Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Netmonger/UserBoxes/Terrorism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Delete As the box now reads, it can be interpreted as a dire prediction regarding the fate of the species Panthera tigris, which would likely not be inflammatory or divisive. Unfortunately, the box retains a name which is unrelated to the environmental question, and is potentially divisive. It is for this reason that the community's consensus below remains clear, and applicable to the current revision of the box. Xoloz 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netmonger/UserBoxes/Terrorism[edit]

This userbox is the same as an attack template directed towards a particular party representing an ethnic group. It has no other standing other than to spark tension and bitter disputes amongst Wikipedian users on both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict. As this userbox states, "This user believes Tigers are terrorists without a clue or direction". This is most definitely inflammatory and divisive which is explained on the following pages: Potentially divisive words and Content restrictions. Furthermore, userboxes should not express any hatred toward any group of people. Wiki Raja 05:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've changed it to please you wiki raja. Because I've decided not feed trolls, definitely not on an ugly one NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 05:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user Netmonger has been causing a lot of problems on Wikipedia. Just a few days ago, he was blocked here for not only harassing me here, but sending me a vulgar threatening e-mail. This user, has just now changed the linkage and wording on the userbox as a joke here and here. It is only in due time, that he will just revert this box back if this is not deleted. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe-job again, Wiki Raja please your continued failure to assume good faith on me is not taking you anywhere. I was blocked by the admin because of your failed Joe-job, anyone can see the blocking admins notes here [1], here and at ANI here. Please read WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, you are misrepresenting facts here. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you to read this in regards to you personal attack against me, even right here on this page. Wiki Raja 07:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please take a look at Restriction on User box : Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. This user box is an opinion piece on a current politics of Sri Lanka and is clearly political. So It violates user box restrictions. Please take a look at rules of user boxes before making a decision here . Thanks Watchdogb 06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Not commenting on the dispute, which it seems this MfD arised out of. Supporting or opposing a group isn't necessarily divisive. If it were, I suspect that many of these userboxes would not exist. The fact that the box links to the Tiger animal article (despite the page title: which can be easily changed) and not the Tamil Tigers makes me think that the application of the policy is incorrect. Since it seems to be acceptable to have these types of "divisive" user boxes (I have seen many that are much more so) I can see no reason why this should be deleted. If not agreeing with the opinion expressed in the user box is enough of a reason for deletion, then I have dozens I should add here. IvoShandor 08:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I missed the comment about the changes, changing position to neutral, though I still think the userbox isn't as divisive at it seems, especially with a few small edits. IvoShandor 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the page history, the userbox was clearly intended to make a political statement and disparaging attack against a group involved in a current conflict. The page name is also indicative of this. It appears that changes have been made solely to nullify the deletion rationale. If the box is kept, nothing prevents the reversion of such changes. Given the clear intent of the original, it should be deleted. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the name of the box is changed too, and not with "move" so that the page history also disappears. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 10:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per WP:UB.Went through it several times and from what I gather from that, Users has right , for a certain extent to express their personal beliefs depicted in UB's. For my beliefs, as long as User Boxes do not condemn religions,states,ethnic groups, and other vital things such as all the humans on earth, they have a place here in Wikipedia. Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you also go though Content restrictions on userboxes? Specifically "Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." Looking on the linked page, at WP:UP#NOT, we have a "Jimbo" of using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea, and the userbox in its original form attacks members of the LTTE, subsequent changes to try and escape the deletion rationale are irrelevant, the original content is much more indicative of the creator's intended purpose. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer would be yes..I not only went through it, I also did go through several other user boxes which seem to advocate /individual political positions just like this.Even the nominator here has a user box calling he is against cast system, and which according to your above theory should not be here either, is it ? Getting back to this User box, as it was merely expressing his beliefs, and no where in this it condemns things which Wikipedia in-tolerate, i think there is no problem having this here.And even if he is expressing his displeasure as you state here, it is as same as expressing your displeasure for cast system,and definitely less than expressing your displeasure over religions. And we have a situation where even the nominator has broken the same things pointed out by you !! And as I have fathom from many UB debates, We can state what we like(as long as it is not insultive) depicted in UB's.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A similar box was deleted with overwhelming mandate on user Snowolfd4s userpage. This is clearly meant to make people feel divided (divisive). Offer to tone down the template appears to be done in combination with doing NPA attacks on nominator. This is not a good sign of intentions or shows there is a willingness to compromise. Sinhala freedom 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just inflammatory. • Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Needlessly inflammatory title and content. Eluchil404 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A similar MfD regarding another problematic template is taking pace here. Wiki Raja 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse when are you going to learn that vote canvassing is prohibited in Wikipedia. Once again here, you are shamelessly picking up people whom you think would vote for your side, and direct them top other places!! Aren't you going to stop this disgusting activities? Or should I take it to a higher place ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Watchdogb, appears to be divisive political advocacy - the change in wording notwithstanding. Dreadstar † 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was at a loss for understanding his points. Since you seems to understand it very well could you please explain it here ??Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown here it is definitely not provocative.This is a mere attempt to express ones political thinking just like many others which already exist in Wikipedia without much fuss and without the fear of facing any AFD's.SO, Could you please show us how this is provocative and how others are not ??Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox doesn't display a belief in a ideology but rather a belief in a particular statement, which is that the Tamil Tigers are close to extinction. It is different from saying one opposes the LTTE and one predicts their fate. Anyone who sympathises with the Tigers will of course be angered by such a statement, since they will want to bring them out of "extinction." It will spark POV pushers to edit war. In that, IMO it is provocative. It is not criticising their movement, it is insulting it. Gizza^Discuss ^© 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user believes tigers are in the brink of extinction, and how does it violate any of the wiki policies ? Isnt it same as User supports Iraq war, or User supports existence of Israel?? Never in the UB he says he desire their extinction, did he ? He says, he believes(right or wrong) they are close to extinction and how on earth that would relate to your arguments ? Wikipedia allows and the is a general consensus regarding using ones political positions in UBs, and we see tons of political statements worse than this exist in Wikipedia. You keep saying this is provocative, but haven't you notice the nominator himself has more provocative UB(according to your theory)in his user page? A mere political belief should not be deleted unless it clearly insults another party. And here we have a simple case ,where a user wants to have his political belief without insulting anyone.Shouldn't we leave him alone ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteProvocative userbox. Thanks Taprobanus 12:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep WP:CENSOR. That's even if linked to Tamil Tigers. The fact that it does not makes even less objectionable, and makes the provocation to be in the provoked's mind much more than it reality--Victor falk 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Should also be moved to [[UBX:peaceinsrilankathroughdisarmemt]] or somesuch--Victor falk 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Delete No excuse for that one. Sry. I confused this discussion with the other one--Victor falk 14:10, 10 October 2007 (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.