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: keep. Legoktm (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:WebHamster/religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This is even worse than the other one I nominated. WP:Hate is disruptive. It literally could not get clearer than this. If I created a userbox saying "I HATE GAY PEOPLE" I would get blocked and the userbox would get deleted. Which is fair. But someone can do the same thing to religion and its been around for over a decade and lots of people use it? The double standard here is insane and it frustates me.DotesConks (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a general note are we meant to be notifying all transcluders on Userbox MfDs? Although looking at incoming links at least 121 users have this on their page. SK2242 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think not, because that would bias the outcome of this debate heavily toward keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is not determined by vote counting.

  The users being accused here of unacceptable communication on their Userpage have a right to be notified that they are being judged, and, if in good standing, a right to reply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe That is WP:CANVASSING. DotesConks (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Notifying users of a discussion that involves them is not canvassing, but is required.

  To assuage your concern, the notification should be done transparently, naming those affected by the discussion. Of course, those affected are not a random group, and everyone including the closer must understand that those affected by the discussion, the transcluders, are not uninvolved editors. An explicit WP:Ping to each in this discussion will clearly identify the notified involved users. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that discussions like this one basically turn into majority votes. We have policies (e.g., no discriminating against religious editors) and principles (e.g., declaring your own biases is good) and values (e.g., gay people's identities deserve extra protection; religious people's identities don't), but these conflict with each other in this MFD, so there isn't an obvious single right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User:WhatamIdoing, like this? Discussions with many participants? If the discussion becomes large and compressive, WP:CROWD applies, and it looks like it comes down to a vote count? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, "like this" in terms of the subject. Discussions for which one can equally cite WP:NOTFREESPEECH (you don't have the right to advertise your POV here) and WP:NOTCENSORED (you don't have the right to prevent others from advertising their views here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike the naked woman in stilettos, this one can be intellectual on both sides? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe For a user who has been on the site for 19 years, you should know better. You are drawing a partisan audience into the conversation which would obviously vote for what they believe (in this case keeping the userbox). I recommend you read WP:INAPPNOTE. Also with 121 users, notifying all transcluders is sending way too many talk page messages which is another violation specified in the inappropriate notices section under WP:CANVASSING. DotesConks (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You should go to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Notification of transcluders of the MfD-ed userboxes, where this is answered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The case for deletion would be stronger if the userbox singled out an individual religion, and one could argue that this userbox only attacks a belief system rather than individuals, but its potential to offend outweighs its value for self-expression. Its hard to make an userbox about religion not polemical. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I don't like X" seems to match WP:POLEMIC to me. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "I don’t like X" is perfectly acceptable; for example, "I don’t like cats" or even "I hate apples" is not offensive or derogatory to large groups of people. "I don’t like religion" would be a valid expression of a user's opinion. The issue here is the implication that religious people make the world less sane, safe, and happy. That is polemic and offensive to a lot of people. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: probably counts under WP:POLEMIC. Keep: There's some good arguments for keeping. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The userbox would fall under WP:POLEMIC if it attacks a group of people (e.g. "...if there were no religious people"), but "religion" isn't groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Some1 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So in your mind saying that a world without religion would be a saner place does not also imply that religious people are inherently less sane than atheists? Well, I think it absolutely does and for this reason it is an attack against a group of people. Nickps (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Replace the word "religion" with "astrology"/"capitalism"/"communism"/"caste system", etc. I wouldn't find those statements to be attacks against a group of people per se. Some1 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would. Believing that the world would be better without communism means believing that communists make the world worse. Believing that the world would be saner without astrology means believing that astrologers make the world less sane. The implied attack is still there. Nickps (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's like saying people who criticize Islam are Islamophobic. Saying religion is stupid ≠ saying religious people are stupid. Some1 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Yes, there are many a valid reason to critisize Islam. You still don't need to criticize Islam on Wikipedia. Why do that when doing so is not the WP:PURPOSE of the site and it can lead to otherwise avoidable conflict with Muslim editors? What we should be doing instead is just documenting what the sources say about the subject in a neutral way. But here, we are giving the impression that we do the opposite. In a supposed content dispute between an editor that uses this userbox and a religious editor on an article about religion, how is the religious editor supposed to WP:AGF and not think his interlocutor is trying to WP:RGW? Nickps (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, making factual claims about a belief system that happen to paint it in a bad light is not something I consider an attack. It would be impossible to uphold WP:NPOV if it was. But that's not what the userbox does at all. This isn't a userbox that criticizes religion in some constructive way. Instead it makes a wild assertion that religion invariably makes this universe and any other a worse place. To see how absurd that is just consider that "any universe" includes universes where God is real. How is denying the existence of a real being the sane thing to do? Nickps (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a big difference between "I hate X people" (which I agree with requester should be deleted) and "I believe it would be better if people didn't believe X". While I'm not a huge fan of userboxes in general, and ones on contentious social opinions in particular, we have a longstanding tradition of accepting those which legitimately can be viewed as explaining the viewpoints/biases a user may bring to their editing. This is an example of that. Martinp (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In view of there being lively discussion, I'm reaffirming my Keep. I continue to see daylight between this userbox and divisive, attack userboxen that would say some version of "I hate X people". I've considered but am not persuaded by discussion of analogies/alternatives with different "X" than religion. Ultimately, I find all of them as written below are (in some cases marginally) plausible as commentary on forces in society and potential editor bias, as opposed to attacks on groups of people, and so I find the ones given also acceptable. I can imagine worse alternatives where the "coded attack on people with a specific characteristic" is the only plausible alternative. Then I would be against, but religion as a general concept (whose influence on socitety has been debated for centuries) is a far cry from that. There is also an argument made pro-deletion (even G5) since WebHamster is blocked as a sockpuppeteer. However, that seems to be several years more recent than this userbox, which is also used by 120+ other people. Not all of whom can reasonably be assumed to be "shit-stirring" (to quote another Delete). Net-net, I would be !voting Keep if this userbox were in the userspace of a user in good standing, and since many other people have "adopted" it, presumably with reasonable intentions, I'm not switching to Delete just because its creator has subsequently been shown the door here. Martinp (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree with the idea that criticism of a concept is automatically an attack on people who espouse and/or believe in it, and thus do not think that this userbox violates WP:POLEMIC. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, because this implies that religious people are less sane than non-religious people and make the world less safe and happy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this is attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Expressing a negative personal opinion in a userbox is fine (such as "This user doesn’t like dogs" or even "This user thinks religion is harmful to society"), but expressing a negative personal opinion about other people is not. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The userbox doesn't express a negative personal opinion about other people though. It says This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no religion. which is another variation of "This user believes that a world without religion would lead to greater happiness, safety, and sanity." Regarding WP:SOAPBOX, you can say that about any political userboxes, e.g. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology/02. Some1 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think the other statement is inappropriate, because it still implies that there is something wrong with religious people. You can’t separate the concept of religion and the people who practice it when you’re talking about sanity. As far as soapboxing, I don’t really think it’s best for users to express their opinions about anything besides their interests and their identity on their user pages. But there is a lot of flexibility offered there. My example statement "This user thinks religion is harmful to society" is soapboxing, and it is divisive, but it is at least not offensive to anyone. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Some1, let's try some "not people" alternatives and see what you think:

      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no religion" (the userbox text)
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no homosexuality"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no genders"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no races or ethnicities"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no political conservatism"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no old age"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no marriage"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no divorce"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no disability"
      • "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no immigration"

      These are all "concepts" rather than "people". Some of these are even real-world philosophical POVs (e.g., some strains of Radical feminism want to eliminate the social concept of gender and have every person treated alike except for strictly necessary reproductive differences; Opposition to marriage is a thing).

      However, I can easily imagine the people whose identities align with one or more of these to feel unwelcome or disrespected by such a statement. And then the difficulty is: Why is it okay for editors to advertise that they believe the world would be better without something central to User:A's identity, but it's not okay for editors to advertise that they believe the same thing about something central to User:B's identity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Apples and oranges. Are you really trying to compare religion to homosexuality? 🤔 A more appropriate example IMO would be capitalism. "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no capitalism". Is that offensive? Some1 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Some1 WP:IDHT. You are choosing to ignore his argument. It is not "apples and oranges". We are not trying to compare religion to homosexuality. We are saying that attacking a concept also attacks the people who follow said concept. Not to mention the intention behind the userbox. We do not follow everything literally, things have to be implied. It is implied that the creator was trying to antagonize religious people. DotesConks (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      You found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peristome/UserBox/GodMMAtheist to be offensive, but it was kept. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the perceived offensiveness of this userbox. Some1 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Some1 Except that is saying "God made this user an atheist, do you question his wisdom.". This is "Religion should be eradicated". Pretty big difference. DotesConks (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Some1, it's not apples and oranges. It's POVs. Years ago, when HIV treatments were new, I read a story that ran something like this:

      Some gay Catholic people had different views and ended up forming two different groups. One said they would follow the anti-LBGTQ rules. The other said they would not. The first group said to the other: "Religion is central to who I am! Why would anyone give up religion for something that is ultimately so inconsequential as sex?" The second group replied: "Sexuality is central to who I am! Why would anyone give up sex for something that is ultimately so inconsequential as religion?"

      The reason this comparison is not an apples-and-oranges situation is because religion is core to some people's identities. And so the question remains: Why is it okay for editors to advertise that they believe the world would be better without something central to User:A's identity, but it's not okay for editors to advertise that they believe the same thing about something central to User:B's identity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      It really depends on what that something (that's central to one's identity) is. Some people might make fascism, Nazism, white supremacy or other abhorrent ideologies "central to their identity", for example. Since this MfD deals with a specific userbox regarding religion in general, let's focus on that and avoid getting sidetracked by hypotheticals. If you want to have a broader discussion regarding the potential offensiveness of userboxes and statements that should or should not be allowed in them, the best place to do that would be at the Village Pump or WT:Userbox. It would be an interesting discussion to have. Some1 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not WP:POLEMIC, and a defensible option to hold, and an opion that might be relevant to their editing biases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator is CU blocked. This might qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User:WhatamIdoing, with 124 transclusion, there’s plenty of editors in good standing who have vouched for the userbox, so G5 doesn’t apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. User:DotesConks has lately joined en.wiki apparently for the purpose of telling wikipedians we should get in line with their personal opinions. They have already been warned at AfD that they are not clueful enough to be making comments about user behavior or filing processes. Here they are telling us what users are allowed to say about themselves in their own userspace. Policing user thought is a bad thing for veteran, experienced wikipedians; WP:Ragpicking like this is a far worse habit for thin-skinned newbies with all of three weeks of wiki-experience. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BusterD I was reminded of Wikipedia's policies, not warned at AfD for saying a user who created an article should be deleted because the creator was banned off the site. Which is something that you are doing, right now. Also Wikipedia is not a free speech platform and if I created a userbox saying "This user does not like homosexuality", well it wouldn't fly. Now can we please have an actual merit-based argument? Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Indicates that the user is interested in religion, and might show certain tendencies (extra sensitivity to religious POV, dislike for primary religious texts as sources, or similar) when editing content that has to do with religion. The userbox does not promote hate, and it does not say that religious people are insane. It isn't reasonable to see this userbox and get offended -- sorry.—Alalch E. 16:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E. They say religion is insane which implies all religious people are insane. You have to look at the intention behind creating the userbox, not the literal words. I have used this example before and I will use it again, "This user does not like homosexuality.". Clearly this user does not like homosexuals and should have the userbox deleted. But if I followed your logic, then it is perfectly acceptable because I am not attacking homosexuals, I'm attacking homosexuality. DotesConks (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't take it seriously that you'd be upset over this userbox. I am not sensitive to your concerns. —Alalch E. 23:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the comparison of a common inoffensive comment about religion in general, to the nominator making hate speech about gays, is abominable and demonstrates why they needs to be topic-banned from WP: space. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've just given their opinion to an admin they should reduce the protection on Djibouti, which is an arb enforcement. We're largely at WP:Competence is required. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz Advocating for the destruction of religion is "inoffensive"? DotesConks (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  More personal opinion. The user box doesn't say that at all, and nobody here has made such an assertion but you. It's like you're just looking for things to be angry about. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you pretending this is about "destroying" religion? If I said that the Earth would suffer less damage and extinction if humans didn't exist, I'm not advocating or even suggesting, that destroying humanity. Now if I got into particular groups of humans - that might be an issue. Once again, I suggest you stop playing in WP: space - I see you are now getting warned by admins on your talk page about your AFDs. I think it's time to move on, and stick to main space, where your work could be more valued. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for exactly the same reason I gave at the identical nomination by this editor for another userspace infobox: The Userbox Migration (aka the German Userbox Solution)—that is, allowing things like this to exist but in userspace rather than Wikipedia: or Template: space (to make it clear they don't have official endorsement)—was the outcome of literally months of discussion. Yes, a discussion that took place eighteen years ago is maybe worth revisiting, but an obscure MfD is not the place to do so. Overruling the result of multiple massive discussions that involved everyone from Arbcom to Jimmy Wales—and which has been settled consensus for approaching two decades—would at minimum need a well-advertised central discussion. I may be the only one in this discussion who remembers just how foul-tempered the arguments that led to this compromise were last time around; putting these potentially contentious userboxes in userspace is a feature not a bug, and changing a very well established practice needs an RFC, not a unilateral decision at MFD. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with this. Wide latitude for personal expression is allowed on userpages. Rules on religion are divisive, and there is no evidence of this userbox causing a problem. A compromise was reached, and has been unremarkable ever since. New users coming to MfD to stir up old troubles should be discouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this userbox is WP:SOAPBOX shitstirring. Detracts from the project and does not benefit it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All 120 users are “shitstirring”. That’s improbable. The statement expressed is one I’ve heard seriously in real life. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in spite of the absurd and frankly offensive nomination statement. Userbox miserably fails both WP:UBCR and WP:UBDIVISIVE, our two most relevant guidelines here. No matter your opinion on the content, this stuff is a net negative. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 00:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – expresses an opinion on an idea rather than specific people, which in my view makes this less divisive. This is not a personal attack, but merely a comment on an idea, and relatively speaking phrases the comment in a thoughtful and civil manner – that is, it states the idea and then gets out, rather than just saying "RELIGION BAD" or something equally juvenile. Attacking people is inflammatory and unacceptable, but criticizing other ideas is a valid part of debate. This userbox happens to take a pretty extreme stance, saying that the world would be a better place without idea x, but still is not actually inflammatory. Saying "the world would be a better place without religious people" would be inflammatory, as would specifying one religion to harass ("the world would be a better place without zoroastrianism"). But this userbox is in my opinion sufficiently vague that it is unlikely to be especially divisive. (I, for example, would be annoyed but not really offended by a userbox stating the world would be a better place without athiesm. It is a debate about personal beliefs. On the other hand, a userbox saying the world would be a better place without athiests is just an attack). Cremastra (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, this userbox is not even, as others noted above, explicitly calling for the end of religion, merely noting that a hypothetical world without religion would be a better place. Cremastra (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cremastra. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 28 March 2025 (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.