-sex marriage might take personally a gratuitous declaration that such marriages are invalid. I'm inclined to support prohibiting all such rhetoric, unless it has a clear connection to building an encyclopedia. Userboxes I think actually contribute to the encyclopedia include statements on positions relevant to editing ("this user supports the Oxford comma"), identifying diverse identities of our editors ("this user is in a same sex marriage"), or expressing support for an inclusive, welcoming community ("this user supports the LGBT community").--Trystan (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think abandoning the restrictive language is a more clement and less radical step than prohibiting entire non-Wikipedia beliefs altogether. This would entail relevant amendments in
    WP:NOTADVOCACY. Brandmeister^talk
    22:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Seeing the direction this project is heading towards, concerning userpages & userboxes? Soon everything will offend somebody. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I get so tired of seeing "user uses" in these userboxes; it looks and sounds awkward. I wish they would say "editor uses" or "user edits", appropriately phrased for each userbox. Just something I would like to see changed in general. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll support that. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@DeaconShotFire:: Two editors, me included, have now reverted your edit. Here is the stable version:

Userboxes belong on their users' pages. In some cases, it may be considered

mainspace

talk pages by anyone.

Here is your version:

Userboxes belong on their users' pages. In some cases, it may be considered

mainspace

talk pages by anyone.

I've bolded the removed content. You say the reason for that removal is per

The content states that to accuse another user of these things is mean-spirited, which is entirely subjective. I can't imagine this sentence saying "especially in a mean-spirited way---such as offering to bake another user a cake."

Can you? DeaconShotFire (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV does not apply to the Wikipedia space in the same sense that it applies to main space. Aside from that, I don't really understand why you take issue with the part you remove ("as accusing a user of transphobia, homophobia, racism, sexism") but not with "in a mean-spirited way". You agree we should not add userboxes to the page of other users in a mean-spirited way (since you did not remove this section), but you don't think doing so to call another user a bigot falls under that category? Isabelle ^🔔

11:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If user A refers to user B by a racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic slur, user B would not be mean-spirited in accurately reporting that conduct for what it is. Obviously adding a user box to user A's page is not the appropriate venue for doing so, but that just highlights that all of this advice is

WP:BEANS. We should say clearly that it is never appropriate to add user boxes to other users' pages, not speculate about why someone might be tempted to do so.--Trystan (talk

) 18:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@

personal attack. Isabelle ^🔔

20:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement. I would still prefer something like "Do not put userboxes on other users' pages without their permission."--Trystan (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Because accusing one of bigotry being mean-spirited is subjective. DeaconShotFire (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody should be allowed to place userboxes on another editor's userpage, without their consent. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a known solution to this or not, but does anyone have a good way to toggle between a and an before a wildcard in a userbox. For example, I created

The rather simple solution I can think of is a parameter that only accepts either "a" or "an", that still uses "a" as default in order not to break userboxes that haven't filled the parameter. —El Millo (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It could also be a paramater called |an= to be filled with "yes" for the 'n' to be added. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, El Millo, as it stands your first comment is basically what I have. A user can put anything (...|Atari, ...|Volkswagen, etc.) and it will return "a Atari" or "a Volkswagen". I'm hoping there's something I missed where I can use an if statement or something that looks at what's entered, sees if it starts with a vowel and if so uses "an" or otherwise uses "a". That's probably more complicated than is necessary for a userbox, but I was hoping it might be a problem someone had already solved. Adding an additional parameter as you suggest is probably the simplest solution; I'll give that a go. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, am I allowed to make my own userboxes?Yodas henchman (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course,

WP:UBX for the guidelines about where userboxes should be created, as well as tips on how to go about it. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk

) 17:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)