The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was No consensus. I have some doubts on the appropriateness of these userboxes for userspace. Arguments that anti-boxes are often a worse idea than pro-boxes are strong. Expansions of CSD T1 to include userspace transclusions have, however, been clearly rejected by the community and I must take this into account when considering the arguments for speedy deletion per CSD T1. IronGargoyle 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic[edit]

Renominating, as the userbox is excessively divisive (I'm never going to join your religion, because it is false). Flamgirlant 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous xfd

Also nominating:

These "not" templates are not only divisive, but also rather useless. If someone puts a template which says "This user is a member of religion X", then it is implicit that he is not a member of any other religion. The only purpose of these userboxes is to show a vendetta towards the religion. And that is how the userboxes have been used, most particularly the NotMuslim one.

Delete, per reasons above.--Flamgirlant 11:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as contrary to the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content. Describe what or who you are, not what or who you are not. - jc37 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they set a really miserable precedent for other potential userboxes. What will we have next? This user is not a Martian, or a rakshasha, or a demon from hell, or any number of other ridiculous, potentially counterproductive things? Let's nip this potentially troublesome precedent here and now. There is at least a potential utility for such userboxes. If, for instance, I wanted to say that I was a Saudi citizen, but not a Muslim, or some other similar am/not situations. But these userboxes fall well short of supplying that sort of potentially useful information. John Carter 13:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Bertrand Russel could write a book about why he was not a Christian, why not a userbox? --Itub 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion In the earlier discussion, I opted to keep because, if it doesn't bother me that you're not Jewish (and I am), I don't see why it should bother anyone. Now I'm not so sure. I think a reasoable compromise would allow the two or three users who have these templates on their userpages to subst them, but delete the templates from further use. YechielMan 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Why are we doing this again? Was there some problem with the first MFD? Has there been some significant change to policy? This almost seems in bad faith -- the previous MFD was properly executed, had strong participation, and was properly closed with a clear consensus. Once again, there is no reason to censor userboxen. If a user wants to say he's not christian/jewish/muslim, who cares? Censorship is teh bad. /Blaxthos 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I don't care if they're in userspace, they still can fall under T1 as the intent is for transclusion. Will ^(talk) 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I tried to nominate these once anonymously, and the result surprised me as keep. If the community has decided not to even allow categories of such things, then this is clearly divisive and inflammatory. For all the stated reasons above - per jc37, uncivil, etc. The problem doesn't lie in "it doesn't bother me if you're not X religion like me", the problem is that the point of the userbox is to deride X religion. The Evil Spartan 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello, I am the creator of these userboxes. This topic has already been discussed here. Has Wikipedia's deletion policy changed since the last discussion? Why is the result of the previous discussion invalid?
These boxes are not intended to be divisive nor are they divisive. These boxes do not radiate ill-will towards others; they do not imply hatred of religion or of those who follow a religion. Their purpose is simply to inform wikiusers that the user does not follow any of the world's major religions and that they do not intend to ever do so. I could create a userbox that states that I have no religious beliefs whatsoever (or would that too be considered divisive and inflammatory?)
Furthermore, if these userboxes are divisive and inflammatory then so are these userboxes:

This user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism.

insults creationists.

User:UBX/antifeminism

Explicitly against feminism

And there are many more userboxes like them. selfworm^Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?--Flamgirlant 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the discussions in the previous AfD. I really don't think deleting these is helpful, and saying "I am not X" is not the same as saying "X is bad". DES ^(talk) 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all on the condition that "and never will be" is removed. Keep the anti-feminism userbox period; it is just as fine to be anti-feminist as to be feminist. Delete flying spaghetti monster. — $PЯINGrαgђ 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep. As xaosflux noted in closing the last discussion, "User space is generally given a wide range of latitude." User:Warlordjohncarter and Candy-Panda expressed that there may be situations where it may be helpful in making the encyclopedia for a user to clarify that they are not a member of a certain religion (for example, if they edit many articles related to it), which I agree with. I think that understanding each other (especially our potential biases) can only improve the product we create. I disagree with Flamgirlant's assertion that stating membership in one religion implies non-membership in others, but at the same time find it irrelevant as one may want to state non-membership without wanting to state membership. Finally, I don't myself find these to be inherently divisive, but I agree with User:Springeragh that removing the "and never will be" portion would probably make these more palatable to their opponents. — The Storm Surfer 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It has been discussed and there was consensus for keep, but consensus can change and there is, I think, general consensus for the phrase above, "Describe what or who you are, not what or who you are not", and I think that should apply here. What you are is a basis for collaboration. What you are not is not a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I was the admin involved in closing this the last time, though if the issue is with the wording, these should be able to be refactored, no? To the nom: as far as them being pseudo-templates, if people with these boxes had that statement on their userpage as a text line, would you be opening up user-conduct-rfc's on the users? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. But now that you say it, what will happen if an RfC like that does happen? — $PЯINGrαgђ 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I personally would have brought it up on ANI or something first. But since we are dealing with userboxen here, and because they were previously nom'd, I put it up again. We already have enough factionalism when people describe what they are; who knows what can of worms will open if we let people divide themselves based on what they aren't? People in general oppose things more than they do support things. Someone who identifies as "This user is not and will never be pro-choice" will frequently be solicited for "their input" on certain issues (and believe me, this happens). It flips WP:AGF on its head.--Flamgirlant 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment: Take for example this mfd. I notified every single active user who participated in the previous mfd. However, there are some Wikipedians who only notify users who are sympathetic to their views. How do they know they are sympathetic to their views? Userboxes. Many times I have seen "Hi, I saw your userpage and I was wondering if you could support my POV on article X"... if I had a dime for every time...--Flamgirlant 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A penny every time would make me a rich man. — $PЯINGrαgђ 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment hehe.--Flamgirlant 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Discussion prior to this time were made without this discussion being transcluded on WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing divisive about these templates--Sefringle^Talk 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is fair to point out that you are currently using the notmuslim template, and also you had a related earlier userbox that was divisive and inflammatory and was speedily deleted. Care to explain?--Flamgirlant 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I also can't help but notice that you have nominated several other userboxes as well. Care to clarify your stance on this issue? Thanks.--Flamgirlant 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not entitled to my opinion because I have the userbox in my userspace? Those other templates are actually inflammatory, unlike these ones.--Sefringle^Talk 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as my stomach churns at some of this stuff, the UBX wars were ended on the principle of the German solution. Rekindling it is a bad thing ... so keep. --BigDT 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, ridiculously divisive, inflammatory and soapboxing. Please see WP:NOT. They can be construed as offensive. WP:CSD#T1 applies when content is transcluded and used as templates. Userspace shouldn't be used as a means to get around T1. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All via CSD T1. Now, before you lynch me, please allow me to explain. CSD T1 was created in order to prevent userboxes such as this one from existing. However, when the userbox wars were underway, people moved all the userboxes to the User namespace, in an effort to skirt a policy they knew their userboxes violated. In essence, any page created to be used as a template--regardless of what namespace it is in--is a template. While this userbox may not be in the template namespace, it is a template, and thus CSD T1 applies. In regards to whether or not it actually is divisive, the fact that the community is divided over that fact is pretty evident. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a complete and total rewrite of history. The German Userbox solution was imposed on the pro-UBX crowd, not suggested by it. It was never even a suggestion that T1 would apply to userfied userboxes - T1 was all about keeping unencyclopedic content out of encyclopedic space. --BigDT 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - T1 has been as still is about keeping unencyclopedic content out of templates. Just because they're in userspace doesn't make them any less of a template. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, you are welcome to your opinion on the appropriateness of userboxes in userspace, but to say that people started trying to game the system by moving userboxes out of template space is just plain false - it didn't happen that way. I have neither the time nor the desire to debate whether something being transcluded is a template. I only say this: (1) the German userbox solution has kept the peace for a year - rekindling the UBX wars is an all around bad idea and (2) Jimbo imposed T1 himself [1] and later said that the issue was having them in "official" namespaces [2] - in other words, the problem is Wikipedia: and template: space and the standard of tolerance in user: space is much higher. --BigDT 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -If it really had said, "because it's false", then that'd easily push it over the edge. As it is, it may not be terribly helpful, but it certainly isn't inflammatory. It doesn't directly insult or attack catholocism (merely express an opinion that nobody asked for). A little lattitude here. Bladestorm 11:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a free web host for soap boxing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator: divisive and inflammatory userboxes. Acalamari 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we just had an mfd on these (see their talk pages). They are not divisive. Just because ~~you~~ don't like the opinion listed in them. Divisive and inflammatory means so bad they give wikipedia a bad name. These hardly do that. -N 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the "you" from my above comment per below. I perhaps should have said "a theoretical individual who would dislike this so much they would nominate it for MfD." -N 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please no personal attacks. This has nothing to do with me.--Flamgirlant 21:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must be obtuse. I can't see how stating that you don't like these userboxes is a personal attack. -N 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You said that I don't like the opinion listed in them. That is a personal attack because you are putting words in my mouth.--Flamgirlant 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I misinterpreted "the userbox is excessively divisive" as meaning you don't like the userbox. I guess my 99th percentile reading level is too low. -N 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What? You said "you don't like the opinion listed in them". When did I say that I don't like the opinion expressed in the boxes? --Flamgirlant 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My mistake. -N 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on User:Selfworm See folks, this is exactly what I mean when I say userboxes are bad.--Flamgirlant 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem--Sefringle^Talk 07:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. BigDT makes a good point and even though I'm personally not too crazy about any of those userboxes (I also fail to see the point but that's hardly relevant in this context) I don't consider them excessively divisive either. There's a point, in my humble opinion, when when we take political correctness just a bit too far and this criterion (divisiveness) is a bit vague anyway. I have, for instance, a vim-related UBX on my userpage -- it's pretty clear that I like vi(m) which in turn must mean that I don't like emacs, right? And, yes, I do realize that there's a difference between broadcasting one's religious beliefs and one's preference in editors. There is also a procedural component to this !vote. I don't mean any offense but personally, I expect at least a brief explanation with regard to what has changed since the last MFD. Otherwise, it just looks a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- S ^up? 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added User:Selfworm/NotAtheist userbox. Also, am I allowed to vote in this discussion? selfworm^Talk) 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't really a vote. It's a discussion to determine consensus. Any member of the community in good standing can participate in the discussion but it's generally considered accepted practice that any areas where a possible conflict of interest may arise, be noted as such. -- S ^up? 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This are innocuous. It is not insulting a [ ] to say you are not a [ ] and do not intend to become one. If they really wish to convert you, it won't even keep them away. Anything that is not actually an insult is OK in a user box. DGG 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Polemic userboxes are divisive. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Divisive, fails to advance the encyclopedic mission in any way, and come on - we've already got way too many UBX's detailing what users are. Now we need them detailing the infinite number of things which users are not and will never be? How about "This user is not, and never will be, able to dunk a basketball"? MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is tiresome to have to repeat this, but userspace is not a platform for partisan pronouncements. This material does nothing to advance the project.Proabivouac 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is important for Wikipedians to be able to express their religious views on their user pages. All religions should have such boxes, as opposed to just Islam. Padishah5000 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They can express their religious views, i.e. with "This user is Muslim" or "This user is Catholic". This particular userbox seems to serve no purpose other than expressing disapproval of other peoples' religion. I don't see how that can possibly be constructive or advance the encyclopedic mission, and I think the one opposing Islam in similar terms should also be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please just leave users alone. Trying to purge all userboxes that express a religious or political opinion from WP despite the WP:UBM compromise is going to cause much more pain than it is worth. —Ashley Y 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these and anything similar. -- Visviva 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these userboxes could be useful for someone who wants to say they are Jewish but not part of the Jewish religion, similar if someone is Arab and wants to specify they are not part of the Muslim religion. --Candy-Panda 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Userspace doesn't have to be NPOV, there's nothing wrong with the userboxen, precedent, I don't see any reason for a deletion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We had the userbox migration to solve these problems. Let it go. You wouldn't delete a userpage if a user wrote that on their page, so don't delete the template. —METS501 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per MastCell and Proabivouac. ITAQALLAH 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an innocuous way for users to express their stances. These stances influence editing to a greater or lesser degree. Arrow740 05:18, 28 June 2007 (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.