- User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Template:Biased Arabic Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (For reference)
- 1. The debate was about the template in the public space NOT about the template in my own private space. The administrator involved (User:RL0919) has deleted both! This is in spite of the fact that most opinions were that it's a matter of personal freedom, and that it is perfectly fine to keep it in user space.
- 2. The majority consensus was move and not delete! In spite of this, the administrator involved (User:RL0919) has deleted both the page in question and another page I had just created in my user space. λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The TFD can be found here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please be aware that the TFD provided above (this one) is about the public domain template, NOT about the one in my own user space, which is the one for which I am requesting restoration here. Thanks! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting admin comments. First, just to address the purely numerical issue: there were 2 keep comments, 5 who said to move the userbox from template space to user space, 7 who said to delete it, and 1 comment that I could not classify as making any recommendation. But of course consensus is not just about numbers, and I found the delete arguments to have more support from the guidelines they cited. Lanternix decided during the deletion discussion to make a copy of the box in user space, without waiting to see what the close was. Since the deletion rationale was based on concerns that apply across namespaces, I deleted the user copy as well rather than force a repeat discussion at WP:MFD, where the exact same deletion arguments would have been valid. (MFD is technically is where the discussion should have started since this is a userbox, but it was a rather late to be moving the discussion, and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.) I have talked about this at some length with Lanternix on my user talk page, so you may want to review my comments there for further insight on my thinking. --RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, I would like to contest the numbers given by RL0919:
- There were 2 Keep votes (Lanternix, Degen Earthfast)
- There were 5 Move to Userspace comments (AnonMoos, Collect, Arthur_B, ♥Yasmina♥, Gavia immer)
- There was 1 Vote that could be classified as either Keep or Move (Toothie3)
- There were 4 Delete votes (Robofish, Closeapple, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky))
- There was 1 Delete vote from an anonymous IP, and I am even sure if that counts at all
- There were 2 Votes that were not expressed but could be classified as Delete (Chris Cunningham, RL0919 who happens to be the admin at question here)
- By counting the above, there were clearly more people interested in keeping the template than deleting it. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply to Collect below. I did not "vote", so I was not counting myself. Toothie3's comment is the one that I could not interpret as making any specific recommendation. And yes, IP editors' comments count unless there is some reason to discount them. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Second of all, in addition to the above, the voting was about this page, and NOT about this page. To my utter surprise, RL0919 proceeded to delete both, even though nobody expressed concern about the template in my own user space. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (ec twice) No harm will arise from restoring the copy in userspace and instituting an MfD if you feel it useful to do so. And it would appear that the 7 editors who felt it proper in userspace made up a significant part of the entire discussion panel, while only 2 voiced specific desire for simple deletion. Note: I !voted for userspace in the original discussion, and would !vote "keep" in an MfD. Collect (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how you interpreted the comments to say that only two editors "voiced specific desire for simple deletion". The comments included one simple delete, two "speedy" deletes (speedy was, quite properly, declined), "it should go", and "Delete, delete, delete (and did I say "delete"?)", plus an editor who changed position from move to delete based on one of the "speedy delete" comments, and the nominator who made it clear that he would have nominated the same box if it were in user space. But as noted above I did not base my close on headcounting. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and send to MfD. The TfD nomination has an unfortunate procedural problem that results from our somewhat bureaucratic template rules: Userboxes are allowed in template space (if they are utterly uncontroversial), in project space (if it's a WikiProject template, although this is discouraged) or in user space (anything that we as a community can tolerate as being within our standards). Per previous discussion, however, all userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MfD regardless. If the discussion at TfD had only encompassed the template-space userbox, that would be a minor flaw not worth quibbling about; however, applying it to a userspace copy that wasn't part of the original nomination is problematic, because it's entirely possible that editors commenting on a userspace template at MfD would have applied a different standard from the one they have for templates in the main template namespace. The userspace version of the template ought to be reconsidered in the correct venue. Having said that, the principal result of the TfD nomination looks solid - there is a consensus not to have such a template in the main template namespace. Short version: What Collect said, in its entirety. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course Undelete - obvious case of abuse of power by administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.20 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from AnonMoos on my talk page:
- I think it should be kept in userspace (not in mainspace), but I don't really have anything to say beyond what I already said the first time around. AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I was on the fence between delete and keep, and am still not entirely convinced it should exist anywhere, I now think that on procedural grounds, the template should be restored in userspace. The reason why I'm saying this is simply because it could create a bad precedent. I have no doubt that the closing admin acted in good faith here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. WP:CSD G10 applies. G10 is not limited to personal attacks, and the template is a page that "disparage[s] ... some other entity", i.e., the Arabic Wikipedia, and "serve[s] no other purpose". Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this issue was resolved before because clearly most people did agree to KEEP but MOVE this to userspace. I did not vote infavour of deleting this. Ofcourse this should be undeleted immediately. Also like I said before I really recommend people to read the translated version of Arabic wikipedia articles to see how biased they are just like most their editors even in the English version, the Middle Eastern articles are often subjected to edit wars against these biases.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Support for the template came in the form of non-arguments like "it's true" and the rather self-perpetuating "keep because others want it kept". This isn't a vote, so it doesn't matter how many bad arguments were made to keep it if they fail to address the concerns raised. I can see this being relisted at MfD and getting the same result, so I would regard that as a waste of time. (note that I don't usually go in for bolding my stance in XfDs these days, but Lanternix has made a royal hash of the above discussion by repeatedly re-commenting and as such it's difficult to tell what's going on.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion of userspace version. There is a clear consensus that this does not belong in the template namespace, but there are equally strong arguments for and against having this in userspace and there was no consensus about whether it should exist there. Combine this with TfD not being the proper venue for userbox deletions (and thus many of those interested and experienced in dealing with disputed userboxes may have missed this discussion), that not everyone in the discussion clearly expressed an opinion regarding having it in userspace (the anon's reason for deletion is irrelevant to userspace userboxes for example), and I cannot endorse deletion of the userspace version from this discussion. No prejudice against an MfD though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete the one in the userspace. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It's not up to anybody, as far as I believe, to tell me what to believe in. There is a very popular userbox that misnames "rap" music to "Crap". Would you go delete this one because it offends Eminem? Arthur B (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. But certainly if it extended that to making controversial claims about the ethics or religious holdings of Eminem or rap's other participants. And certainly if it made controversial claims about two separate classes of Wikipedia editors. What one may "believe" is not the point; whether Wikipedia's system is used to carry it is the point: "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. ... Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours." If you have been believing otherwise and using a different meaning for "free" (which refers to the right to copy and distribute), my condolences, but now you know: Wikipedia is not your web host. --Closeapple (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the sarcasm which I will deliberately ignore, I believe that if your arguement is true and nobody owns his own webpage, then there is no use for userboxes all together. What is the point of having a user page if you are not to write about yourself in it? It goes without saying that in 'talking about yourself' you are actually making statements that can be offensive to others. Where do you draw the line? I feel offended when I read that someone is Christian or Buddhist or Satanist. Why not ban these userboxes? I feel offended when i see userboxes like these:User:Selfworm/FormerChristian User:Selfworm/NotChristian User:Selfworm/NotMuslim User:Selfworm/NotHindu User:Selfworm/Buddhism User:Selfworm/NotJewish Why don't you people go delete them? Arthur B (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF? I don't see those as attacking a group of people, just a simple statement of the user's religion. Like I said below, I feel a compromise can be reached, with a minor change in the language. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a correct application of policy. While it may be technically correct to undelete and send to MfD, such content is not permissible per Wikipedia:CSD#G10 and/or WP:UP#NOT regardless of how many votes may pop up. WP:BURO, applied liberally, can save us a pointless exercise here. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, mostly per G10.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2010; 14:36 (UTC)
- I can't see a way to see what exactly this thing said. Per the discussion I'm going to overturn userspace deletion. But to evaluate the G10 claim I need to see it... Hobit (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the DRV links for the template space one, which from what I gather is identical to the userspace one. You should be able to see it in the Google cache. Tim Song (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tim. I don't see a clear G10 here. The difference between disparaging and reasonable (though heated) criticism isn't a bright line and IMO this userbox isn't clearly on one side of that murky line. I'd stick with overturn (as the discussion certainly lacks consensus to delete in userspace) and refer to MfD if desired. I'd probably !vote to keep at MfD. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I personally do not think the userbox qualified for G10 speedy deletion, and did not base the close on that. However, I was swayed by the arguments that the content was divisive enough to violate the guidelines at WP:Userboxes and WP:User page. The comments of Closeapple (talk · contribs) in the TFD were particularly thorough on this. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse not clear enough for a speedy, but not suitable content, even in user space. A decision that did express the consensus, and I personally agree with that consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the discussion significantly addressed userspace at all other than those wanting to move it into userspace. How could the consensus be to delete something that was only discussed in the "keep" sense (moving to it)? I'm okay with those claiming that it's a G10. Though I disagree, it's not at all unreasonable. But to claim a discussion about template space applies to userspace is pretty novel. I believe we rejected a similar argument (article space and user space) quite recently for a bio... Hobit (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the editors !voting to delete did so after most of the "move" !voters, so if they meant it was not OK in template space but was OK in user space, then they could have easily said "move" like the others. Also, the arguments I gave the greatest weight cited guidelines that clearly apply to user space. If someone cites WP:CSD#G10 or WP:UP#NOT, I can't possibly take them to mean "but only in template space". --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find no precedent for weighing what one feels a person's opinion must be from looking at the point at which they state their opinion <g>. MfD is where userpages get discussed. Has that policy been altered recently? Collect (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think the flow of a discussion is part of its interpretation, but more immediately relevant is that I believe my interpretation of the delete comments is supported by some of the same editors' comments here. But even if I was entirely right about what they meant, deleting the user copy that Laternix made late in the discussion was a difficult judgment call, so I'm not surprised that some of the uninvolved commenters here agree with it and some disagree. MFD is where userboxes are discussed, regardless of namespace. So one option would have been to close the discussion as being the wrong venue and require the whole thing (including the template space version) to be listed at MFD instead. I would have done exactly that if I had caught the discussion early enough (see this, for example), but after seven days of robust discussion that would have been needlessly bureaucratic. Deciding (as I finally did) that separately listing the user space copy was also unnecessary was much less obvious. Still, I thought it was the right call at the time and I still do. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at MfD While there was a consensus that this userbox should have been deleted in the template mainspace, I cannot discern a consensus for deletion in userspace, at least not in the TfD. Indeed, many participants in the discussion explicitly supported userfying the userbox. Ultimately, this can be sorted out best at MfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete immediately. No clear G10 and no consensus for deletion. Template expresses personal opinion, and user has the right to do so in own space. --Khips (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion in any space. The original content in question accused an entire Wikipedia language of being "completely biased and unfair" and "Run by some Islamic fundamentalists". Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? exists specifically to proscribe this type of content: #9 ("statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons") and #10 ("Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws"). See also WP:BATTLE, and the original TfD, in which I described several guideline violations, including an argument for WP:CSD#G10. Unless User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki contains a substantially different statement that meets guidelines, it shouldn't be anywhere, user space or otherwise, regardless of which deletion procedure was used. --Closeapple (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, Arabic Wikipedia IS completely biased and IS in fact run by people who sympathize with Islamic terrorism. This is not only my opinion, but that of many Arabic-speakers users, some of whom did in fact express their opinions here or in the previous discussion (including Ysamina, Toothie, Arthur B, and Degen Earthfast). The fact that we are raising awareness about this should be praised not criticized! Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that rules #9 and #10 above applies to Wikipedia in other languages. Of course vilifying editors on English Wiki is not ok because people can in fact read English and make up their own opinion about who's right and who's wrong. But people on English Wiki CANNOT understand the atrocities happening on Arabic Wikipedia, and many of us feel that they need to. Thirdly, this is personal freedom and we are not harming anybody. This is merely our own opinion about a certain website. Like another person said, would you delete a template saying that rock music sucks because you would be harming the feelings of rock musicians??? Where exactly did the freedom of speech go??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These points are already addressed by Wikipedia policy:
- The first statement is the strongest reason the reason this content is up for deletion, and why I have mentioned WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP before: It makes defamatory statements about living people without reliable sources, which exposes Wikipedia itself to legal liability. This is the most strictly enforced rule on Wikipedia, just for that reason. I am not sure how one can have 5300 edits on en.wikipedia and not have a clear idea of how important it is to avoid defaming living persons based on just thinking everyone else would believe you if they saw what you saw. Unless you have third party, uninvolved, already publicly-credible sources to show that every active person in a leadership role on Arabic Wikipedia either follows beliefs that are widely held to be Islamic fundamentalism, or self-identifies as an Islamic fundamentalist, one cannot make this statement without attracting legal problems for Wikipedia from anyone who believes you have unfairly labeled them as following a belief they don't identify themselves as. It is prohibited on Wikipedia to make controversial statements about living people without something more concrete than the equivalent of "I know lots of people who think so" and "if you could see what I see, you'd know" (which is WP:OR on its face anyway). "Raising awareness" is what WP:NOTSOAPBOX says Wikipedia is not for. The first paragraph of that section specifically notes that it applies to templates and user pages as well.
- Second, as far as #9 and #10 (which have since become unnumbered) not applying to Wikipedia in other languages: (a) You are the only person I can recall ever claiming that Wikipedia editors in other languages weren't really Wikipedia editors when it came to policy. (b) If English Wikipedia guidelines did not consider Wikipedia in other languages to be relevant, then that would mean this userbox doesn't even exist for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia it's on, and therefore there is even less reason to keep such a userbox. (c) Regardless of (a) and (b), some Arabic Wikipedia editors (you, for example!) are also English Wikipedia editors; I assume that even some Arabic Wikipedia administrators are English Wikipedia editors as well. Saying the output of Arabic editors is "completely biased" and "run by" Islamic fundamentalism is a direct attack on their willingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines, which compromises their reputation for WP:NPOV in English as well. Feeling that "they need to" introduce opinions is (again) exactly why WP:NOTSOAPBOX exists.
- On the third point: It is policy and widely held consensus on Wikipedia, as well as official Wikimedia Foundation policy (per the organization's board of directors, if I remember), that defamatory statements about living people is about as close to "harming anybody" as exists on Wikipedia, second only to exposing personal identities of editors without consent. As I mentioned above to Arthur B above: If a template accused rock musicians of being "run by" people of a controversial religious belief (especially one with no specific definition) and of being "completely biased" as Wikipedia editors, yes, it would and should get deleted from Wikipedia. Freedom of speech went to WP:NOTFREESPEECH via "Wikipedia is not your web host". Wikipedia was not created to be a free web host for personal beliefs. There are millions of other websites and hosts for that. See also WP:NOT#ESSAY: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." It's worth pointing out that making your "opinions become part of such knowledge" is exactly what you've said the intent of that userbox is. (It is also worth pointing out that even very free societies have defamation exceptions to freedom of speech. Legal ramifications for Wikipedia are one of the reasons WP:BLP exists.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When do such discussions usually conclude? And will be majority vote that rules, or will be again the conviction and judgment of the deleting admin? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV discussions are usually kept open for 7 days or so. This discussion, for example, is scheduled to be closed on the 18th or 19th. The relevant policy on closing is Wikipedia:Consensus. This is not, strictly, a majority vote, but DRV's are more rarely closed "against the numbers" than AfD's though by no means never. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete the one in the userspace. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It's not up to anybody, as far as I believe, to tell me what to believe in. We as a community kept the pictures of Mohammed on the Mohammed page. Someone gets offended, oh well. WP:Not PC.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Degen Earthfast! Excellent point! Why allow Wikipedia to insult all Muslims by posting Muhammad's caricatures, but prevent some users from expressing their opinion about Arabic Wikipedia? How is the former considered freedom of speech and the later not? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The images aren't there as an exercise in freedom of speech, they are present to improve the encyclopaedia. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech". Guest9999 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The images are there even though they are "divisive"! Isn't this the argument used against my template? And even if they're only there to "improve the encyclopaedia", so is my template. It raises awareness about and exposes wrong actions on Arabic Wikipedia, which are the first steps toward improvement! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The drawing of Muhammad is on Wikipedia because of a month of discussion (and then some), about the primary element of an event that clearly met Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it resulted in extensive press coverage, major international diplomacy issues, and riots. Unless ambassadors and heads of state have had press conferences about this userbox, the reasons the Muhammad drawing is on Wikipedia don't apply to some Wikipedian's userbox creation. --Closeapple (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion in both spaces, per rationale of RL0919, DGG, and Closeapple. I would, however, support recreation of this userbox with some minor modifications in the language. Clearly, one should be allowed to express an opinion, but there are some limitations. I am hopeful that a reasonable compromise can be reached. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not engage in discussion about the template until the template is restored in my own userspace, since I continue to believe the deletion is unfounded, unilateral and not in accordance with proper Wikipedia guidelines. Once my template is restored, I may be willing to discuss minor modifications suggested by Plastikspork that would allow my to freely express my opinion. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Arabic edition need to be kept on, especially when we all try to project a more honest information fountain to be available to some that have no reliable sources at hand, such as 9so many in the) the Arabic speaking world.. Geenahs (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so people understand, this was another user with an Undelete vote. I'm keeping track, and so far there are 12 Undelete against 6 Endorse, FYI. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 08:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained to you on at least two occasions now, this is not a vote. It doesn't matter how many non-arguments are made to keep the template if the primary argument that it is intended solely to disparage another subject is not addressed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as you can see, the overwhelming majority of people here are against the deletion. If it doesn't matter what people think, then I suggest you go ahead and suggest that Wikipedia deletes the deletion review pages! Oh, and by the way, now we're up to 15 votes against deletion and 6 votes for deletion. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - seems like canvassing by User:Lanternix in the form of campaigning. Messages to multiple users start "Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion..." - this is clearly not neutral wording (messages: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Guest9999 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These were the participants in the TFD. Initially the notification was just to "keep" !voters, which I complained about, leading Lanternix to notify the remaining participants (except two, who I notified to make it complete). I didn't bother to complain about the tilted wording because the participants from the TFD already had opinions about the subject and I didn't think the choice of phrasing would do much to change their views. --RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can message whomever I'd like. Wiki-hounding me won't do you any good. But as RL0919 said, I messaged everyone I thought was involved in the previous discussion (I happened to miss 2 of them by mistake). --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Canvassing "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." (emphasis added). Whilst the recipients may have expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion, deletion review considers a completely different issue - whether process was followed correctly. This is something that clearly could not have been discussed during the initial discussion and telling every user that the deletion was "unfounded" is clearly not neutral wording. Guest9999 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Needless to say, I believe the deletion was "unfounded", and this is why I called for re-evaluation here. I thought it was redundant to mention something like this, but apparently some people still don't understand that I believe deleting something on my userspace without any consensus whatsoever is unfounded! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you believe the deletion was unfounded; that's implied by the fact that you acted to challenge deletion, and doesn't especially need to be repeated. The editors commenting above are correct in saying that you should strive to be neutral in your notifications regardless, which can usually be done simply by omitting comments about why you chose to challenge deletion. Anyone with an interest in the matter will be able to read your rationale at the actual deletion review. Just something to keep in mind for the future. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reevaluate it, Lanternix's arguement makes sense.
And of course Lanternix has a right to message whome ever he desires.
Toothie3 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. There seemed to be a consensus at the TfD discussion that this belonged in Userspace, and Lanternix moved it in good faith. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per CSD G10, serves no purpose beyond disruption. --Stormie (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Userboxes with the purpose of disparaging specific groups do not belong in any namespace. This is a good close. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment first of all I would like to know why is it a geniune concern like this is being deleted (wrongfully since most favoured against deletion before) is being trialed like this when other editors have templates openly stating they support Violence against military agression an example;
This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties [13] and another one [14] which was clearly made for Hezbollah whcih may I remind you all is by law in most the western world considered a terrorist organization yet a template raising the concern over the bias and extremist sympathizing taking place on the articles is considered extreme?.
This is Political corectness beyond an abnormal scale. You know what there should be another template created stating; This user believes English wikipedia is manipulated by radicals and their apologists.
why is templates that endorse violence allowed to be on wikipedia, yet this one not?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- simple: It's not a template. If you'd like to complain about an individual user's page-design, bring it up at ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It IS a userbox and explain why a userbox regardless if it's not a template which states a certain editor endorses violence not being automatically deleted yet this which was voted to be kept, was?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to have another userbox deleted, you can nominate it for deletion? This discussion is reviewing the deletion procedure of one particular userbox. Also, as Seb az86556 already mentioned, those particular userboxes are not transcluded templates, they are using the generic {{userbox}} template. See the wikicode. So the correct place to bring up those pages would be at ANI. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my point is there is clearly a double standard in what wikipedia considers ofensive, we already went through another disucssion before about this before most people agreed to keep it yet it be moved to userspace which it was but still deleted anyway. Who on earth is this admin to overule on a voting outcome? which favoured keeping the template this is undermining the whole point of even bringing any complaints or discussion here if the outcome is already masterminded.
♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion from userspace as a correct reading of consensus in the debate. Arguments are weighed, not counted. This is a clearly unacceptable userbox and needs to stay gone. The one mentioned above probably do to but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments are indeed weighed and not counted, which is why the deletion of the userspace version should be overturned. Several of those who thought it did not belong in the template namespace explicitly stated it should be moved to userspace; others advocating deletion advanced reasons that are irrelevant to userspace (notably "does not show expertise for article improvement on English wikipedia"). And while several of the keep votes are weak (e.g. "I also think you guys should go and see some Arabic articles and judge for yourself.") this boils down to "it is a true statement", which should (and probably did) hold little weight for keeping the template but should not be discounted as a reason for keeping it as a userbox (it shouldn't be given much weight, but should be given some). Also, as the copy to userspace did not happen until late in the discussion, you can't be certain that those commenting early one who didn't explicitly say anything about userspace hold the same opinion for both namespaces. All this points to there being no consensus to delete the userspace version. The only pages on Wikiepdia that are "clear unacceptable" without their being a consensus to this effect are those pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Of the CSD only G10 is a possible fit here, and several administrators have explicitly said that it doesn't meet the criteria for G10, meaning that CSD cannot apply and thus it is not "clearly unacceptable". Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
