Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies

Add links
From 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. Although we may debate about the mutual exclusivity of different religions and viewpoints, this does not alter the consensus that the wording of this userbox is disparaging to another viewpoint (i.e. fails the criteria that userbox material not be "inflammatory or divisive"). As a personal note, I know I would be offended myself if the link pointed to my own religion, Christianity. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Template555/Lies[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userbox problem?. I'm of the opinion that this is an inappropriate and borderline offensive userbox, and I'm therefore bringing this MfD so that the community can discuss whether or not it's appropriate for inclusion.

I'd also appreciate it if people look at the contributions of User:Template555 and decide whether or not the account may be an undeclared sock/dual account of another user. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As I stated in the ANI discussion, I feel that the userbox would be fine if it was just text, but because it directly maligns a belief, it should be deleted. We shouldn't start allowing userboxes that are deprecatory toward beliefs or religions. The user should, instead, focus on userboxes that say good things about their own beliefs and not try to be rude toward other people's beliefs. SilverserenC 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - declaring that somone elses beliefs/value system are "lies" is disruptive and inappropriate. (if the box simply contained the word "lies" without the piped link to "atheism" it would be OK, but that is clearly not the intent.) Active Banana (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A userbox which simply said: Keep your lies to yourself might be appropriate but the specific religious connotations of the link and the photograph mark this out as inflammatory. There's no reason to keep something which can only lead to conflict on WP. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this box falls under the category of "inflammatory or divisive". -- Atama頭 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessarily provacative for no good reason. Exxolon (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my explanation at ANI. This box casts unwarranted aspersions on fellow editors and is clearly inflammatory. AJCham 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atama. Kcowolf (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inflammatory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not conducive to improving the project. --John (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I realize this is going to be a snow close as delete, but I just don't see what's inflammatory about this userbox. If one was to put it on someone else's user page, sure, but userboxes generally go on one's own page, where it makes a general kind of curmudgeonly statement acknowledging that everyone lies. As for not improving the project: that describes most (if not all) userboxes; this one is no more or less counterproductive than all the others. (I'd support a general deletion of all userboxes that don't have an extremely specific purpose regarding Wikipedia: i.e. language skills, topics of interest, etc.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it making a statement that "everyone lies", when it has a piped link directly to Atheism through the word "lies"? It's making a statement that Atheism is a lie, which is maligning other people's beliefs. SilverserenC 05:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that the word "lie" does not always require intentional deceit but just something untrue. In addition, both atheism and theism cannot both logically be true. So if someone says "I'm catholic" or "I'm atheist" in a userbox they must believe that the other is wrong/a liar/dumb etc. (right?). I do prefer that users try not to be rude though. God can't both exist and not exist (or can he!?) EdEColbertLet me know 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God is an existentialist. He creates, therefore he is. :P SilverserenC 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg everyone's pardon, the link to atheism escaped me. Well, since with that link the editor makes a specific statement about a specific group rather than a general statement about all humanity, I will change my !vote. to Delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is a close call as to whether this is inappropriate because the opinion could be stated in a more polite way. The user could just say that he thinks a belief in atheism is incorrect or false. But I don't think this is "inflammatory" or "disruptive." It's not going to disrupt anything people do. I don't think most people read other users' boxes anyway - I normally don't because most of them are not true like this one. EdEColbertLet me know 05:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might I note that this is a fallacy of sweeping generalizations. Just because some people are not disrupted/offended or just because some people don't look at user boxes doesn't mean that all do and, realistically, you can't even prove the "most" in your statement. It is just as likely to assume that most people do read userboxes. SilverserenC 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but someone is almost always offended by something. The policy should be to delete only when a reasonable number of people are likely to be offended, in lieu of some objective standard of offensiveness, and not to delete just because a small number of people might be or are offended. Certainly we would not want a userbox requirement where every user has to not be offended before it is allowed. The userbox-reading comment can be discounted as unprovable, but my point is that users seem to go out of their way to get all into a huff about other people's userboxes and they should just try respecting opinions and ignoring even if the other user is not willing to do so. That is not WP consensus, just only my opinion, and other users should feel free to make a userbox saying I or my opinion is dumb because I don't and should not care. :) EdEColbertLet me know 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"So if someone says "I'm catholic" or "I'm atheist" in a userbox they must believe that the other is wrong/a liar/dumb etc." No. Just because I have one belief and someone else has another does not mean that I must think they are dumb/liar or even necessarily wrong. All it must mean when I say that "I believe X" is that "I believe X". Active Banana (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that if someone believes that there is a God then they aren't logically also going to believe that someone who believes there is no God is correct. Anyhow, instead of "must" meaning 100% of the time, I will revise this to be 99% of the time, since I did quip above that God could exist and not exist at the same time, or maybe this is all a dream so there is no such thing as right or wrong, or direct illogical contradictions, or Wikipedia... EdEColbertLet me know 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I don't really care about this specifically; I happen to see an issue down the road with something more "inflammatory/offensive".  ℳono  05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We no longer delete inflammatory or divisive userboxes per this MfD. Note that that MfD was regarding the implicit accusation of policy subversion by a wikiproject while this MfD rests on the notion that an Atheist would care about the relative views of their veracity by deists, by the law of excluded middle, clearly they both consider each other misled, so what? Unomi (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between saying that you think the actions of a group on Wikipedia is subversive, from their actions on Wikipedia. Which, realistically, is unimportant. And then you have this userbox, which is clearly calling a belief "lies". I hesitate to call Atheism a major belief in the world, but I believe it is at this point.
You really can't compare that other MfD and this one. The subject is entirely and distinctly different. SilverserenC 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale is the same, that the contents of the userbox are not consistent with the goals of the userboxes (which I understand to be in building social cohesion and fostering a positive editing environment). If we accept that it is 'ok' to malign members of a wikiproject, who btw are largely identifiable as such. Why are we concerned about an userbox containing what is largely an implicit comment made by those who hold a different faith than Atheism? That is to say, any faith inherently assumes the false nature of another, incompatible, faith. We might as well rail against 1 ≠ 2 . Unomi (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I would have voted delete in that MfD as well. I'm a member of the Article Rescue Squadron. Just because a form of "consensus" was established in that MfD doesn't mean that we can't overturn it here. Or do you think that this sort of consensus is right? You shouldn't be going along with a consensus if you disagree with it. As you can see here, a lot of people think this should be deleted and we have the opportunity to turn this thing around so that we clearly make precedent that, no, this sort of thing is not allowed. SilverserenC 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of thing was never allowed. If I am to compare that MfD and this one then the one before us looks more like a joke. I doubt there are many devout Atheists who would do more than smirk, and conversely the sentiment and attitude expressed goes against the grain of most religions that I am aware. If anything it reads as ironic commentary, which is probably best understood if it were inverted. Unomi (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a bigger deal, do you think, if it linked to Christianity rather than Atheism? SilverserenC 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it precisely does link to Christianity. Nor am I particularly adhering to the notion that it is not a big deal, merely trying to point out that established community norms are such that expressing a divisive opinion is allowed. Unomi (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Unomi has the right !vote here, but his rationale is passive-aggressive and misguided, which is all but expected from him. He's clearly still upset about the way the MfD on my userbox ended up, and so even though he thinks this userbox should be deleted, he's going to childishly vote to keep it in an attempt to make a point that other userboxes have been kept which (he thinks) are equally divisive. SnottyWong communicate 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember our no personal attacks policy and try to remain civil. I'm afraid, with your comment, you have overstepped the line on both of them. SilverserenC 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is mostly right. I don't know that it is childish to try draw attention to precedents which makes the current MfD deletion rationale problematic, obviously I hope that we can revisit the previous MfD in order to maintain a clearer delineation between what is acceptable and what is not. To the extent that I am able, I free SnottyWong of any obligation to refrain from personal attacks towards myself, his presence is more offensive than his words ever could be. Unomi (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there is some sort of negative relationship between you two that I am ignorant of. I'll stay out of it. On a separate note, I wouldn't mind going back to the previous MfD about the ARS userbox, but I think doing one now would be seen as disruptive. SilverserenC 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Userboxes are for user opinions. If you don't like the opinion, don't look at the user box, and don't put it on your user page. I'm an Atheist (technically, a Pastafarian), and I couldn't care less about this userbox. I'd support a corresponding userbox that says "Keep your religion to yourself". I think it's far more dangerous to set a precedent whereby we decide what opinions people are allowed to express than it is to allow this userbox to remain. Keep in mind that while this user's opinion is that atheists are liars, it doesn't mean that they actually are liars. If you're so overly sensitive to people's opinions that such a comment personally insults you, then well, that's your problem. SnottyWong converse 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Userboxes are for user opinions" What is your basis for that belief? WP:USERBOX states that they are to help users collaborate. Active Banana (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed what WP:USERBOX says, however in practice that is not only what userboxes are used for. The vast majority of userboxes either express a user's opinions or identifies something personal about a user's personality. For instance, how do any of these userboxes (here, here, and here) help users collaborate? SnottyWong chatter 18:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who knows about a band a plant or a sexual orientation can be used as a sounding board to determine whether content and claims related to a band a plant or a sexual orientation are in fact being used and presented in articles in in appropriate ways. They can be recruited into appropriate Wikiprojects. Etc. Someone who is calling atheists liars is not showing any potential to be a useful collaborator. Active Banana (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And deleting their userbox will not make them one. But we should still be welcoming to users who do not wish to collaborate with other users at all but might still make valuable contributions to new page patrol or something like that. EdEColbertLet me know 06:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner." - one of the 5 Pillars - if they cannot participate without calling other editors liars, we probably do not need them. And while removing an un-civil userbox will not make an un-civil editor civil, we should NOT be supporting their incivility. Active Banana (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all the above. Calling another's religious beliefs lies is nothing but inflammatory, and does not help the project in the least.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, users are entitled to their opinions. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But - and I'm playing devil's advocate here - are they entitled to voice those opinions no matter the circumstances? In addition, Stifle (sysop to sysop) what do you think of the account it's hosted under? Seems to be a sock? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are entitled to voice their opinions to the extent that they do not disrupt the encyclopedia, and I think this one falls narrowly on the permissible side of the line. I am unable to determine with any reliability whether the user is a sock or not. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - off-topic + slightly inflammatory = delete. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as usual for userboxes for me. I'd rather have their opinion expressed on their user page than edit articles like atheism with an undeclared bias. Yes, this userbox is more confrontational than it could be, but I don't think it crosses the line (obviously, many here disagree). Essentially, the userbox is saying that the user believes that atheists hold untrue beliefs, which is a perfectly valid thing to have in a userbox. The word "lies" certainly has some negative connotations, but again, I don't think it crosses the line into "inflammatory" territory. And honostly, if the user did tone down the userbox, then we wouldn't understand from it how much he really dislikes atheists' views. Userboxes shouldn't be inflammatory, but they also shouldn't resort to soft tones because someone might not like it. Buddy431 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, the userbox doesn't simply say that atheists hold untrue beliefs. It calls them (us) liars. Not acceptable, and that would apply equally if the link were to some other philosophy, religion, or political persuasion. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user's sole purpose of creating the account, it appears, is to disagree with atheism. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This userbox by the same user also worries me, though I must admit that the language is a bit confusing. It does appear though that the account is an SPI that is set up to disparage atheism. SilverserenC 04:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I value the ability of citizens of what we call free societies to speak freely and voice their opinions, we should be here as wikipedians first and foremost. A key notion is that we eschew partisanship and deny ourselves the urge to WP:SOAPBOX, to my mind wikipedia is increasingly falling victim to both the disputes and the tactics of the 'outside' world as it were, this strikes me as regrettable. Wikipedia is not facebook, it is not a webhost, it is not a soapbox for settling scores or righting perceived wrongs, it is meant to be a humanistic project making available 'Free' information for the present and future population. Many of our behavioral policies make it clear that the end goal is a collegial collaborative editing environment where disputes can be diffused and hopefully resolved rather than pursued. Our userbox policy is no different, I believe it is meant to avail users of means of self-identification and personalization ultimately to allow editors to take ownership and be able to identify themselves as members of the community. Employing userboxes as means of sowing discord, continuing outside disputes or otherwise less than constructive endeavors should, imo, not be entertained as being allowed by the spirit of our policies. Unomi (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can have disagree and have differing views without tearing down the walls of Wikipedia. There is no need for the WikiPolice to tell people what they can't say or think, or which beliefs are inappropriate to express. Wikipedia need not be a utopian oompa-loompa village with chocolate rivers, where everyone is always smiling and happy, and with face-painted midgets doing your chores for you. Deleting this userbox is a slippery slope. If we delete this userbox, then I would like to delete this one, or this one, or especially this one. They are all not entirely positive to different degrees, lightly jabbing another group of people for their beliefs or lack thereof. Where do we draw the line? Here are some more: 1 2 3 4. Which ones stay and which ones go? SnottyWong confabulate 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would be perfectly fine with seeing them all go. People can have outside disagreements all that they want, but they should not bring them here. Deleting the userbox is not a slippery slope, it is the fact that we are even discussing it which points to us having been on a southward trend. Unomi (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (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:Template555/Lies&oldid=1136087342"