User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters – Endorse. There's two different issues under discussion; 1) whether the close was correct, and 2) whether it was appropriate for a non-admin to take on. There's wide agreement here to endorse the correctness of the close. There's more dissent about the WP:NAC issue, but not enough to take any action on. Several (two, if I counted correctly) people noted that MfD has a higher cultural acceptance for NAC in close cases, compared to AfD. I don't work at MfD, so I have no personal experience on that. However, I have observed that over the past few years, in reviews of all kinds here at DRV, there does seem to be a greater acceptance of NAC in borderline cases, with WP:BADNAC arguments carrying less weight compared to examining the ultimate result. It might be worth re-examining BADNAC to see if community consensus really has moved since it was first implemented. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WP:BadNac, Controversial closes are best left to administrators. The closer is not. Issues such as TOS and Polemic were cited as reasons to delete this page, (Edit conflict) Issues such as TOS and Polemic were cited as reasons to delete this page, further, this MFD received a lot of discussion and was for both reasons a controversial close, for that reason alone an admin should have closed it.
Additionally, I believe the closer ignored WP:POLEMIC and WP:TOS as valid reasons to delete this page and essentially, disregarded both reasons, both of which are valid. I request this close be overturned. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This version of the nomination responded to. Procedural close. Filer requests both an overturning per WP:BADNAC (as a "controversial close") and a simultaneous supervote ("to delete per TOS & Polemic"). ——SN54129 14:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial_Number_54129 This was my first DRV ever, sorry, I assumed it was pretty much like an MFD, I removed the "supervote" I'd placed in as I did check and found it was incorrect. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why should you remind me? ——SN54129 14:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support a deletion review of this controversial close and was thinking about submitting one myself. As I said during the deletion discussion: if this does not count as polemic then WP:POLEMIC should be deleted as nothing will count as polemic. At best a compromise close should have recommended deleting “pkk” and “freedom fighters the world over” from the userbox and left the other less controversial wording and groups. The pkk are widely regarded as a terrorist organisation, in part because they have on many occasions targeted civilians and used suicide bombings as a tactic. The keep arguments were very weak and many of the keep arguments mentioned deleting certain parts of the userbox, so a consensus did exist but was bizarrely closed with ‘no consensus’.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, reluctantly. I struck my above vote and comment. WilyD has convinced me that the delete or even amend argument is not sufficient under current policy to override the keep arguments. The close of no consensus was thus good and it was also good where the close gave the suggestion of an RfC. BTW I voted ‘delete’ or as a compromise ‘amend’ wording.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – I !voted delete, but I don't think the closer was incorrect in closing this as a "no consensus". The delete argument boils down to (1) "Pkk is a terrorist organization" and (2) "therefore the userbox is [POLEMIC/TOS violation/etc], but neither #1 nor #2 had consensus in the discussion. The keep !voters noted that some nations/groups made the terrorist designation but others (most) didn't; that the designation is often made for political purposes; that the designation has been applied to people/organizations in the past that have won the Nobel Peace Prize (like Mandela's ANC and Arafat's PLO); and that even assuming arguendo that it's a "terrorist organization", that is not necessarily a TOS violation or polemic to have a userbox with a message of support. W/r/t the badnac argument, sure, an admin can re-close (or countersign) this as "no consensus"; I don't really see the point in taking that bureaucratic step. I think in this discussion, closing as either keep or delete would be a supervote; there were good arguments on both sides. – Levivich 15:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be correct that there was not a consensus for the userbox to be completely deleted but I thought there was a healthy numerical and general consensus to remove ‘PKK’ and ‘freedom fighters the world over’ but leave the other Kurdish paramilitary groups which are not regarded as terrorists. This is because a fair number of keep votes mentioned keeping but deleting certain parts of the wording, especially PKK.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich Let's see, you're saying that since 1 has no consensus and 2 has no consensus that it should be ok to keep the user box? Hmmmm...... well, argument number one has three reliable sources behind it. Therefore, it's not a matter of consensus , but of reliable sources. Reliable sources do say that these groups are terrorist groups, consensus isn't necessary, just reliable sources.
So that leaves us with argument #2 , that the userbox is not polemic. YOu say there's no consensus, again, there doesn't need to be, we have a definition that was set up BY consensus of what constitutes polemic, this user box meets the definition, therefore it IS polemic. Just like we have a definition of what's vandalism, if something meets that definition, we can call it vandalism.
@Necromonger: The close is a no-consensus close. It explicitly left the door open for another MFD. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also left the door open for an RfC which I feel would be the next step if anyone wants to take this further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I guess - so, it's extremely clear this doesn't violate the terms of service, and invoking it is probably counter-productive because it makes it seem as though one is just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what'll stick, rather than trying to make a point in good faith. WP:POLEMIC is much closer, but it really refers to an attack on something, so there's a bit of wiggle room there. (And indeed, Wikipedia:User pages says ""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.") - which seems to target this exactly scenario, and has been on the page since at least May. No, I don't see that delete really has a policy leg to stand on. I do have userboxen, except perhaps as a warning that editors will have trouble being unbiased, but there's a roughly even headcount, and really no policy/guideline basis for delete to stand on. WilyD 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point there Wily re. WP:UPNOT and acts of violence and groups that support such acts. That does, I concede, weaken the polemic argument to delete that I in large part relied upon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Endorse I don't doubt Britishfinance's good faith in implementing what I consider to be a reasonable close; that said, discussions such as this one really should be closed by an admin. Contentious non-admin closures are highly likely to end up at deletion review and should therefore be avoided. That said, I do think the closing rationale is technically correct and I don't see much use in reopening the discussion just so that an admin can rubber stamp what has already been said. I don't think anyone is going to find a consensus in that MfD. Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. Great NAC. MFD has a stronger culture for non-admin closes because we explicitly not dealing with reader-facing content here. If this was an AFD, I wouldn't endorse because the stakes are higher. Regardless, there was no way that conversation was going to lead to anything but a no-consensus close. Britishfinance explained their reasoning rather well, and it was the best close we were ever going to get as a reflection of the discussion. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as someone who initially !voted to remove PKK from the userbox, I'll say that MFD is not usually set up for cleanup or to make content decisions like that. Unless the consensus is clear and obvious, a MFD closes won't bother even addressing those questions. Btw, I !voted delete. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with User:MJL that "MFD has a stronger culture for non-admin closes because we explicitly not dealing with reader-facing content" is not the wording I would use.MfD does not have a particularly strong culture of NACs, if you don't count procedural closes.MfD does see a fair bit of good NAC work, but mostly, appropriately, it is procedural. Also, the statement implies the MFD is not so important. This is absolutely not true, MfD is a potentially corrosive forum where busybodies can harass and persecute other Wikipedians in a community-destroying way. Seeking deletion of someones self-expression userbox is quite a SLAP, a public community declaration that what they were saying was not appropriate to be said. Deletions of others' userspace material is a public rejection of what the user was doing, and is quite a step in ostracizing the individual. MFD appropriately has a higher preponderance of Wikipedia Bureaucrats and ArbCom members closing that it does have NACs using it for practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I mostly agree with your disagreement. I think the NACs I have done on MFD have been meaningful and more than simple practice. IDK. I didn't mean to imply that MFD's subject matter wasn't important, but I do think the consequences are less immediate outside Wikipedia's editing community. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 01:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think my response was overly confrontational. Edited in an attempt to be more conversational. MfD blunders don't do any immediate damage damage that readers see, but MfD blunders could really hurt editors. I wouldn't want to encourage adventurous NAC activity, but I agree that this NAC was a great close, on the mark, well explained, and a close was overdue and needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support reviewing, controversial closes are best left to administrators. Admins should count and weight arguments not count cliches*. Like for example when the keep vote is followed by a reason like, the U.S. France did also target civilians and committed what would be described as terrorist attack or that freedom fighter-terrorist proverb. These types of so-called "arguments"/cliches would apply if we were discussing a userbox that supports ISIS. We need an admin to close this and review the actual arguments. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: If you just renominated this in a week with pre-emptive arguments against WP:NOTCENSORED, no regular of MFD would bat an eye. Likewise, if there wasn't an ongoing deletion review, you could just edit the userbox to acceptable standards while citing the previously closed MFD as showing there are clear problems that need to be addressed. The close left a lot of things on the table. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would revert any such changes to the user box promptly on principle. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you think SharabSalam of starting an RfC first, like what was suggested in the MfD close?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: although the userbox is clearly distasteful, offensive even, editor DESiegel made a good point during the deletion discussion when he suggested POV userboxes could be used to identify POV pushers editing our articles. When looking at it from that angle, perhaps the close is not such a bad thing after all. Maybe we should accept the close and move on.... That is where my thinking is travelling.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek anyone is free to start an RfC in an attempt to clarify or change our policy on user boxes. It will not be easy to get consensus for a change, the current policy is the result of several well-participated discussions, but it could happen, depending on what is proposed and what argument is made. But this is not the place for such an argument. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - there is no way to read that discussion other than "no consensus". The closer appropriately weighted the arguments presented and noted in detail that, while POLEMIC and TOS were offered as issues supporting deletion, the arguments were not accepted by consensus of the discussion participants. The closer not being an administrator is irrelevant; this was an excellent close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - right result, but nac-controversial - I feel that the the closer did a good job reading it (and explaining it, for that matter) and it's the same close I would have given it if I hadn't participated. However, I would agree that it's controversial enough it shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin. I'd be happy with asking for an admin review, but I don't believe it needs reopening etc, and given the quality of the close, I don't really mind if we skip the review. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Proper "no consensus" close per policy. Thank you closer. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Uninvolved
The DRV nomination? It fails to make a substantive case that something was wrong with the close. The closer summarized the discussion, and the closer and discussion made ample consideration of POLEMIC. And see WT:DEL for a clear precedent that ToS violation is not a deletion reason. Advice to the nominator: Read WP:RENOM.
BADNAC? No, I read a non-controversial "no consensus". Admittedly, this is not usual. "tailed off two weeks ago", with the last !vote being a respected admin's "Keep" argument, and four of the last five being "Keep" !votes, "Delete" was not a possible close, and I do not think any admin could have reasonably closed the discussion as "Keep" vs "no consensus".
Endorseper policy; also request User:Wekeepwhatwekill to explain—at the second time of asking—what they meant by However, I should remind you that DRV should not be used to 8.to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). ——SN54129 08:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as the NAC closer). I read the entire MfD and felt at the end that there was no other close but no consensus, and hence I felt that it was not such a controversial NAC. The quality of the debate was high, and the issues were accurately identified. I felt any close other than no consensus would be akin to a SUPERVOTE, and ultimately, at the core of this MfD is a serious issue about the identification of problematic organizations, which I think should be really decided at an RfC and not MfD (either for the specific organizations listed in the userboxes, and/or for the method by which problematic organizations are labeled). I kind of indirectly suggested in the summary that a potential solution could be somebody boldly amending the boxes post-MfD (e.g. possibly deleting the PKK), which I often find at AfD is an underutilized way of solving issues (a superb example being Jim and Mary McCartney by Ritchie333, a very experienced AfD participant). I meant no discourtesy to the participants in this MfD, and as a regular AfD/MfD participant myself, I am conscious that there are closes that should be done by an admin (and sometimes even for non-controversial ones). I saw this one was still hanging in the "Old Business" queue of MfD, and wanted to see if I could help move things along. Thanks for the comments above. Britishfinance (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Personally, I would have closed as Keep, but then I was involved in the discussion. The close was reasonable, and I don't see that it needs to be overturned just because an experienced non-admin closed it. The nomination here is mistaken in that the closer did not ignore the policy arguments made for deletion, but rather found them balanced by the arguments for retention, which is not a supervote position. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the appellant is correct that this was a controversial MFD and should have been left to an administrator. A trout to the closer for taking it on themselves to do a non-administrative close. On the other hand, this appeal has no substantive merit except that the closer should have allowed an administrator to make the close. The appellant appears to be saying that an administrator should have supervoted, and should have ignored the Keep arguments and the policy-based reasons for the Keep arguments. This appeal is basically another appeal that a closer should have ignored the community; the community was divided and had no consensus. Right close, wrong closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRobert_McClenon not quite what I said. What I said is that the closer ignored WP:POLEMIC which is a policy set up by consensus with a definition and a set of things to do if something is Polemic, also set up by consensus. The closer ignored the fact that this userbox is polemic which demands removal of any and all polemic material. I'm not suggesting a supervote, I'm suggesting only that the existing consensus be observed. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "polemic" is defined as contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. WP:POLEMIC also forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities and other forms of negative information. At least arguably, positive statements about unpopular or even evil groups, if not made with "aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position" does not come under WP:POLEMIC, and there was not a consensus that WP:POLEMIC applied in this case. Thus that is not a basis to discount the keep arguments. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wekeepwhatwekill - Yes. You are saying that the closer should have supervoted by recognizing the policy-based argument that the user page is a polemic and discounting the policy-based arguments that the user page satisfied user page guidelines including that normally one is allowed to have userboxes. Yes. You are saying that the closer should have recognized the policy-based arguments with which you agree and should have ignored the policy-based arguments with which you disagree, which would be a form of supervote. Yes. Some of us think that the community at MFD decides how to apply the policy consensus. You are saying that the closer should have set themselves up to decide what was the right interpretation of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again , you're putting words in my mouth Robert_McClenon. Let me make this simpler. ::::::::The userbox is polemic.
The definition of polemic "forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons or other entities..."
Our own page on the PKK states Since 1984 the PKK has been involved in an armed conflict with the Turkish state (with cease-fires in 1999–2004 and 2013–2015), with the initial aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state - therefore vilifying the Turkish state.
for the record, I'm not Turkish at all and have no opinion on the Turkish state at all
Therefore it meets a consensus agreed upon definition of Polemic
Therefore WP:Polemic shouldn't have been ignored, it's already consensus.
WP:POLEMIC forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. There are no such statements in the user box. Policy does not forbid statements in support of a group that has made polemical statements off-wiki. Thus your reasoning above is flawed. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as to Overturn Close to permit administrative close as No Consensus. The appellant has made their case that this was a controversial close, by creating the controversy, that should have been left to an administrator to find No Consensus', and to caution the appellant for being tendentious in the appeal. No. I am not putting words in the pen of the appellant; I am only restating what the appellant has written, which makes sense if either the appellant is re-litigating, or if the appellant thinks that the job of the closer is to act as a a judge. It appears that the appellant is saying that the closer should have made an interpretation of consensus-based policy, rather than allowing the community to form a consensus on policy (and if the interpretation of policy is done by the community, the community can fail to reach a consensus on how to apply policy). The appellant clearly either is re-litigating, or is saying that the closer should have ignored policy-based arguments to Keep, or is saying that the closer should have made a ruling, e.g., a supervote. Yes, it is true that polemic is part of the policy; so is Userbox. Right close, wrong closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLEMIC is extremely explicit that it doesn't apply here. I have userboxen as much as the next guy, but if POLEMIC was overlooked here, it resulted in this being closed as no consensus instead of keep, not instead of delete. WilyD 07:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one asked the appellant what their nationality is. I assume that everyone is from an Anglophone country unless they state otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
