Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sinhala freedom/Userboxes/corruption

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep, given the revision of the box' phrasing. While the original box was rightly considered divisive by most of the commenters, the current version is substantially different, is directed at no party in particular, and is an expression of a truism. Xoloz 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sinhala freedom/Userboxes/corruption[edit]

This userbox is equivalent to an attack template (inflammatory) which violates Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions directed towards a particular government. It certainly can be seen as a sign of a negative attitude towards a political dispute which clearly violates the first point of WP:SOAP. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, have you stopped beating your userbox? >Radiant< 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am presuming you want this UB deleted because of stylistic issues (such as too much text) ? Sinhala freedom 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reply I can give is "Moo" CharonX/talk 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's reasoning or lack thereof is flawed. This UB is not directed at a particular government rather it is towards elements within a government. Honestly, can anyone be

supportive of lies, corruption, nepotism and thuggery ? Is the nominator saying being against that is inflammatory ? Sinhala freedom 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepNothing offensive, simply a statement of fact given that Sri Lanka has been ranked 94 out of 180 countries where there is corruption in the public sector per the latest Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International. The 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index score given for Sri Lanka is 3.2 points out of a total of 10 points.[1] So since when is offensive to say the obvious in Wikipedia ? Thanks Taprobanus 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Statements of fact can still be infammitory or offensive, and this userbox certainly is. --UsaSatsui 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree certain facts maybe biased to sound offensive, you haven't identified what is particularly offensive about it. If you can perhaps identify the particulars, maybe we can come to a compromise. Sinhala freedom 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With rewording of the UB, the sentence becomes a belief statement (just like I support Democrats) and not a fact. Hopefully that has addressed your concern. Sinhala freedom 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does. Keep Though may I suggest "government" and not "governments"? --UsaSatsui 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's seems to me the current state is worst than ever it was. Now its like firing with closed eyes. Anyway its still violates the Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so, explain yourself ? Sinhala freedom 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inflammatory and a WP:SOAP. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it inflammatory and a WP:SOAP ? Sinhala freedom 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have lots of things to do other than explaining things word by word to you. Go and read the content of the given policy and mind that I'm not your help desk guy who paid by Jimbo. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me translate that: "I can't explain it, but I'm too stubborn to admit it". It's not imflammatory any longer, and it merely states an opinion. If you feel otherwise, please explain how, and don't stand on the "I'm right because I say so" platform, it's pretty wobbly. --UsaSatsui 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep WP:NPA in your mind. I was not lying. I'm a very busy person in my real life. I just edit Wikipedia when I get a free time. Just hop in to my contribution list and check the editing times, then you will notice how many hours did I sit in front of my computer. Since you failed to understand what I was talking, here I'm explaining. By saying Lies, corruption, nepotism and thuggery within governments this user is accusing for the State terrorism or for the State-sponsored terrorism, which is making this UB controversial and which is also making it's inflammatory. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 05:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a personal attack. It was a response to a very poor non-argument. Now you've made a very good argument, and while I think it's valid, I don't agree with you. I appreciate you taking the time to do so. --UsaSatsui 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway it's not the proper way to reply for a very poor non-argument. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting to be a 'chase the bunny' argument. Where is the word terrorism in the UB. I don't see it ? Do you ? Sinhala freedom 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend letting the bunny go. He feels the way he does, he explained why, and I can see why he does so. --UsaSatsui 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use common sense. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The new wording is not aimed at a specific government, and as such implies no personal attacks. (The fact that many governments are or were, in fact, corrupt and/or allow(ed) nepotism should be clear, so it can't be considered an attack against governments in general neither) CharonX/talk 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is a well intended attack on a democratically elected Government using Wikipedia. LTTE sympathizers should not be allowed to use Wikipedia for personal agenda. Supermod 19:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

  • Delete - as per all of the above. User apparently has no objections to lies, corruption and thuggery in other governments then? Maybe s/he's never been to the US, then. John Carter 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While there maybe problems in government within the US, I think they pale in comparison to the structural meltdown in Sri Lanka. I would hope you do check up on reports by Transparency International, Democracy Index, Failed States Index and other. I have voluntarily kept my focus on Sri Lanka, but my policy would not differ if applied to other governments. Sinhala freedom 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have made this compromise. Hopefully this will satisfy your concerns. This is now a general statement not a fact. Sinhala freedom 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not Transparency International, neither The Economist or neither Fund for Peace. We are Wikipedia. We have a number of policies and guidelines which our content should qualify. That includes our personal stuff. I have mentioned a few policies which have been violated by your UB. Since then, your violations should be removed. Hope you got my point. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Per nom and above, created to directly attack a certain government. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latest change to the UB addresses this concern. So that issue has been resolved. Sinhala freedom 15:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Corruption lack of transparency does exist in Sri Lanka.I do not see anything offensive in that.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the latest change addresses your concern. Rather than a fact, it a set of beliefs that is policy in many countries hence uncontroversial. Sinhala freedom 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The userbox is contrived and serves no purpose other than antagonise the other party. Sarvagnya 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have made a change not to identify a party. What I have listed in the belief statement is policy in many particularly well established governments, so hopefully this doesn't make it controversial Would you reconsider your vote ? Sinhala freedom 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete--Transparency international, democracy index and other organizations, and this userbox should first list the Swiss Government as number ONE culprit if they really wish to be honest. The Swiss govt knows very well that most of its banks are havens to ill-gotten money raised by arms dealers and swindlers. Even nazi money still exists in unnamed accounts there (there are many other sapects of the Swiss "democracy" that I can talk of). The British allow a whole ring of Tax-haven islands around UK for similar purposes. The Last Liberal govnment of Canada fell because of hugh financial scandls. The Italian government has been implicated with the Mafia with very transparent evidence, repeatly, since Aldo Moro in the 70s to modern-day Burlosconis. The Pope's Banco santa Spiritu has been constantly under investigation. The mega-swindles of the Indian givernment are well documented. I don't even NEED to touch on the US - the biggest arms merchant. How does Haliburton-Dick Cheney's companies, get all the tenders in Irak or Afganistan? Just name a country whose GDP is comparable or greater than that of Sri Lanka, and I will tell you of the recent corruption details which exceed anything in Sri Lanka. But all these mega-iniquities seem to escape the Transparency international, democracy index as well as this Usebox!!!. We cannot turn the Wiki userboxes into vehicules of political action, POV, and propaganda. Please Please delete it. Bodhi Dhanapala Bodhi dhana 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have removed Sri Lanka from the userbox, so I am not so sure its a problem anymore ? Please remember to refresh the window to see the updated version. Maybe the old version got cached. Sinhala freedom 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you put Sl in the first place ? Why not canada ? or US ?or even India ?? And not the other 100 nations, whom according to ravens rating has far worse record than SL ?? Aren't you indulging in cheap political bashing aganst SL hence breaching certain IMPORTANT Wikipedian policies here??Iwazaki 会話。討論 06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not there anymore, hence concerns have been addressed. Sinhala freedom 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue that was causing some editors to have concerns has been adressed. Lurker (said · done) 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what people are going on about. Everything is fixed up and it states what the user is against (as many of us are against). No attack to anyone. Unless of course you support thuggery and corruption in governments. Watchdogb 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the issues have been addressed; no longer divisive or inflammatory. --Haemo 03:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Well the intention to attack, a democratically elected Government using free space provided by Wikipedia, has been revealed BUT I do think this whole this has NOT been addressed yet. The whole concept of thuggery and other bluffs, are not only related to states but also to individuals and some might even argue, against the religions. So may I ask all the wikipedians if some one make a UB saying he is against the religious thuggery without specifying the name of the religion, do we let it go freely?Doesnt it still violate Wikipedia policies? If some one come and write he is against thuggery of priests, do we let it stay here in wikipedia ?? I guess NOT.This is not about twisting words to get away with your NPOV. Wikipedia should be clear about using it as a tool for anti-wiki things such as political campaigns, religious bashings, ethnic bashings and such.And finally, I was really impressed with the arguments given here by, first the nom and the others,esp the one of Bodhi dhana. Thank you all Iwazaki 会話。討論 05:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This is a well intended attack on a democratically elected Government using Wikipedia. LTTE sympathizers should not be allowed to use Wikipedia for personal agenda. Supermod 19:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I would just comment that I don't understand many of the recent comments. I mean, the userbox currently says:
"This user is against Lies, corruption, nepotism and thuggery within governments."
It doesn't mention any specific country, nation, or government. A lot of the comments on this page are from editors on opposite sides of the Sri-Lankan civil war issues, and their comments predictably break down along those lines. I mean, I don't see how the above constitutes "[an] attack,[on] a democratically elected Government using free space provided by Wikipedia" or how it allows "LTTE sympathizers should [to] use Wikipedia for [a] personal agenda". I urge the closing admin to carefully consider the arguments made, and weigh them accordingly. --Haemo 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then its worse!! While the original UB clearly stated what he really wanted to say, and now we see a attempt to twist words in order to get away with this AFD, The fact that the The user is using wikipedia for political attacks on every Government in the world do not change!! Think for a while ,change government to a religion,and would you still support this ?? All I can see is this an pathetic attempt to keep some ones POV by using un-encyclopaedic stuffs.Read my post here,I have shown above why this fails wikipedian policies , and you have, just like all the keep votes have not given solid arguments at all. When you look at the delete arguments, every one has given valid strong arguments. Hope closing admin would not miss this.Iwazaki 会話。討論 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Now it's worse because...it's totally neutral? We can no longer tell the userbox is inflammatory and divisive! Apparently, divisiviness is in the intentions behind the userbox, and not the userbox itself now? Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and it's certainly not an argument based on our guidelines or policies. I mean, you admit it's now a neutral userbox, yet claim your argument that it's "political soapboxing" stands? Really? --Haemo 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its worse because its not neutral! How on earth this will be neural when there is a genuine attempt to use wikipedia for political bashing ? You have just going around a single point without even trying to comprehend what others have said here. In UB i believe you have the right to state what you like and from what I have seen here there is no problem to give the positive impressions. But what we see here is a negative approach which is far from neutral. Did you read what I said here ?? If we were to change Governments to Religions ,would you still support this?? I guess no, right ?? And please don't jump in to conclusions that I believe this is neutral. I never said such ,and never will ,as long as UB's giving negative political,religion,ethnic impressions. Thank youIwazaki 会話。討論 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "being used for political bashing"? Who is being bashed? What government is being labeled negatively? --Haemo 05:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it define thuggery ? How can one say this is thuggery and this not ? How can one specifically say a government is engage in thuggery? Assuming this government gets the 80% approval from the public, does it mean 80% of the people support or engage in thuggery?? You ask me what country, I tell you these kind of self-made negative arguments are pointless. Regardless of the country, whether its SL or Canada, these kind of general bashing(yes its a general bashing since UB doesnt specify a country) only gives a negative impact. You havent answer my above questions, If some one creates a UB saying, he/she is against thuggery and corruption of religions, would you support it ? If not, why ?Iwazaki 会話。討論 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The accusation that link this box to Sri Lanka are based solely on the fact that this user has "Sinhala" is his name. If I were to put that box on my page, what country would you accuse me of attacking? --Victor falk 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a few days late...the userbox used to specificly refer to the Sri Lankan government. --UsaSatsui 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that... but my argument still stands, doesn't it?... --Victor falk 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. I think in it's current state, it's okay. --UsaSatsui 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes my point about the userbox. --Haemo 05:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the nominator's concerns have been addressed. utcursch | talk 06:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it mentions governments in general and not the Sri Lankan in particular, Keep. Would have said delete to the old version. GizzaDiscuss © 13:24, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sinhala_freedom/Userboxes/corruption&oldid=1148109995"