- User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Not sure what to make of this deletion. The warning box at WP:UBX/POLITICS may address this, but that wasn't invoked. Rather, WP:G10 was invoked. G10 addresses attacking or harassing a person. Uncle Sam is not a person, nor is the U.S. government. Additionally, someone living in Canada should at least be aware that those of us living in the United States cherish the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as a vital link to our claim as a free country. There's a big difference between using the public domain status of works of the U.S. government to fill up content and creating a work which appears to smell of reflecting the U.S. government's agenda by suppressing dissenting voices. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn WP:G10, list at XfD. WP:ATTACK talks about a page, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. You could make a plausible case that this userbox was intended to disparage the US Government. But it seems to me that G10 was intended to protect people, and by extension, companies and organizations, not to protect the US Government. That being said, I don't think the userbox belongs in wikipedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to make political statements. There are plenty of other, better, forums to express the opinion promoted by this userbox. But let's delete it through community process, not by administrative fiat. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see the box, but given what Roy says, I can't imagine I'd !vote to do anything other than overturn. Also, did anyone contact @CambridgeBayWeather: before or after this DRV was posted? Hobit (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Sandstein for the complete story. overturn I don't think G10 is designed to protect governments, but I certainly can't blame the deleting admin for following the letter of the rules. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The userbox said: "This user's privacy, safety and liberty are threatened by America's bullshit", and contained image links to Uncle Sam is watching you! (sic, a red link) and to PRISM (surveillance program). The G10 deletion rule covers "pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". The userbox did disparage the United States, which is a state and therefore an "entity", and its surveillance program, and serves no discernible other purpose (at least in the context of writing an encyclopedia). G10 was therefore correctly applied. Contrary to RoySmith, I don't see anything in G10 to suggest that governments or states are exempt from its coverage, although I agree with him that the deletion outcome was also correct on the merits because we are not a forum for political speech. Sandstein 10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Coomment The appeal to freedom of speech is a red herring and is covered at Wikipedia:Free speech. I'd also point out that there is no evidence that the user in question is located in the US and it could possibly have been a general attack on Americans. There are enough people on Wikipedia with an anti something attitude and there is no need to encourage them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Users are traditionally granted wide latitude in their own userspace. Looking at the guidelines for G10, it's not reasonably possible to stretch the definition to cover this situation. The USA is a nation state and can't be libelled. The provision about legal threats clearly does not apply. It's not reasonably possible to threaten, harass, or intimidate a country. None of our BLP rules can reasonably be invoked. This is stretching G10 way beyond its intended scope and I don't see how we can allow it to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G10 is not (only) about BLP or libel. It's about content that is more broadly out of scope of our project because it boils down to "X sucks!", which is a waste of bytes because Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for our personal views about countries, people or whatever. Replace "America" with, say, "Israel" or "Muslims", and it becomes perhaps a bit more clear why G10's wording does encompass this kind of content. Sandstein 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that argument and I do feel its force. I'd reply with two questions. Firstly, should DRV interpret speedy deletion criteria narrowly or broadly? Secondly, should DRV compare the action against the criterion as written, or should it be more elastic and infer novel terms the community has yet to discuss?—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how these questions apply to this issue. CSD, like all policies, should be applied based on its wording as interpreted in the light of Wikipedia's core principles and policies - in this case, WP:NOT a forum or a web host. Sandstein 22:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's two distinct questions here. One is whether this content (i.e. the userbox) is acceptable. The other is whether it's appropriate for a single admin, acting in isolation, to make that decision. My opinion on WP:CSD is that admins should be very conservative in applying it. Once a number of people get involved (i.e. an XfD discussion), it's much less likely that we get it wrong. I'm not saying that XfD always gets it right, just that the failure rate is lower than for any single person acting alone. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, List at MfD, and Delete per WP:POLEMIC; offensive divisive and not related to the project
An over-stretch of CSD#G10, its primary purpose was not per the wording of G10, but to make a claim for political sympathy. If undeleted, I could check the author's other contributions to look for a bigger picture, but "WP:NOT a forum or a web host" is not a CSD criterion. It was not so offensive that routine passage through MfD was inadvisable. It is so clearly "WP:POLEMIC; offensive divisive and not related to the project" that I have zero doubt that it would be deleted at MfD. leave it deleted --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Not G10. Needs discussion at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at MfD I suppose this may technically fall under the wording of G10, depending on how you feel about the utility of allowing editors limited political expressions in userspace, but I don't think it's appropriate to use G10 to get rid of negative political userboxes in userspace. I suspect it won't survive MfD. Hut 8.5 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at MfD, per multiples of the above. Jclemens (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at MfD. G10 shouldn't stretch that far. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Useless, but not G10. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
|
