Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Political userbox category

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  Speedy close as No Action. - The reasons should be fairly obvious to all. Feel free to start an RfC on this topic at editorial discretion. - jc37 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Political userbox category

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Delete all userboxes in the category of Politics Wikipedia, as an open platform for knowledge dissemination, aims to maintain a neutral point of view on all topics. However, the presence of userboxes related to political issues and ideologies can introduce bias and potentially compromise the platform's commitment to objectivity. This essay argues for the removal of politically charged userboxes on Wikipedia to promote neutrality, enhance collaboration among editors, and preserve the platform's reputation as a reliable source of information.Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality serves as the foundation for its credibility and trustworthiness. Userboxes associated with political issues or ideologies can introduce bias and undermine the platform's commitment to impartiality. While Wikipedia encourages editors to contribute from diverse perspectives, the inclusion of politically charged userboxes risks creating an appearance of bias, potentially detracting from the perception of Wikipedia as an objective resource. By removing such userboxes, Wikipedia can reinforce its dedication to presenting information in a neutral and balanced manner. This approach will help maintain the platform's reputation as a reliable and unbiased source of knowledge, encouraging readers to trust the content they find on Wikipedia.Wikipedia operates on the principles of collaborative editing and consensus-building. Political userboxes, especially those associated with divisive issues or ideologies, can hinder productive collaboration among editors. When users prominently display their political affiliations, it may create an environment where disputes and conflicts arise based on personal beliefs rather than a focus on improving content. Removing politically charged userboxes will allow editors to engage in discussions and debates without being influenced by preconceived notions or political biases. By eliminating these visual markers of personal ideology, Wikipedia can foster a more inclusive and productive editing environment.The removal of politically charged userboxes promotes a focus on content rather than individual perspectives. This approach encourages editors to evaluate articles based on reliable sources, factual evidence, and the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia's editorial policies. It helps ensure that edits and discussions are based on the merits of the information presented rather than personal political beliefs. By removing these potentially divisive identifiers, Wikipedia promotes a collaborative atmosphere where the shared goal of creating accurate and unbiased content takes precedence over individual ideologies.Politics often evokes strong emotions and can lead to polarization within communities. Userboxes related to political issues or ideologies can inadvertently contribute to this polarization by creating an "us versus them" mentality among editors. Removing political userboxes will help minimize unnecessary conflicts and promote a more civil discourse. Editors will be encouraged to focus on the content itself, basing their arguments on reliable sources and factual evidence rather than personal political beliefs. By removing these visual indicators of political affiliations, Wikipedia seeks to create an environment where editors can engage in constructive discussions and debates free from the influence of personal biases.This approach reduces the potential for ideological clashes and fosters a more inclusive and welcoming editing environment. It allows for a broader range of perspectives to contribute to the development of well-rounded and balanced articles. By discouraging the use of politically charged userboxes, Wikipedia encourages editors to approach discussions with an open mind, facilitating the exploration of multiple viewpoints and the synthesis of diverse information.WP:UBCR clearly states "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for... Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)"-Crainsaw, 17:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It helps Wikipedia's trustworthiness when it's made apparent that people of different political orientations, ideologies etc. are able to collaborate. Such userboxes can hinder collaboration only when an editor is unable to look past them, due to their lacking in ability to stay centered on the goals of the project, and in doing so accept that they must collaborate with people with views they are not sympathetic to. When an "ideological clash" happens because someone is harassed for displaying userbox X/Y/Z, it's not rarely the case that a non-collaborative and a WP:NOTHERE actor has been identified, i.e. someone who simply doesn't get it; and this is not a bad thing.—Alalch E. 18:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that when new users join Wikipedia, they have a strong sense that Wikipedia is/should be a strictly neutral site, but when they start to adjust to Wikipedia by creating user pages and filling them with userboxes for example they find categories such as politics, which may change their views that Wikipedia is strictly neutral, since you can display your political standing and opinion. Now, if a user (we'll call him user A) with a political userbox makes an intentional or unintentional biased edit, and another editor (we'll call him user B) notices it and has his own political opinion, which is opposite or against user A's political opinion, might go on the other user A's user page and see that A has a political userbox, which may lead user B to think that user A intentionally made a biased, fostering an "us versus them" feeling. Crainsaw (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the last time all the political userboxes were deleted was before I joined Wikipedia, and many of the editors were fumming made when this happened. That is why political userboxes were recreated. It is better to delete political userboxes one at a time. Catfurball (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia editors should have just as much a right to briefly express their political opinions as much as they can with their hobbies, religious beliefs, and other general interests. If someone take offense to or attacks a user for their non-harmful political opinions, it isn't anyone but that someone's problem. I can also see an scenario where displaying these types of userboxes can be useful to an editor seeking assistance from more-experienced editor while working on an article revolving around the specific politician/party that the experienced editor supports/is knowledgeable of.
 * As for the quoted guideline page, I think "advocacy" is too vague. Briefly stating who you support in an infobox or userbox should be alright, even if that is considered advocating, but I want to assume that "advocacy" refers to rambling on about who or what you support instead of simply stating it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors most certainly do not have a right to use Wikipedia as a forum to express their personal views, nor should they. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "displaying these types of userboxes can be useful to an editor seeking assistance from more-experienced editor while working on an article revolving around the specific politician/party that the experienced editor supports/is knowledgeable of." part because then we know that the experienced editor who's trying to help will be inclines towards making biased and supportive edits, and won't add controversies or criticisms or the party/movement/ideology Crainsaw (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: So far as the political userbox can be read as declaring the editors interest and bias, they are a good thing. If the userbox or userspace material is blatant advocacy, sloganeering, or campaigning, that would be across the line.  I’ve often proposed that anti-political-userbox people should start an RfC.  If there is any serious notion of deleting political Userboxes, then natural justice consideration requires that every user hosting one should be advised of the discussion.   SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Greater benefit to Wikipedia to have these userboxes rather than to not have them; it's not going to stop people from possessing political opinions and viewpoints anyway, much less publishing them; and moreover, MfD isn't the place to discuss any changes to the existing userbox meta. It needs to be a centralized RfC. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Invalid MfD. While political userboxes are inherently disruptive, and people who feel inclined to use them generally aren't a good fit for Wikipedia, a mass MfD is not the solution without a broader consensus to enforce existing policies and guidelines against disruptive userspace content. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Same thoughts on the issue. A smaller MfD, or several, could help analyse problematic infoboxes that could be deleted. That doesn't mean it has to be the case with every single one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong Forum - The nominator is trying to use MFD to change policy, and should be using a Request for Comments. The nominator evidently thinks in good faith that political userboxes are against policy, but we can see that policy has been interpreted, at least for years, to allow most political userboxes.  This proposal should get more attention than is usual for an MFD.  Also, an MFD should tag all of the pages that it is discussing, and the nominator has not done that, because it isn't really a nomination of a large number of individual pages, but of a class of pages, which is a further indication that this shold be an RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.