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: no rough consensus to delete. Substantive policy-based arguments in this discussion focused mostly on WP:UBX's prohibition of inflammatory or substantially divisive userboxes. Some editors in support of deleting the page either simply assert that the infobox is substantially inflammatory. Dronebogus argued that torture is inherently incompatible with human dignity, citing the UDHR, and thus argued that support for torture in some circumstances inherently meets the "substantially inflammatory or divisive" guideline. Tamzin expressed a general preference for deleting all political userboxes, though expresses skepticism at deleting particular userboxes containing views within the scope of reasonable people. Others argue that abstract support for torture, per se, is not substantially inflammatory or divisive; they find it to be an academically arguable position that does not specifically target any specific group or person. The nominator pointed to WP:NONAZIS, but didn't explain why, and editors who responded to that point secifically did not think that the essay applies in this scope. The nominator also pointed at WP:UCOC but did not make an argument as to why this userbox was prohibited in that light, rendering it a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Viewing the strength of these arguments in light of Wikipedia's policies, editors did not achieve a rough consensus to delete the userbox. As a result, the userbox should not be deleted at this time. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/YesTorture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Um… no. WP:NONAZIS, WP:UCOC, WP:UBX (“inflammatory or divisive”) and general “WTF is wrong with you”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Inflammatory and divisive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inflammatory and divisive, but I disagree with the misuse of WP:NONAZIS. WP:NONAZIS is meant to prevent people entering the community who would be unwilling to collaborate with someone else because they see them as racially/ethnically/genderically (is that even a word?)/religiously inferior and therefore not worth their time. This userbox is not going to have an effect on collaboration, especially sense they don't have any racial, misogynist, religious, or ethnic beliefs expressed here. WP:NONAZIS is being used outside of its original point as just a method of filtering out beliefs that an editor doesn't like, which just happen to align with nazism even though they're used outside of that point of view (for example, the ultra-egalitarianism of communist regimes, or the USA's treatment of suspected terrorists during the war on terror with "enhanced interrogation techniques"). Overall, this userbox expresses way too wide of a view to be identified with any sort of collaboration issue. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like NONAZIS could be expanded, or a new template should be created, to mean “no messed-up extremism”, and could apply to basically anything that encourages the extreme debasement of human dignity and life like “this user thinks women are property” “this user supported operation condor” “this user thinks Pol Pot did nothing wrong” (though Pol Pot was pretty racist so he’d probably count under current guidelines) etc. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're free to write your own essay like NONAZIS. It's not like you're writing policy. MarshallKe (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Intentionally inflammatory and edgy. Curbon7 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No evidence has been provided by Delete-voting editors that division or inflammation has occurred. The "WTF is wrong with you" comment by the proposer suggests this is about censoring disliked speech rather than enforcing policy. MarshallKe (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MarshallKe, we’ve been over this. You’ve established that your view on the subject is essentially “don’t like don’t read” which isn’t how it works on Wikipedia. If a box is likely to come across as an attempt at inflammation (whether intentionally or not) then it needs to go. Dronebogus (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a gross mischaracterization of my argument, and I recommend you strike it out. "Likely to come across as an attempt at inflammation" is not the userbox standard. "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive" is. My position has always been that verifiable proof of substantial inflammation or division is necessary to meet this standard. MarshallKe (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy is so vague we’re both pretty much legitimate in our views, which is why we need a stronger and clearer policy on this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment in hopes that nominator and others can get a clue: This is a positively mainstream view on the order of 30 to 50%, and you can verify this fact by looking up Gallup polls. The fact that you find this offensive is irrelevant because policy doesn't say that we can remove user content just because somebody finds it offensive, or even if the majority of Wikipedia finds it offensive. "Substantially divisive and inflammatory" is a high bar that mere offense does not meet. The idea that editors are sent into a fit of rage by the mere reminder that some people believe torture is sometimes justified is actually very insulting to the maturity of the people in the Wikipedia community. We are not this fragile. MarshallKe (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  MashallKe, your tone is getting into insult territory. It doesn’t matter how popular torturing people for “good” reasons is in America (as implied by the Gallup ref). Most people in, say, Ethiopia view homosexuality as vile and unacceptable but that doesn’t mean we tolerate “this user despises gays” boxes either. Torture is an insult to human dignity that goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, see: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights), to say nothing of Wikipedia’s basic demands for civility and respect towards other human beings. Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sometimes justified"? That's an opinion I've heard expressed by some pretty reasonable minds, e.g. Richard Posner according to Ticking time bomb scenario § Views in favor of accepting torture in emergencies. I don't see this as significantly more divisive or inflammatory than, say, pro-choice or pro-life userboxen, which in the eyes of their opponents are respectively either pro-murder or pro-nonconsensual-pregnancy. The obvious solution is we should delete all or most userboxen about political issues. (Personally I'd favor drawing a line at "This user is a member of the X Party" is OK [obvious exceptions aside], "This user supports the X movement" reviewed case-by-case, and "This user believes/supports X" disallowed [with maybe an exception for beliefs related to building an encyclopedia, like "... believes in freedom of speech" or "supports copyright abolition", assuming we're okay with allowing the opposite viewpoints too].) But this is a debate the community's been having 15 years, and probably won't get resolved anytime soon. So until there's a consensus to ban all political userboxen, keep this one, although I wouldn't oppose renaming to something other than "YesTorture", since that's not the sentiment the 'box conveys. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Jimbo's opinion that we can agree decentrally that political userboxes don't belong here had caught on, but a centralized discussion and push for ban would be the next best bet. I'm considering starting a Village Pump discussion about it after I research and document the history of this conflict. MarshallKe (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tamzin‘s proposal. It’s very thoughtful, considerate, and careful not to swing wildly to pro-politics or anti-politics. Dronebogus (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The concept of torture is not universally inflammatory or divisive. WP:NONAZIS doesn't really apply here per Plutonical. I don't really see the need for all of the "userbox cleansing" going on lately. With some obvious exceptions, we don't need to rid Wikipedia of belief systems that don't match our own. In many cases, it's beneficial (from an editing perspective) to know about a user's extreme biases. Disallowing someone from posting a userbox about X isn't going to change their views on X. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Tamzin and Scottywong. It espouses support for a contentious but relatively-popular position that does not specifically or inflammatorily target any group or person, Wikipedian or otherwise. Finding a userbox's position offensive or extremist does not make it immediately liable for deletion IMO. Sanix (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject to it leading to an actual problem. It is an academically arguable position, and it is part of a self-description from a single user-persona. To the extent that it is not OK, ignore it per WP:DENY. To the extent that it has any value, such as serving to declare an editor POV, "Keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So does deletion of this ubx mean that it's okay and NPOV not to delete this user's complementary ubx? I think if we delete this one, then that one should go, too. Since when did Wikipedians start living in a black and white world? Isn't gray truth? and truth gray? Tear it up. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:10, 10 March 2022 (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.