Forum:CT:Annihilation of Religion Userboxes

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Annihilation of Religion Userboxes


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus to change existing userpage policy regarding religious templates.

I propose that Wookieepedia delete all real-world religion userboxes and warn against posting any information regarding religion or denomination, as it only seems to turn users against each other by waving it in their faces. There are over 25 user pages alone that use the Christian template [1] and some users have gone too far. Nothing good comes from this. The only religions here should be those used in-universe, say the Force for example.

Support

Riffsyphon1024 05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. supergeeky1 BobaFett The Cantina 05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ozzel 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. BambookidX 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Smile, please. Darth Maddolis 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. ATATatarismall.png 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Let's go for political boxes too, while we're at it. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill 'em all! :-P KEJ 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. I'm all for getting rid of them and political boxes. There is no freedom of speech act on the internet...we are not the United States, and we are trying to avoid conflict as much as possible. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. So we have people saying "u arnt a sntr christian lke me!"?RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Adds unnecessary tension. Kuralyov 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Sikon 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. They form their little groups and such...it would be much easier if they didn't know who each other was. .... 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. There's already another CT on this. And I opposed it there. If people are offended, that's their own problem. Havac 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I should have known one Consensus Track wasn't enough for the pro-censorship crowd. Frankly, I don't consider this vote legal. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Culator, Havac, and my comments. Wildyoda 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oh pooey Enochf 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Culator, Havac, and Enochf. We already had a CT to say "This is okay." So now we're saying otherwise? If we pass this, we'll be saying: "You can write about x in brief, but you dare not put a userbox on your page!" Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. People will disagree. Things happen. We deal with them then. But stifling free speech is not the answer. If we pass this, we also have to pass no-swearing rules, because, uh-oh, somebody could be offended. (And I say that as a non-"Strong Christian" with profanity on my own userpage.) —Gonk (Gonk!)
  7. Just don't start flamewars or formally categorize users by religion or politics. Anything else strikes me as overkill. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Understanding where someone is coming from and what kind of morals they might have help users to understand what a user is trying to say. If its not allowed into a userbox then it will jsut become text on a page. Just let it stay.RC 2413 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Gonk. Adamwankenobi 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. I need a name (Complain here) 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Patricknoddy The Jedi Council
  12. Absolutely not. And I will point out, that to do so would not be legal. - JMAS 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I will make it legal. Palpy 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Seriously though, Wookieepedia is not the United States government. We do whatever the heck we like with information. We're not even obliged to give users their userspace - but since we do, we regulate what goes and what doesn't go there. That's how any website operates.)
  13. No comment.Herbsewell 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Chack Jadson 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. LtNOWIS 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. For crying out loud! Who are we, Shimrra's inquisition? Of course there's room for religion on Wookieepedia! If there are people who cause trouble then punish them, not the rest. Evir Daal 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. What does it matter? Who does it hurt? Thank the Maker! And ditto to Evir Daal. Dak Ryshard 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Quinlanfan 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC) We are allowed to put weather we are male or female, and how old we are. How is this diffrent? This is descrimanation!
  19. I'm going to have to say "no" to this, per Gonk, and per my own beliefs. Although, with some users who don't quite show this type of behavior yet claim it *cough*, I can see where this would be a good thing. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

There is a rule already in place on WP:UP stating not to propose religious/political useboxes for this very reason. Although I think restricting custom userboxes is a bit harsh, it may be warranted in this case. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • They found a way around it by not making them official, which still has to be dealt with. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is warranted indeed. We've already seen how much problems that kind of stuff can cause. KEJ 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I say deal with the problems as they arise. Most of use who have the userbox on our page have placed it there and never had a problem with any other user about it. Wildyoda 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, not if it changed on anything now, but here are my two cents:
      First, as an atheist, I'm not bothered with religion to any extent. I know that many are deeply religious and some want to force it on others. This is an extreme case, and it should definitely be punishable. As long as something remains between two recipients, I think it's definitely acceptable if neither side offends the other with anti-religious comments. It's right of religion and right of speech. What we should do is to discourage discussing religion outside User talk pages. If one is offended by a religion-based comment on his talk page, he can choose not to respond to it, probably ending the discussion before it could begin.
      Eliminating all religion userboxes wouldn't disappear these conflicts. As much as we do not disable User talk pages, in fear of possible personal attacks, we shouldn't be deleting these userboxes. Wookieepedia, in my observation, could always deal with personal conflicts. Consider that "random" personal attacks are more common that religion-based ones. If we can deal with the more common issue, why can't be deal with the less common one? By the way, I think those who decide to use those boxes are aware of their possible consequences. I voluntarily wrote that I was an atheist on my User page, and I am aware that deeply religious propagandists can post on my talk page.
      However, I would not like to sound that I totally approve these userboxes. I am aware of the issues that this brings about. I know that you want fewer personal conflicts and removing these boxes would probably help that. I know that all too well that people just don't go around asking about other's religions, and attack their views once revealed. The problem with these userboxes is that it incites all those unwanted and inconvenient discussions. We can stop them at an acceptable speed and we can ban all those unwanted people. But the main idea is not that we cannot handle these situations, but the main problem is that there are far too many disagreements and personal conflicts already.
      By this, all I want to say is that I'm neutral about this issue, I'm just letting you know some points to consider. - TopAce 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If a user thinks differently of another user beacuse of their beleif than that user must not have good manners or values. Whatever you may believe is okay to be in a userbox as long as you dont try to convert someone into it, give any sort of comunication regarding a difference in religion, or allow i to effect any article you or others may right. Thats my opinion at least. I mean, if it cant be in a userbox its going into text so why not allow a picture as well? RC 2413 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok ok ok, If this was already discussed and voted on by the community, then I retract the vote. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question ... is Wikia.com based in the Unites States? If so, then it would be illegal for them to allow one of the wiki communities to forcibly restrain users from putting something on their user page about their faith, be that Christianity, buddhism, atheism, or whatever. It's not worth the headache it will cause to try. - JMAS 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm firmly opposed to this kind of restriction, but I'm compelled to point out that this is a common misconception. Wikia is not public property. The administrators here are not Congress. American courts rule rather consistently against enforcing the first amendment on private property, including the internet. But since the previous vote on this was against a ban, and this vote will clearly not reach consensus in favor of a ban, it's a moot point anyway. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)