| Revision as of 14:21, 12 January 2008 editCaulde (talk | contribs)21,354 edits →User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:24, 12 January 2008 edit undoDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits '''Comment with wikilove''': I've been known to delete these things - but to be honest, this will probably not be deleted as that's where consensus lies. The battle for deletion is no-longer one wortNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Comment''' (firstly, can plain editors comment?) As an editor, I find it a violation of ] for admins to delete userboxes without due process, and to assume that editors do not adhere to AGF themselves in the articles they participate in editing in. I also think the userboxes add transparency to the process by allowing other editors to know the opinions and potential intents (lord knows we have them) of others, instead of running circles around ourselves. That said, I will break AGF for a moment and point out that the only drama I've come across from these particularly political userboxes (right to resist, Tibetan independence (which has disappeared; can't find discussion at RFD or MFD), et al) have been from admins requesting deletion without much discourse. If this continues to be a problem, I will request mediation. ] (]) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' (firstly, can plain editors comment?) As an editor, I find it a violation of ] for admins to delete userboxes without due process, and to assume that editors do not adhere to AGF themselves in the articles they participate in editing in. I also think the userboxes add transparency to the process by allowing other editors to know the opinions and potential intents (lord knows we have them) of others, instead of running circles around ourselves. That said, I will break AGF for a moment and point out that the only drama I've come across from these particularly political userboxes (right to resist, Tibetan independence (which has disappeared; can't find discussion at RFD or MFD), et al) have been from admins requesting deletion without much discourse. If this continues to be a problem, I will request mediation. ] (]) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **I'm not sure of the idea regarding ] just yet, lets try and discuss consensus here first. ]] 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | **I'm not sure of the idea regarding ] just yet, lets try and discuss consensus here first. ]] 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| '''Comment with wikilove''': I've been known to delete these things - but to be honest, this will probably not be deleted as that's where consensus lies. The battle for deletion is no-longer one worth fighting. However, I'd just plead with the creator and any others who use such things to stop and think. It may be that it is good to let people know your editing interests, however would it not be less dramatic simply to type "I am interested in editing articles on the Iraq war" - no fuss, no contention - just a mature, informative, declaration. We are here to build a neutral encyclopedia - so let's try to be nice and neutral. Now, some will say that it "is good to declare your biases - that actually helps neutrality" - fair enough. But would it not be better to do so in a way that works towards neutrality, and convinces people that neutral writing is your goal - rather than using proud colourful boxes. What about typing "I have a strong anti-Bush point of view, please let me know if my politics gets in the way of me being a neutral editor"? That declares your biases, but strongly suggests a mature self-reflection, and a desire to work to neutrality, rather than to ensure one POV is reflects. | |||
| Now, '''to those who want to use these booxes''', if you want to push policy, it is probably the case that deleting these things is without support and you are within your "rights" to keep them. Consider though that what you "can" do, and what you "should" do, if you are serious about creating a neutral encyclopedia, may not coincide. Could it be better to do things differently? | |||
| '''To those admins who think these things are unwikipedian''', and detrimental to the neutrality of our content, then consider this suggestion from a repentant userbox deletionist. Rather then using deletion, or slogging it out on MfD, why not try to change the culture to one where these things are not encourages and seen as reflecting a bad attitude to wikipedia. Use your influence to persuade users to do things differently - and let it be known that when assessing a user's suitability for trusted positions in the community, the commitment to neutrality and collegial editing demonstrated by their use of userspace will be a large consideration for you - even to the level of opposing people on RfA for having the wring attitude. Is suspect that will have far more impact, and influence with the community, with far less drama.--]<sup> g - ]</sup> 14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:24, 12 January 2008
User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist
- This userbox was previously deleted outside of any deletion process and restored via DRV, see the discussion here. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:06, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Delete This userbox is supporting Iraqi insurgency, on the other hand supporting Terrorism. Such userboxes cannot be teolerated. Yes it is true that the Iraq war is controversial, invasion of Iraq is controversial. Incidents like Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse can never be tolerated. On the other hand it is also true that Saddam Hussein's rule is not absolutely right. Iraqi resistance means what? Resistance against whom? Who occupied Iraq? I am never telling that the Americans are "good guy". But it is also need to be mentioned that pro-Saddam activists are also not "good guy". This userbox should be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - On a more basic level, this userbox is divisive, inflammatory, (intentionally?) controversial, and doesn't aid in encyclopedic collaboration. Probably qualifies for speedy delete under WP:CSD#T1. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:59, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I have already speedied this, but the DRV people thought that my action was more disruptive that the trollbox, and restored it. I disagree with the nominee - Misplaced Pages should not be in the basis of defining terrorism (which is POV). Judging between evil Saddam Hussein and evil illegal wars is, thankfully, a matter for the UN and not us. But the very fact that this box raises that divisive debate is grounds for deletion. Sure, it willbe argued that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that's not a reason to keep this trollbox.----Doc 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Speedy deletion overturned, this discussion was started as the result of a DRV decision and is therefore not subject to speedy deletion. WP:CSD is not a tool to forestall discussion over a controversial topic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment - I first noticed this userbox whilst patrolling CAT:CSD today, and it had transcluded the all the userpages it was on, into the category. I immediately deleted it, thinking it would remove these. I then decided to restore pending the result of this, but then another delete came in and to be honest, the userbox did look quite divisive. I was told "You should probably close the MfD with a good reason to ensure there's no good reason to restore this again" - keeping in mind that I deleted it under the CSD T1 criterion. (But forgot to add this to the deletion summary) Rudget. 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- T1 expressly only applies to Template space. G10 is narrowly tailored to only apply to direct personal attacks, and not to confrontational political views. Both arguments for speedy deletion have been refuted in the original DRV discussion.
This also holds for the other two userboxes you deleted.~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)- I haven't deleted any other userboxes. Rudget. 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misinterpreted a talk page discussion. |Link to original DRV. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I was unaware of the previous DRV. Apologies. Rudget. 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misinterpreted a talk page discussion. |Link to original DRV. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted any other userboxes. Rudget. 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- T1 expressly only applies to Template space. G10 is narrowly tailored to only apply to direct personal attacks, and not to confrontational political views. Both arguments for speedy deletion have been refuted in the original DRV discussion.
- Further comment - I first noticed this userbox whilst patrolling CAT:CSD today, and it had transcluded the all the userpages it was on, into the category. I immediately deleted it, thinking it would remove these. I then decided to restore pending the result of this, but then another delete came in and to be honest, the userbox did look quite divisive. I was told "You should probably close the MfD with a good reason to ensure there's no good reason to restore this again" - keeping in mind that I deleted it under the CSD T1 criterion. (But forgot to add this to the deletion summary) Rudget. 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (firstly, can plain editors comment?) As an editor, I find it a violation of WP:AGF for admins to delete userboxes without due process, and to assume that editors do not adhere to AGF themselves in the articles they participate in editing in. I also think the userboxes add transparency to the process by allowing other editors to know the opinions and potential intents (lord knows we have them) of others, instead of running circles around ourselves. That said, I will break AGF for a moment and point out that the only drama I've come across from these particularly political userboxes (right to resist, Tibetan independence (which has disappeared; can't find discussion at RFD or MFD), et al) have been from admins requesting deletion without much discourse. If this continues to be a problem, I will request mediation. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the idea regarding RFM just yet, lets try and discuss consensus here first. Rudget. 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment with wikilove: I've been known to delete these things - but to be honest, this will probably not be deleted as that's where consensus lies. The battle for deletion is no-longer one worth fighting. However, I'd just plead with the creator and any others who use such things to stop and think. It may be that it is good to let people know your editing interests, however would it not be less dramatic simply to type "I am interested in editing articles on the Iraq war" - no fuss, no contention - just a mature, informative, declaration. We are here to build a neutral encyclopedia - so let's try to be nice and neutral. Now, some will say that it "is good to declare your biases - that actually helps neutrality" - fair enough. But would it not be better to do so in a way that works towards neutrality, and convinces people that neutral writing is your goal - rather than using proud colourful boxes. What about typing "I have a strong anti-Bush point of view, please let me know if my politics gets in the way of me being a neutral editor"? That declares your biases, but strongly suggests a mature self-reflection, and a desire to work to neutrality, rather than to ensure one POV is reflects.
Now, to those who want to use these booxes, if you want to push policy, it is probably the case that deleting these things is without support and you are within your "rights" to keep them. Consider though that what you "can" do, and what you "should" do, if you are serious about creating a neutral encyclopedia, may not coincide. Could it be better to do things differently?
To those admins who think these things are unwikipedian, and detrimental to the neutrality of our content, then consider this suggestion from a repentant userbox deletionist. Rather then using deletion, or slogging it out on MfD, why not try to change the culture to one where these things are not encourages and seen as reflecting a bad attitude to wikipedia. Use your influence to persuade users to do things differently - and let it be known that when assessing a user's suitability for trusted positions in the community, the commitment to neutrality and collegial editing demonstrated by their use of userspace will be a large consideration for you - even to the level of opposing people on RfA for having the wring attitude. Is suspect that will have far more impact, and influence with the community, with far less drama.--Doc 14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)