Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/YesTorture

Going to tack this here because it's only tangential to the matter at hand. {{re|Dronebogus|MarshallKe}} I'm not really inclined to start an RfC on this myself, but if either of you plans to, here's a slightly more detailed version of what I said in my !vote, framed as an addition to WP:UBCR. {{tq2|1=

==== Political userboxes ====

Userboxes expressing membership in political parties, branches of political parties, or organizations affiliated with political parties are presumed to be acceptable, although this presumption may be rebutted at Miscellany for deletion in exceptional cases. Such userboxes should plainly state membership in terms like "is a member of", "supports", or "votes with"; excessive displays of partisan loyalty and criticisms of other parties should be reworded as needed, or the userboxes deleted.

Large, abstract movements like conservatism, socialism, and veganism are treated akin to political parties. Userboxes expressing support for any other sort of ideological movement or ideology-based organization are considered acceptable if they foster collegiality more than they risk causing disruption. Such determinations may be made on a case-by-case basis at Miscellany for deletion.

Userboxes that take a stance on a particular political issue, cause, or active politician are presumed unacceptable. Limited exceptions may be made for issues related to the work of building an encyclopedia, such as copyright or freedom of speech; issues that are extremely unlikely to cause disruption; and abstract support for a particular group's rights.

}}

(The correct spelling, of course, is userboxen, but sadly the guideline gets it wrong.)

The last bit, as worded, would make "This user supports gay rights" okay but "This user supports same-sex marriage" not, which I think is the only way to do it that doesn't open itself up to gaming. Because one could strike the "abstract", but then "This user supports a parent's right to beat their children" becomes okay while the opposite isn't? Or is the opposite okay as long as it's "a child's right to not be beaten"? But then aren't they both subtextually opposing a right, and oughtn't both be removed? And then there's certainly those who would say that even a broad "This user supports trans rights" in fact infringes on Christian rights, or that a broad "This user supports religious rights" infringes on LGBTQ+ rights, but those statements being abstract makes the rebuttals harder to sell. Hence why I think it's better to just draw the line at "abstract okay, concrete not". (The two obvious exceptions needn't be stated explicitly, I think.)

The one complicated bit of line-drawing is when does a movement 'box became an issue one? If I add "This user supports the Society to Enact a Very Particular Law", that's essentially an issue 'box. But I worry that adding an explicit line to that effect could be taken the wrong way. There are some movements that might be characterized as single-issue due to how society perceives them, but in fact are not.

Anyways, yeah. Make of that what y'all will. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Very interesting. I can imagine a "slider" that is currently set in the center to "inflammatory or divisive", and all the way to the left would be "everything is permitted", all the way to the right would be "any expression unrelated to Wikipedia", halfway towards the right might be "all political userboxes", and what you've wrote is like moving the slider just a couple of notches to the right. While on principle I feel that it would be most fair to not have any political expression at all, since adding qualifications always results in suppressing minority views more than mainstream views, which is something that is morally repugnant to me, I feel that what you've written is perhaps as "fair" as it's realistically going to get on Wikipedia in the current culture.

:

:You are "right" to bring up the phenomenon where perceived rights necessarily come with responsibilities, and usually infringe upon other perceived rights. For example, in the 1960s the world observed that property rights infringe upon civil rights, so we decided to compromise with the Civil Rights act of 1964. Along the same lines, socialists/communists believe that property rights are entirely immoral and infringe upon the collective's right to own the means of production. People who are anti-abortion perceive abortion rights to infringe upon a human being's right to life, and people who are pro-choice perceive anti-abortion laws to infringe upon bodily autonomy.

:

:With that said, I still suspect with your wording we will have fewer tit-for-tat MfDs that contribute to adversity rather than building an encyclopedia, and that's really the best we can hope for here. MarshallKe (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)