Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sugar Bear/Userboxes/user death-expand

User:Sugar Bear/Userboxes/user death-expand

User:Sugar Bear/Userboxes/user death-expand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violation of WP:UP which prohibits promotion of acts of violence. This not only promotes an act of violence but wishes it happen "far more often".

Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence, but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)

—DIYeditor (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, MfD is not for policy development. This is a wedge to crack open the userbox wars truce. Instead, go to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes to develop the policy line on political opinion. The death penalty is legal in many countries. Users are allowed to briefly state their positions on politics, it is even a valid COI declaration. Seeking to delete these userboxes amounts to making people either subst them, or to post their opinions in prose, neither would necessarily be better for the project.

This userbox has many transclusions. If deletion is seriously on the cards, all users transclusions it should be notified. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You are not addressing the guideline I cited, aside from to say this is legal, which is not a provision of the prohibition on advocating acts of violence. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - As per User:SmokeyJoe, the Wikipedia community should not be imposing a culture of political correctness. The death penalty is a political decision by republics, Only a weak keep because this userbox is divisive and non-constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Imposing or not imposing a culture of political correctness is not mentioned in WP:UP but a prohibition on advocating acts of violence is. If you want to talk about divisive, clearly to a victim of China's regime, which is not a republic, this userbox is anything but a harmless advocacy of a democratic process. But that is irrelevant, the guideline as worded makes no exception for "lawful" violence. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not the biggest fan of political userboxes per Robert McClenon, but support for capital punishment is well within the Overton Window at Wikipedia and is not subject to POLEMIC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  Overton Window is not mentioned in WP:UP and I didn't allege it violated POLEMIC. I quoted what it violates. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Such an interpretation of that rule would also preclude userboxes that support euthanasia, for example. Quite a few people believe that capital punishment is just and rightful punishment for society's most heinous criminals, and thus does not constitute "violence" in the sense of what is precluded by the policy. (Similarly, euthanasia involves physical violence in that it results in the patient's death, but the context in which it occurs makes it such that few people would believe that the "no violence" rule would preclude pro-euthanasia userboxes.) Regardless of one's own opinion on the matter, such a view is prevalent, even in the West, to the point where disallowing its expression would constitute an NPOV violation, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

    WP:NPOV is absolutely irrelevant to interpreting WP:UP. NPOV applies to articles. Is an "I support military action against terrorists" userbox allowed? Then is an "I support bombing ISIS" userbox allowed? Then is an "I support bombing the PLO" userbox allowed? If that is allowed, why not an "I support bombing Israel" userbox? Where's the line and what is the standard, and why are they all contrary to the wording of the guideline? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Capital punishment is a matter of domestic public policy, closer to abortion or euthanasia than military strikes on hostile combatants. There is no reason why these userboxes can exist but not this one or other pro-death penalty userboxes. OTHERSTUFF, yes, but I fail to see any meaningful difference between them as they relate to Wikipedia policy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UBCR divisive. Can't imagine any scenario where this userbox aids collaboration between editors. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 20:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I do agree with you that I can't see much use for this userbox, but it's no more (or less) divisive than the various other userboxes for political issues that we at Wikipedia allow, especially for similarly-sensitive issues such as euthanasia or abortion that would in theory also be subject to the "no violence" rule. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• You can imagine it being a POV declaration. It is declaring a belief of the editor, or is it advocating or arguing for others to adopt the belief too? One is recommended, the other is WP:NOT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• I haven't been around long enough to know about the past userbox issues, but it would be my view that if userboxes are intended to " directly or indirectly help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles" - WP:UBX, then political userboxes of any type don't really lead to better collaboration. I'd rather have editors forming opinions on users based on less divise factors than their politics. Are people who agree with you really going to chose to collaborate more with people who share their politics? In my view it just leads division among editors, which can't be a good thing. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is there evidence of division among editors started or exacerbated by this userbox? It has hundreds of transclusions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)