Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia

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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 14:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia

Divisive politicking. And utter nonsense: There is no "campaign to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia". Rather, there is clear consensus at Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse flags, Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland, Talk:Northern Ireland, etc. that the Ulster Banner should not be used where it is not appropriate. Beano ni (talk · contribs), Setanta747 (talk · contribs) and a few other holdouts continue to keep adding this flag all over the place, such as in bio infoboxes, even though the flag has not been the flag of N.I. for years and exists almost solely as a highly-politicized Unionist symbol (I have no pro or con opinion on Irish nationalism, only on the abuse of political symbols in Wikipedia). As per WP:CONSENSUS, a lack of 100% unanimity does not mean that consensus has not been reached for WP purposes. See also User talk:Setanta747 for a pile of evidence as to the lengths of N.I. political editwarring to which some of the fans of this userbox will go. That needs to get nipped in the bud before that becomes a "campaign" indeed — the seeming sole purpose of this infobox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated/clarified nomination: Nominator suggests that the deletion policy is satisfied twice over because:

  1. As there is no evidence of any such "campaign", this userbox constitutes patent nonsense (defined in relevant part as: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.")
  2. It violates the user page guidelines, (doing so is a valid deletion criteria under WP:DP), in constituting a barely-veiled "polemical statement"

Furthermore, it violates the "What Wikipedia is not" policy thrice-over, in contravening:

  1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  2. Wikipedia is not a battleground
  3. Wikipedia is not your web host, "...your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier..." (emphasis in original)

And finally, it contravenes the following other policies and guidelines:

  1. Civility, in that it attacks other editors as a conspiratorial "campaign", and misrepresents good-faith, consensus-backed editors who disagree with overuse of flag icons and factually incorrect misuse of an unofficial flag as if it were official, as effectively ganging up on the userbox proponents (despite the fact that these other editors are not opposed to appropriate use of this flag)
  2. Assume good faith, for the same reasons
  3. No personal attacks, marginally, and for the same reasons; no one is specified by name, but both of the main proponents of this userbox have made it clear that "the campaign" means those who revert (for whatever reasons) their attempts to insert more and more copies of the Ulster Banner into articles and template, editwarring over which has already resulted in one of the userbox proponents being blocked.
  4. Disruptive editing, as the sole purpose of this userbox is to foment and organize more discord and editwarring in the Northern Ireland articles and templates, to push a particular point of view (borderline canvassing that's just using userboxes instead of user talk page posts), which inevitably leads to...
  5. Neutral point of view to the extent that it applies to non-article contexts, in that both proponents have made it abundantly clear that their point of view on this is strong, political and personal, and will not change regardless what facts and logic are presented to them, to the point in one case of vowing to an admin to continue editwarring over the matter as soon as the block is lifted (see User talk:Setanta747#Blocked).
  6. And most obviously, Userboxes: "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive."

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • But why is putting the userbox on his user page offensive? -N 12:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:USERBOX: "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive." Wikipolitical canvassing by userbox is by definition intentionally inflammatory and divisive, especially when it characterizes those with an opposing viewpoint as "campaigning". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no reason to delete a userbox unless it is illegal or offensive. This is neither.Traditional unionist 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of what is unacceptably divisive is incredulous. Lets not go down this road.Traditional unionist 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Create your own userbox if you must - "This user opposes the campaign to oppose the campaign to remove the N. I. flag from Wikipeda - but let these folks express their frustration. It's not a violation of any policy. Shalom Hello 13:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Doing so would probably constitute disruption to make a point, and I have no opinion on Irish political issues. Folks can express their frustration on the relevant talk pages, without effectively trying to create a wikipolitical party. It is a violation of WP:USERBOX, which while not a Policy is still a sensible guideline arrived at over a very long time with a lot of consensus buy-in. (Indeed there was a strong move to simply get rid of userboxes entirely, and WP:USERBOX and its reasonableness is one of the reasons we still have userboxes at all). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there actually is a campaign to remove the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia - it has been ongoing on the Northern Ireland article since at least the beginning of this year. You, SMcCandlish, are probably not particularly involved in it I would say - you merely have an issue with flagcruft which I don't necessarily disagree with, to be frank. The flag is not, as you claim, "a highly-politicized Unionist symbol" - at least not solely. It is in fact the flag of Northern Ireland. How it is misused or abused is not the issue, nor does it make the flag of Northern Ireland not the flag of Northern Ireland! Nor are any of the users you accuse "adding the flag all over the place" - they are usually replacing the flag after it has been removed by a list of the usual suspects.
The flag of Northern Ireland remains the flag of Northern Ireland even though our devolved government ceased to be in 1973. Scotland has had its own flag(s) for a long time now, as has Wales, yet they haven't had devolved governments until recently. England also has its own flag, despite being the only country in the UK which does not have a devolved administrative government. All of these flags are, by the way, "political".
The consensus, by the way, that had been reached prior to this campaign to remove the Northern Ireland flag, was that the Northern Ireland flag should remain on the Northern Ireland article. A vote has since been taken that failed to reach any consensus. The previous consensus is usually adhered to in these cases. This doesn't seem to be the case for the Northern Ireland article for some odd reason. Perhaps you'd like to voice your opinion about that some time.
A userbox to the opposite opinion already exists, by the way. Perhaps you'd like to comment how that particular box is "Divisive politicking" and "utter nonsense". No..? I thought not. --Mal 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer in reverse order: I was not aware of that counter-userbox, and yes, I'll happily MfD that as well if tell me where it is. A vocal camp wanting to remove the Ulster Banner from from the N.I. article does not constitute "a campaign to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia"; indeed, there is a well-written entire article on that flag, and no one I'm aware of is agitating for its deletion. The dispute at the Northern Ireland article is simply another editing dispute in a controversial article; pretty common around here. It is a mistake to assume that because someone for political reasons opposes the use of the flag in that article that anyone who opposes some other use of that flag in other articles and in different contexts has the same political feelings; this simply isn't the case, as a read of WP:FLAGCRUFT and its talk page clearly demonstrates. There is already consensus at WP:FLAGCRUFT and elsewhere that the flag has a number of legit uses in Wikipedia (e.g. in specific sports contexts already mentioned, as well as for identifying N.I. within the context of the time periods during which the flag was valid.) If you at least largely agree that flagcruft is bad, please stop adding the flag to bio articles as a "nationality" identifier. The legal/official status of the flag in question is well documented. It is not the flag of Northern Ireland; it is the former flag of Northern Ireland. I really, really wish that the UK govt. would simply approve a new flag for N.I. so that the entire issue would just go away (I would hope), but oh well. Lastly, the fact that the U.B. is a higly politicized Unionist symbol is well-documented (off Wikipedia, I mean; I looked into this issue pretty carefully before getting involved in this issue and writing most of WP:FLAGCRUFT). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — it's as equally "divisive" as the non-template userbox found on User:Padraig3uk, so it would be improperly confrontational to target users on one side of this disagreement and not the other. Andrwsc 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment my userbox was created from the one being Discussed here, it was a light hearted response to their nonsense, I would gladly remove it myself, if this one is removed from wikipedia. There is no campaign to remove the Ulster banner from WP as they claim, just to try and get editors to use it in its proper context, something that WP:Flagcruft is aiming for and something I fully support.--padraig3uk 22:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Dual-reply comment: This sub-issue sounds resolved then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have no opinion either way, however a simple userbox was deleted from my user page by admin. See here.--Vintagekits 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no such campaign to remove the Ulster Banner.--padraig3uk 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not inherently divisive, nor is it an advocacy template for an outside issue. Rather, it is an advocacy template for an internal issue, which is perfectly okay in my book. Also keep in mind that this is not the place to discuss the flag issue. Why people are even talking about the FLAGCRUFT essay is beyond me. This has nothing to do with the userbox, correct? --- RockMFR 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to question: Incorrect; the "campaign to get rid of the flag" is a falsehood. Three things are happening: 1) FLAGCRUFT folks are trying to prevent outright abuse of it (per WP:NPOV); 2) Northern Ireland editors are engaged in a perennial dispute about whether the flag should appear in that article, with what presentation and in what context, etc.; 3) there are allegedly a few partisan flamers running around that literally do want it removed from WP as much as possible. I do not actually believe this allegation. I have been looking for them high and low, and they do not appear to exist (Flag of Northern Ireland being heavily and consistently vandalized by the same people or their meat puppets to remove the flag or add false information or political PoV to the article, or the article being WP:POINT AfD'd, might constitute some evidence). Even if these "militants" do exist, none of those three type of activity/issue constitute a campaign, and taken as a whole (which they are not) they still don't constitute a campaign. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I have no strong opinions on this, but I would say there is a "campaign to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia". See this diff for example on the Template:Scouts UK Counties. As a results the section on NI is the only one that does not have a flag to illustrate the section. However, maybe is should be removed to avoid political divisiveness. I do not know. I agree with the comment above "I really, really wish that the UK govt. would simply approve a new flag for N.I. so that the entire issue would just go away". We need to keep partisan political views out of WP but I do not think that this userbox on a user page really does much harm, so a weak keep. --Bduke 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not using the flag where it is not valid or appropriate is not a campaign to remove it from WP. If the results of that are a funny looking page, then people should stop over-using flag icons, not use an incorrect one to make their article layout pretty! The UBX is doing harm in that it is alarming people and encouraging them to fight about something that is a phantom issue. I.e., it is divisive in precisely the way WP:USERBOX is trying to avoid. If the thing were just rephrased to be less alarmist/paranoid and combative that might resolve the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's bad enough that there's a concerted effort to remove the flag from Northern Ireland articles on the grounds of some make-believe "consensus" and now you want to silence anyone with the nerve to notice and highlight this? Stalin would be proud. beano 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please see my comment immediately above. This is precisely what I mean by "alarmist/paranoid", "combative" and "conspiracy theory". Pretty big Godwin's Law stumble, there, by the way. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [

cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Firstly, I was under the impression Godwin's law referred specifically to Hitler while my claim was not of the form "Hitler did/liked X so X must be bad", but referred to a parallel in a specific strategy: attempts to forcibly silence those with whom we disagree. Anyway, back to the issue itself: you said " the thing were just rephrased to be less alarmist/paranoid and combative that might resolve the issue" however it was out of attempting to resolve things civilly and having it thrown back in our faces that frustration grew to the point where this UserBox was born! A concerted effort is being made by 3-4 editors (most of whom I believe have already commented on this page) to pretend that the Northern Ireland flag is a 'historic flag' only which is patently not true. However, since they are larger in number and, frankly, more inclined to push the issue (I won't comment on the movitvations for fear of breaching WP:CIVIL, accuracy and/or the truth of the matter doesn't seem to enter into anything. Finally, an some of the allegations above are very ill-founded. Attempting to highlight a deliberately promoted myth/mistake is not the same as being deliberately 'disruptive' or pushing a political POV. In fact I would like this statement both proponents have made it abundantly clear that their point of view on this is strong, political and personal, and will not change regardless what facts and logic are presented to them, my "point of view" is strong, yes, but I don't believe it to be political and it's certainly not personal. There are other flags I would like to see used for NI, however they are not currently in use. If I wanted to push a POV my preference would be for this one. Finally, if someone presents facts or logic that are convincing I will accept them, however the only arguments presented are: that
neither of which I contend, but neither officaliness nor universal acceptance seem to be a pre-requisite for use of the flag in Wikipedia and nor is not liking it a reason for exclusion. beano 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: The first of your examples is precisely the point. If it is not officially the flag of N.I. then it is not the flag of N.I. for WP purposes, else we open the door to every wanna-be flag anyone may wish to apply to anything. That is the "truth and/or accuracy of the matter", period. As for Godwin's Law, the current version of the article no longer mentions it, but substituting Stalin for Hitler is one of the canonical corollaries; the point being that the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy is still fallacious regardless who is substituted for Hitler (reductio ad Dubya is quite common nowadays, as an example). Finally, the corollary to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is "ILOVEIT", which is clearly what is going on here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Setanta747 just got a lengthy block for continual editwarring on Northern Ireland articles and templates over the Ulster Banner flagicon, and had his block removal request denied because he vowed to keep doing it! And reaffirmed he would keep doing after the block was denied! Sheesh. How much more evidence of the disruptive effect of this userbox and its unreasonable "editcommandos" do we need? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Put it another way: What if a gaggle of frequent WP:POINT-makers and all-around POV-pushing unrepentantly disruptive editors with a strong WP:3RR-violating penchant, with numerous warnings, and blocks to boot, decided to establish a little "wikihellraisers' club", promoted with a userbox, the boldly expressed goal of which was to make trouble and continue editwarring to push their PoV? Now, please tell me what the difference is. There is plenty of longstanding precedent for mercilessly XfDing userboxes and other templates that could in any way promote vandalism or other forms of intentional disruption, as well as the bulk of them that express an "anti-" position on controverial topics (George W. Bush, for example, as opposed to, say, split infinitives). The fact that the UBX is alleging an actual conspiracy of anti-Ulster-Banner "campaigning" editors (i.e. any editor who has ever reverted their abuse of a flagicon) is also wandering into WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL territory. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is there a consensus to keep this userbox?Traditional unionist 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's just you. A few ranty "there's a conspiracy!" keep !votes doesn't make a consensus for anything, especially when they studiously ignore every point being raised by the nomination, and straw man on about the imaginary campaign, and Communist censorship (ever heard of "talk pages"?)  :-) XfDs are a discussion, not a vote, and so far you have not actually responded to any issues raised. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't count any votes supporting your point of view. Sounds like consensus to me.Traditional unionist 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fortunately, you aren't an admin. This MfD has only been running a short while, and it's obvious that the bulk of the respondents are those actually using the userbox. When more neutral parties drop in, expect the balance to shift. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I already count 3 or 4 neutrals voting to keep and only 2 people voting to remove overall!Traditional unionist 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, are you in a hurry to catch a train or something? XfDs sometimes take over a week to conclude, and MfD moves much slower than AfD (it's not as "sexy" and consensus takes longer to build). It's clear that you really want this kept, but jumping up and down to try to get an XfD closed before it is due will typically inspire admins to keep it open even longer than they would have before. PS: An hour ago it was 1 delete, now it's 2, with no additional keeps; you seem anxious. Fretting over what others will do will just give you an ulcer or high blood pressure. Have a biscuit. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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.