Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage

 __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 moot. Basically, the userbox has been edited and, now, the original deletion rationale no longer applies. This closure does not prevent anybody from renominating the userbox for deletion immediately, if they believe that it still should be deleted. Lastly, speaking as an editor, I admit I like 's three-prong test to determine the acceptability of a userbox, but, as he recognises, this is not the appropriate place to discuss such an innovation... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage


I came across this userbox as it was used as part of a userpage vandalism campaign (diff). This userbox isn't used anywhere and basically exists to prove a point (see User:Littlebum2002). Not sure there's any point keeping it just to prove a point about how radically open we are. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ewww.  Snowolf How can I help? 10:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Offensive and unrelated to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, but other stuff exists. If it is the case that a "one man, one woman" userbox has survived, and as we can see from Littlebum's userpage, a number of equally questionable religio-political userboxes are in use, then...how is this one different? None of these "I believe X" boxes really seem to fit WP:POLEMIC - they're not phrased hostilely, they don't attack others (except by inference of those reading them), and they're not negative information about other users. I'm having a hard time separating my personal dislike of this sort of userbox - I would happily support an abolition of userboxes declaring religious or political affiliation (as well as those about which fruits people like, for that matter...) - and the fact that myriad other equally-political boxes exist, from policy here, but as this box stands, the only possibly-valid deletion reason I see seems to be WP:POINT, and I'm not sure if that's enough to take out a userbox that's really no different from many others which are widely used. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mayhap you've missed the point of OTHERSTUFF? Keeping this out of some ill-advised sense of consistency does not improve the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I get the point of it (that's why I ironically linked the essays myself!). What I was saying is that generally, religio-political userboxes like this seem to be kept at AfD from what I've seen, and I don't see anything having to do with this one that's not also true of any number of userboxes that have been kept due to not actually violating policy. Believe me, I will shed no tears if this one is deleted (I find the opinion it expresses ugly in the extreme, and as I said, I think we would be well-rid of all userboxes about religious or political opinions), but I was basically expressing that the deletion nomination (and policy itself, as I read it) doesn't give a lot of ground for actually deleting this. The question seems to be whether this falls under "propaganda" or "advocacy", and since I, personally, am not sure whether it does or not (certainly it expresses an opinion - but does it urge others to take that opinion? is it an "opinion piece"?), I think previous community opinion about userboxes like this is useful for determining that. Considering this box in a vacuum and taking into account strict policy only, I would go weak delete - I'm not convinced it's much of a violation of our userpage/userbox guidelines (that is to say, it seems to be largely in line with other boxes that are felt to adhere to our guidelines, with the main difference being the unpleasantness of the opinion), but the more I consider it, the more I think it smells a bit too much of political advocacy. Considering the box in context of actual community practice regarding boxes like this (and to my mind, "here's what the community has actually ruled in the past regarding whether these boxes step over the line" is somewhat distinct from "other stuff exists", my ironic linkage notwithstanding), I'm not so sure - consensus seems to be largely either nonexistent or slightly in favor of allowing political opinion boxes. Mind you, I haven't read every MfD ever - if there's a basis for "the community generally, or at least sometimes, feels that boxes like this are unacceptable" that I've missed in my wiki-travels, please point it out to me and I will absolutely reconsider my !vote here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Userbox (Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive, propaganda, advocacy, political, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics) and per wp:point. A message conveying a thought that -- if you don't believe in gay marriage, you are a racist -- is not a good one for a userbox. Also, Otto4711 brought up Loving v. Virginia (linked in the User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage userbox) and "race" in the MfD that sought to delete the "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman," Junglecat userbox. Otto4711 also brought up the specific wording of the above userbox in that MfD discussion. It was sufficient to make the argument in that prior MfD discussion and there now is no need to additionally illustrate that as a point via a userbox. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I'm pretty sure "if you don't support gay marriage, you are a racist" is not the intended message of the userbox. It might instead be "if you oppose gay marriage, your views are as anachronistic and unreasonable as those who opposed interracial marriage back when that was an issue"... which isn't the same thing. Of course, without the user in question clarifying whether that is the view it is advocating, I'd be hesitant in claiming that is the political message it is attempting to send. Rather, the user who created the userbox claims they are doing it to basically test the radical openness of Wikipedia. Which seems POINTy, and against the point of what Wikipedia is: it's an encyclopedia, not an sociological experiment per WP:NOTANARCHY. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not all cut from the same cloth and different people may take different meaning from the userbox and there is no reason to subject them to any of them per the reasons listed above. WP:NOTANARCHY is a good reason to delete as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete If this user or any other sincerely agreed with the userbox's sentiments I might !vote differently, but this is a straightforward example of disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. – hysteria18 (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it is time for me to weigh in on the subject.


 * First of all, I do not believe “creating a userbox” is “disrupting Wikipedia”. Userboxes always have been and always will be an optional area of Wikipedia, and hidden to most users. Considering that no “real” Wikipedia page has been altered by this, I do not see it disrupting the site.


 * Second, I am NOT saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is racist. I am saying that, if Wikipedia allows divisive userboxes such as “marriage is one man one woman”, then they should also allow divisive userboxes like mine. Wikipedia says it does not allow divisive userboxes, but it clearly does. So the decision should be made: Do we allow ALL divisive userboxes, or NO divisive userboxes?


 * Third, nowhere does it state that you must agree with a userbox to create it. Many users create similar userboxes in a variety of political beliefs to cater to most people. Whether or not this userbox agrees with my personal beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted.


 * Of course this userbox is divisive. But it is no more, nor no less, divisive than the many userboxes opposing same-sex marriage. I can see no reasonable argument as to why it should be deleted but they be allowed to remain, unless Wikipedia is to declare that gender-identity discrimination is somehow more acceptable than racial discrimination. Someone opposing interracial marriage has just as much right to display their beliefs as someone opposing same-sex marriage.


 * Lastly, I say KEEP. Either all divisive userboxes should be deleted, or none should. There is no Wikipedia standard which says gender discrimination is more acceptable than racial discrimination. littlebum2002 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We specifically account for that argument. If you think that other userboxes are inflammatory and divisive then take that up with those templates: creating your own divisive template to make a point only causes more antagonism. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I make the request that this be removed out of consideration for deletion. The issue of divisive userboxes has been already raised numerous times (for instance here and here, among numerous others), and for me to do so again would simply waste everyone's time. The consensus will remain the same: there is no consensus. I see no reason why the debate on mine would be any different. Anyone who opposes divisive userboxes, for whatever reason, would almost certainly oppose mine, and anyone who supports them, for whatever reason, would almost certainly support mine. If you read these archives, you will see why I say this: most arguments discuss simply whether divisive userboxes are appropriate or not. Only very few address the actual subject in the userbox itself. Therefore, the subject in the userbox is irrelevant, and the debate is simply whether or not divisive userboxes should exist or not, which, as I said, has occurred numerous times.


 * The only userboxes which have been deleted for divisive reasons are those which personally attack a person or group, or those which present an opinion in an inflammatory way. SInce this does neither, I again say we skip the exact same debate which has occurred countless times and give it a "no consensus" and leave it at that. littlebum2002 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we can let the closing admin decide the consensus once the MfD has had time to be discussed rather than pre-empt the discussion less than 36 hours in. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete because this is a userbox that apparently nobody wants to use. It was created almost a year ago but it is transcluded onto exactly zero userpages, nor does it reflect the views of its own creator. I don't see how it helps anything to maintain this userbox. If the userbox creator wanted to create another userbox that stated his actual views, that would be a different story. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see when I am in the minority, and I can see when I have made a bad judgement. Perhaps I did, in fact, cross the line of Wikipedia's guidelines when trying to prove a point. While I still believe that all divisive userboxes should be treated the same, and not allowed only if the divisive opinion contained is a popular one, I believe changing the userbox is the best course of action for me to take. SO I have modified this userbox so that it does, in fact, correspond with my beliefs, is a sentiment expressed by a fair number of people, and may actually be used in the pages of users in the future. I hope this change can settle this matter. littlebum2002 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Close MfD as moot. The content of the userbox has now been changed from "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman of the same race" to "This user believes that telling someone what gender they can marry is no different than telling them what race they can marry". Since the userbox now expresses the userbox creator's views, my earlier recommendation no longer applies. If any editor still wants this userbox to be deleted despite the complete change of content, they can renominate it on different grounds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the content has changed, it seems slightly pointless to carry on with this. I withdraw this MfD nomination. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments - I'm of two minds here, and the closing admin, I'm sure, will weigh my opinions accordingly.
 * First, XfD should not be a place to determine consensus. By that I mean, XfD should ask what our policies are (and apply them accordingly). Especially MfD (which is generally low-traffic) should not be used to determine what our consensus should be.
 * That being said, my second point is this: Political Userboxen are inherently divisive. In fact, every Userbox (save "This user is a Wikipedian" or the like) is divisive. It says that I am either included in or excluded from a group, and that makes me unique. But clearly some Userboxen are acceptable, and some are not. "This User supports Manchester United FC" is, by all accounts, okay. "This users supports the social policies of the North American Man-Boy Love Association" is, by most accounts, not ok.
 * When dealing with Userboxen, the question shouldn't be "Is the opinion expressed here a. Legal, b. Acceptable, c. Reflexive?" Those are three tests that I'd propose. NAMBLA is an organization that, in the State of Florida, it may be counter to the law to be an "active" member of. Acceptable is trickier, but I know we've recently removed Userboxen that talk about National Socialism, I'd be in favor of removing overtly sexual Userboxen, etc. There is some grey, but cooler heads can prevail and a rational line can be drawn in the sand.
 * Reflexive is the easiest one to demonstrate (and, in my opinion, where this box runs counter to what we should do). Does the box explain details about the User or the Reader. Essentially, this page reads "Users who disagree with me, personally, are not-good people". I know it doesn't exactually say that and there might be valid, rational, legal arguments against miscegenation (though I've never, personally, heard any) and a Userbox saying "This user believes that marriage should be between one white man and one white woman" would probably be removed. But the connotation is there. The only reason to make that statement is to ask the reader to re-evaluate hir opinions on same-sex marriage after being called a racist.
 * Ok, so that long-winded response being said, (and the WP:WAX and WP:POINT issues brought up notwithstanding) I firmly believe that any change in Userbox policy needs to happen in a broader spectrum and, unfortunately, this box, as well as "This User recognizes the kind of marriage his/her parents entered into as the only valid kind of marriage", while being hosted in Userspace, is in keeping with out current procedures on Userbox migration. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think it is as simple as I said above. And XfD is one of the best places to accumulate evidence of policy in practice. Similar userboxes mentioned above are welcome to be discussed at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Butthurt much? GTFO. Keep. SkyBon (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2012 (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.