Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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. I suppose on a technical level, closing this as a delete would be valid. By the very nature of the debate, it's clear that the userbox is divisive. But I don't think there's a real consensus either way. Doc's comments make the most sense. For those who want these kinds of political statements in their userspace, consider whether they advance the cause of a neutral Wikipedia. And for those who resist them, think about engaging the owner in a one to one conversation. It might take longer but it will involve less drama and might cause more understanding between editors. At the very least, you could ignore them and not bring outside battles into Wikipedia. That advice would fit both sides of this argument. Anyway, if you want a more a coherent explanation read Doc's comments below. I think if everyone really read and absorbed them drama like this might be less common. And if by some stroke of luck the RFC finds consensus, the community will have agreed what to do in these cases. RxS (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

This userbox has been deleted and restored 4 times in the last few days.

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 - Wikipedia 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 g - ask me for rollback 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Replaced with comment below.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 15:11, 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)
  • 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)
      • I was going to add "maybe not" ;) I don't want the arguments presented in the discussion ABOUT the discussion to be conflated with the arguments about the userbox, which I may be aiding in. I apologize. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I've probably inflated this, and I most probably didn't assume good faith. If anyone is going to apologise, please let it be me. Rudget. 14:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Nah, I'm taking this far too seriously for what's really just a vanity item ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:35, 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 not 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 boxes, 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 encouraged and are seen as reflecting the wrong 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, their commitment to neutrality and collegial editing as demonstrated (in part) by their use of userspace will be a large consideration for you - even to the level of opposing people on RfA for having the wrong attitude. I suspect that will have far more impact, and influence with the community, with far less drama.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree it could be done better. Although I like userboxes, as do many many others. It would have to be a matter of policy for politically-or-otherwise-sensitive userboxes to be removed. I don't think this will happen, and I don't think it should happen, which is not for me to decide. However, because policy on userboxes probably will not be forthcoming, I see no point in deleting them, since any userbox can take any amount of umbrage from anyone. Examples: (and I DO wear these things on my sleeve): I have a userbox saying I support the right for Iraqi's to resist the occupation, which many people will disagree with; I have a userbox saying I'm gay, which potentially hurts others opinion of me; interest in Islamic civilizations, which potentially hurts my standing in any article that concerns 1/5 of humanity that another 1/5 may very well despise (hyperbole)... which brings me to a problem: For every userbox espousing one view with a tacit implication, there is an opposite userbox that may or may not be acceptable (e.g., support-the-troops, support-the-iraqi's (acceptable, imo); interested-in-such-and-such, despise-such-and-such (unacceptable, imo)). (addendum: furthermore, the first set of examples are not mutually exclusive, and the latter are)
(I broke that sentence terribly, I apologize)...At any rate, I don't see any point in deleting userboxes when A) policy may not be forthcoming, and B) a better culture may not be forthcoming. It seems logical to me that you have the choice of which "evil" you want to put in your user space, whether it be userboxes with unspoken implications, or paragraph-length explanations with still unspoken implications. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm mentioned specifically so I suppose I should answer. I understand the argument that declaring positions on controversial issues on your userpage might be divisive and/or disruptive. But this is what happened: I looked at Wikipedia's political userbox list and saw that it had boxes for the "acceptable" positions on Iraq and only them, and was dismayed that Wikipedia was (in some small way) helping to box people's range of positions to take in. I wasn't about to make it my mission to tear down political userboxes, so instead I gave the universe (well, the political userbox page) some balance. --MQDuck (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just remember that it's not the case that only acceptable opinions are allowed as userboxes, just that the other options hadn't been created yet, which you'd done :) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't believe the old consensus for forbidding all political speech in User space is still in effect, regardless of whether or not the speech is in a rectangle or other geometric shape. Doc's suggestion amounts to saying there needs to be either a political litmus test or a unspoken policy of don't ask, don't tell for editors with certain beliefs who want to be Admin's some day. To my mind that goes against the grain of one of our core principles: wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. -- Kendrick7talk 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment But this is not political speech, this is terrorism. Supporting Iraqi insurgency is similar to supporting 9/11 attack. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That's nice rhetoric, and I'm more or less a pacifist myself, but I'm not going to insist on a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for all users who don't share my POV. -- Kendrick7talk 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The issue here is basically one of political incorrectness. There's only so much of that that usually gets tolerated on Wikipedia, for better or worse. Saying something like "I support the US troops in Iraq" is entirely politically correct, whereas "I support the Iraqi insurgency" is extremely politically incorrect. This is despite the fact that they are both basically saying the same thing, only regarding different sides of the argument. Now I could make a political argument here and say that I don't see how you can possibly compare the two sides, when the purpose of one is to kill people and the other is the opposite, but we probably shouldn't get into that. Unfortunately the people who "run" Wikipedia can sometimes forget that Wikipedia is really not meant to be an American institution, and that we need to be politically sensitive to cultures that hold conflicting opinions -- namely the fact that saying "I support the troops in Iraq" could make certain people feel just as uncomfortable as "us" when "we" see someone saying "I support the Iraqi insurgency".

Therefore, this should probably be a choice between keeping both types userboxes or deleting both. And I think we should delete both. I don't think Wikipedia should seek to settle these debates and I also don't think anyone should feel uncomfortable here. If that means sacrificing userboxes which have no real use to the encyclopedia anyway, I think that's a small price to pay. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:40, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove boxES as per Otolemur's massively disappointing comment above. But then, I think that users should still have the option of div'ing up a userbox if they wish (which is a compromise, imho, and localises any upsets) changed vote, explained below Xavexgoem (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What are you supporting? Are you referring to my comment? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:47, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately though, placing the raw code of a deleted template on a page is against policy, if I remember correctly... perhaps someone else knows for sure but I believe this has been decided in the past. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:51, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
          • To clarify, Ot's comment has proved to me that these boxes will always put someone on the defensive, and could go downhill from here or anywhere really quickly. I think in this case, deleting the iraqi userbox while keeping the american one (so-to-speak) is undue balance in support of a status-quo. See? It's personal, and since Ot's comment (which is massively offensive), I've had enough of it. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • To apologize for my unseemly behaviour: I apologize. Last word: WP:UNDUE. *sigh* sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Political correctness is in the eye of the beholder. This is not the United States Wikipedia, but the English language Wikipedia. Based on English, only about 1/4 of the English speakers (and only 2/3 of even the native English speakers) live in the US. I have little doubt whether the majority of English speakers think "supporting the US troops" is an acceptable position, though I do have some doubt whether they would think "Supporting the right to resist the Occupation" is really acceptable either. OLemur's comment at the top is a little confusing: he complains about the ambiguity of the template: if that is the only problem, he would presumably prefer "I support the right of Iraqis to resist the American Occupation" Personally, how about I support the right of all peoples to resist the occupation of their country by a foreign power who is going to disagree with that one? (Except for complete pacifists--not that I have anything against them). If we eliminate political userboxes, how far are we going to go -- how about , "This usser supports the G. W. Bush" , or even "This user supports the Republican party" or the various US presidential candidates? or even supports the United States? or supports the United Nations? DGG (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Care to my comment at the top. Necessity of resistance comes when a country is occupied. But Iraq is not occupied. Who occupied Iraq? So what is the necessity of "resistance"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a discussion of the factual accuracy of the userbox, or Iraq. However, it's troublesome not knowing whether it's up there to be polemical or just expressing an opinion, perhaps for the benefit of other editors. You can think what you will, and that may or may not be part of the point. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (to DGG) Not that this necessarily needs to be decided here, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with disallowing political userboxes altogether. What's the priority here? Allowing Wikipedians the freedom to express their political opinions in their userpages, or making everyone feel comfortable in the pursuit of the actual goal, writing an encyclopedia? However I do see your point -- that event most non-US English speakers probably would not consider it acceptable to support the Iraqi insurgency. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:38, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think having a policy that essentially smiles upon intolerance and bigotry furthers the goal of writing an encyclopedia. We aren't worker ants or bots, but a bunch of different human beings, and either we give users a page to say who they are or we don't. In the spirit of First they came... and as DGG said, where does it end? -- Kendrick7talk 16:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand. What policy would that be? Are you suggesting that the elimination of all political userboxes somehow constitutes bigotry? Equazcion •✗/C • 17:02, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • The policy seems to be one of "don't ask, don't tell" but I'm not sure if it's written down anywhere. Forbidding editors to express any political views would be far beyond bigotry, but I'm not sure what the word would be. Whether permission to do so depends on whether it is in userspace or written inside a rectangle is just WP:BURO-cracy window dressing, IMHO. -- Kendrick7talk 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well there is a small difference, in that a transcludable box exists outside one person's userspace, so it's now not just his opinion but rather something Wikipedia "condones". The word you might be looking for is suppression (of ideas)... It's not bigotry but it could still be bad, though I'd make the argument that it's really not, because there are other places where people can express their views, and an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily need to be one of them. Elimination of that which doesn't help the goals of this particular website isn't suppression, it's just focus. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:18, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • This does have a lot of potential to spiral out of control. Do we have people policing others' user-spaces? I'm revoking my vote (if it means anything - do I have to be an admin?) and just saying keep. It's less effort, there will be a lot of complaining (this userbox has had more drama on this page alone than anywhere else, I think, and who wants to repeat it?), particularly as I think losing this particular userbox while keeping their "opposites" (context, context, context; we'll never know why people put up what they do) is undue weight, but removing their "opposites" will be worse and it'll spill out all over the place once people say A) why did you only delete this particular matter and B) why aren't you deleting the others? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) I believe it furthers the goal of writing a collaborative encyclopedia for us each to know something about each other, and it just doesn't seem like enforced ignorance is helpful. Maybe the word I want is "dehumanization." By your argument, we could get rid of all usernames and just assign us all numbers too; usernames hardly further our goals, right? As to the tired trope: we all know the existence of a userbox doesn't mean wikipedia "condones" that POV; even you felt the need to put the word in quotes. -- Kendrick7talk 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: If political userboxes are allowed, which the large selection currently available demonstrates, then this should be too. It's far better to have a succinct userbox expressing a user's belief rather than a page full of soapboxing rhetoric saying the same thing. --WebHamster 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding the userbox to the page, for anyone's benefit:

{{User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right_To_Resist}}

We could have discussions between the differences of "supporting" and "recognizing" ;) (also: edit this to align better if you want)Xavexgoem (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder how everyone is supporting this userbox in the name of political userbox. This userbox is supporting terrorism. What is going on in Iraq in the name of "resistance" is terrorism which cannot be supported. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Quit, please, with the polemics. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing polemics. I am giving the reason why this userbox cannot be supported. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Perhaps you should look up the definition of "polemic" before denying its usage. "Terrorism" is a relative term, ie it is POV and therefore has no place here. --WebHamster 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. This may include people you view as terrorists, or their supporters. -- Kendrick7talk 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T1 or otherwise nuke from orbit. We already allow for much leeway in userspace. After all, they don't further the project at all. The line of how much do we allow is pretty much drawn in sand, but what I can tell is that promoting war and killing is waaaaay over that line. Миша13 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you oppose self determination for Iraqis, that's fine, but I don't believe you can arbitrarily silence those who have the opposite POV. -- Kendrick7talk 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Guess what? I actually support Iraqis self determination. But: 1) who cares about my political views? and 2) I hold in contempt those who support killing people in the process. Миша13 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OMG Speedy Keep I personally believe in what he is saying and besides, EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION! Isn't that the first amendment right, even for those who call this the American English Wikipedia. This user is not suporting terrorism, this is supporting Iraqi freedom from George W. Bush. Even if I created a userbox which said I supported terrorism, sure you could throw me in jail but EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION! George W. Bush is almost a dictator, with it being incredibly hard for anyone to get him to stop this schizophrenic-ego-disorder-war-machiene-thingy. Iraqis should rebel against the US led invasion of their country! In fact, I'm adding this to my userpage. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. We can understand your opinion even without capitals. Rudget. 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Sorry, but I'm afraid first amendment doesn't work on privately owned websites. Second, nobody actually cares about your opinion here - we're building an encyclopedia here - you can vent your political statements on Myspace. Third, I find your mongering for war and killing distasteful. Миша13 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
How about leading the way in deleting the userboxes from your own page, M? That one where you declare yourself to be someone who believes all Jews are going to Hell is rather offensive, for example. -- Kendrick7talk 19:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you're stepping on thin ice. Миша13 19:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's ok -- I don't mind you expressing your support for this POV on your user page; it's who you are and that's fine, and as far as I am concerned thats what user pages are for. I just wish you'd show others the same courtesy. -- Kendrick7talk 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You didn't get it. And it's not what you said in the summary either. Roman catholicism is a far wider notion than Iraqi insurgency. My userbox does not mean I automatically believe in all dogmas it stands for (or else I would have to write a screen-long disclaimer for it). On the other hand, the one we're discussing here stands clearly for armed response and leaves no place for interpretation here. Sorry, but this argument is really getting nowhere. Миша13 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how I'm supposed to figure out that your a cafeteria Catholic from that userbox. Maybe one of the Christian teachings you do agree with is pacifism, but here again, I don't think we can force users to never express a contrary view, nor does a resistance movement have to be militant. I do agree we're getting nowhere, though. -- Kendrick7talk 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to use my one-allowed, off-topic political statement now. I support, and will not under any circumstances withdraw my support for, the right of any people to fight their occupiers. I am not within my rights to make any demands of the resistance that they should act in a way that meets my approval. No occupation force can declare itself the winner of an invasion and declare and all who would oppose it guilty of the crime of war if they resist. And saying that I'm promoting killing is near Orwellian. --MQDuck (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I suppose you can enlighten me with your vision of armed resistance that does not involve death? Миша13 19:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment this is precisely the problem. We are a community dedicated to producing an encyclopedia - take ideology an politics and go find another forum!!! No, you are NOT welcome to make "off-topic" political statements here - not when they divert us from our aims.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 19:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you are correct - I got detracted from the point. This must be contagious. *scurries to a corner* Миша13 19:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Doc, I've been getting called a terrorist and supporter of killing and so on. I made one single response after all this time, and you take that opportunity to remind me that political statements aren't allowed? --MQDuck (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break 1
To Miza: I am the anti-warist, in case you thought that my idea supported terrorism. George W. Bush started the war, and the Iraqis should not use armed resistence, just peaceful resistance. Sorry for giving you the wrong idea, but I guess I will have to sue Wikipedia if you think that I don't have free speach here. Its the FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA here, people! This is my political stace, and you are welcome to your own, but if you can say you don't support it, we can say we support it, and if we can't have one lets not have the other. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ohh! I get it, you think the word "free" in "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is about freedom of speech! Well, no. Read WP:FREE (it's "only" an essay but it's true nonetheless). Wikipedia's freedom is about free content. Миша13 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what, if we are supposed to put our political stuff on Myspace, lets delete all userboxes since WE ARE BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. At least, that is according to Miza's logic. Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes! Please do so! And also please stop mistyping my username while at it. Thanks, Миша13 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) PS: And in case you haven't noticed, we are indeed building an encyclopedia here. Миша13 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Or you could figure out what scope you're going for. Are you going to keep up the fight against this userbox until every political userbox is deleted? I'd like to know what your immediate goal is. --MQDuck (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My goal is to delete everything that detracts from building a free encyclopedia. Later on I might expand my focus to everything that, while doesn't have an obviously harmful effect, is useless anyway. Миша13 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So your case is that this is "obviously harmful"? Is that what you'd like to boil it down to? --MQDuck (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this particular userbox is divisive and inflammatory (therefore harmful), as you can see for yourself (and commit to it yourself too). Therefore it should be deleted, which I actually did, per WP:CSD#T1. Миша13 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with userboxes, though? You can't edit all the time. Wikipedia ia community too. That's also an essay. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of them are useless. Some are even harmful. When you're not editing, you can rest on Myspace. Or IRC. Or surf the web to find some sources fro articles. Or read a book. And the fact that it's an essay doesn't change the truth that you have no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Миша13 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Since when was that a policy? And besides, I guess userpages are useless, too. I guess I'll add your one to MfD. 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the support, but let's not give them any help dragging this into the gutter, okay? --MQDuck (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Since when what was a policy? WP:ENC? For as long as I can remember and probably even earlier. Userpages aren't all that useless as long as they provide some insight into the user's skills and interests. But they also contain much useless cruft (yes, yes, even mine). The problem is when things on those pages stop being useless and start being harmful or otherwise inflammatory. Миша13 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons I've listed above. As per Misza13's comment on free encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not a free (beer) encyclopedia, it's a free (libre) encyclopedia; certain restrictions may apply, but it would appear bad to move those restrictions further into user space. As per removing all political boxes: 1. This will create a huge flustercuck, 2. Keeping them keeps editors transparent to an extent, 3. Without the boxes, editors would still go on in their user space, or div their own. As per "evening out" Iraq/American userboxes by removing them (and please refer to "Wikipedia is not American"): Again, folks will take umbrage; the opposite solution is what we have now anyway. As for "it's supporting terrorists": There are few people on Earth, and fewer still on Wikipedia (from ar to zh) who support terrorists, so don't bait me with that strawman. As for the drama: Almost the entirety of it has occurred here on MfD and at DRV. As for its politically-sensitive nature: The articles behind them are infinitesimally more sensitive than a box. Consider WP:AGF: It's just a box. Drama is mostly here at MfD. If someone is being vehement somewhere, the problem isn't with the box, the problem is with the editor. It's prejudicial to other userbox dichotomies (of which this one is patently false) to ban this one and not them. I have a userbox that says I'm gay (take your pick of other personal info). Don't tell me that an editor is going to look at it and immediately disapprove of me. *pause* This box needs to stay; WP:UNDUE if you remove it, and you'll create the opposite problem removing both. Gotta go (seriously, I'm taking a train to Milwaukee and won't be here for a cupla days). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And just to be clear: My main issue is that we have three options: 1. Remove the right to resist userbox, 2. Even them out by removing its "opposite" (of which plenty of ramifications and silent intentions apply, just like this one), 3. Remove all political boxes. WP:UNDUE with option 1, option 2 will create the same problem, and option 3 is just a nightmare Xavexgoem (talk)
  • Delete this and all other ideological userboxes as detrimental to encyclopedic collaboration. Sandstein (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - ideological userbox created by a user with less than 200 article edits. Addhoc (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • YOU HAVE TO FIGHT! FOR THE RIGHT! TO SPEND YOUR TIME MORE WISELY! I vote zurück an die arbeit on the encyclopedia. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbeit macht frei? -- Kendrick7talk 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
see Godwin's law--Doc g - ask me for rollback 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I speak in Angledeutsch and now people are being called nazis? Oh lordy lordy lordy... (by the way, Doc. G. is an encyclopedic contributor, so he has earned respect). MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The question is: If he works really hard, will he someday be allowed to express an opinion? -- Kendrick7talk 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, when he's been about a bit more and got to understand wikipedia, he'll lose the inclination to use his userpage to shout about his favoured politics. I always live in hope.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as divisive, offensive and inflammatory, bordering on trolling. AecisBrievenbus 22:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was wondering why it took you so long to come with a straw man. I don't know if you noticed, but there's a difference between supporting an independence movement and supporting terrorism. Yes, everything is bound to offend someone, and yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But does that mean that we have to put up with everything? AecisBrievenbus 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It took me all of two minutes from the time I saw your post. But I understand; everyone thinks their userboxes are fine, the terrorism in support of their cause is OK, etc. I think encouraging tolerance of these differing views is something required for communal harmony, rather than making sure no one anywhere expresses a view someone somewhere could possibly be intolerant of; a userpage version of BANANA. I'm really dismayed to be in the minority here. -- Kendrick7talk 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I voted for speedy delete back a long time ago, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to renew that sentiment -- well, not for speedy since we've had quite enough of those, but for delete. My reasoning is on the political side, but I still feel it's pretty valid. I feel the wording of this template skirts the issue. It's an attempt to answer accusations of terrorism by saying "Iraqis have a right to defend themselves". But that's not really what it's saying, is it? I mean, I support anyone's right to resist occupation, but that's really not what this is, is it? This box means to be a defense of the practices of the insurgency. One of the things that makes it so difficult to see this as a simple counter-balance to the "support the troops" messages is that it's really not saying what it means to say. If it were worded to literally say what it truly means to say, which is "This user supports the acts of the Iraqi insurgents", or even, "This user supports killing the American troops in Iraq", then there's no chance it would even have been restored after that first speedy delete. This userbox is basically worded to get around our rules -- and that's not something that, I think, can be said about its various counterparts or the many other political userboxes Wikipedia hosts. (Not that I wouldn't still be for the deletion of all those political boxes as well, for other reasons -- but that's a discussion for another time). Anyway, that's how I feel, and I can't help it. PS, I think everyone would be fine with a "This user supports Iraq" userbox, which is what I think this should be reworded to, and what would be more on an even plain with "support the American troops". Even "This user supports the Iraqi troops" would work, and people can interpret that however they want. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:33, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • This is every bit about the right of Iraqis' to defend themselves. This states that no matter how well you demonize them, a people never lose their basic rights by becoming too "evil". Supporting the basic rights of a sovereign people is exactly the point. You find the point and then dismiss it because you were expecting something else. --MQDuck (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But here's the problem with this, and all of these. You are trying to get us to distinguish between acceptable and non-acceptable POV. Yes, we might honestly rename this "This user supports killing the American troops in Iraq" but then we might honestly rename "support the troops" to "This user supports the illegal occupation of Iraq" or "this user supports the murder of Iraqi civilians but US imperialists." We are a NPOV encyclopedia and EVERYONE needs to leave there POV at the door, including you. I will vote to delete this thing, precisely because it drags us into precisely the political debate that you are entering into - and the whole thing is a massive distraction. I also am finding it honestly hard to assume it hasn't been created for trolling purposes. But I urge everyone, in the strongest possible terms, to remove all political affiliation or POV userboxes from their pages. They may well not be deleted, and (as is continually argued) they may IN THEORY serve a strange purpose in keeping us neutral, but in practice, as this debate shows, they a breading ground for drama, trolling, baiting, disruption and arguements that have nothing whatsoever to do with writing an encyclopedia. Now, can everyone go find something useful to do - or go and find some other forum to have a political argument.--Docg 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know what kinds of trolls you have in your head, stirring up legitimate controversy but only for the sake of causing a scene because its SO FUN. I'm sick of being called that, and if you really were such a neutral party you'd have spent a nanosecond asking yourself why I might care about balance on such an issue other than for trolling for kicks. --MQDuck (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I should not need to know why you care about this issue, just as I should not need to know why anyone has political objections, because whether I am Dick Cheney's lover or Osama's biggest fan off wiki does not matter, since we are here to write a neutral encyclopedia. Everyone take your politics away, they are disrupting this project. Remove your userboxes, forget about other people's and either write an encyclopedia or go away. Whether this is entended to troll or is doing it inadvertently is beside the point - it has the same net effect.--Docg 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My point as raised earlier is that we have no business deciding what political views are acceptable. If they dont directly incite to violence they are OK. I see no fundamental difference between this user box, and This users supports G.W. Bush. And I suggest the alternative which might deal with a lot of circumstances, because everyone can interpret it as they please: " I support the right of all peoples to resist the occupation of their country by a foreign power" Frankly, this MfD strikes me as a POV nomination by those who apparently think it wrong to express opposition to US activity in Iraq, but think it right to express support for US operations in Iraq. I am reluctant to assign motives, but I think this one is obvious.
Doc, the person causing the drama is the person who placed the MfD. Had he not done that, none of this would have arisen or been notice. He is the one who is disrupting the writing of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Doc, yes, you do need to know people's motivations before you run around declaring them to everyone else. You do the opposite of AGF. Politics on user profiles wasn't started by me. If you want to end it, why go after the unpopular point of view? --MQDuck (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this line of questioning? Other than to create yet more drama? Addhoc (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Because per DGG, this looks ad hoc. (you should have known this one!) -- Kendrick7talk 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break 2

Comment to DGG: Sure the MfD caused drama, but the fact is that boxes like this invite it. That's why they are a disaster for the encyclopedia regardless of what POV they express. Of course we have NO business deciding what political views are acceptable. We shouldn't have to - because we shouldn't speak of such things on wikipedia. But you still seem to want to distinguish yourself - "If they dont directly incite to violence" is your qualifier. Well why not? What's wrong with inciting violence? Can't a call to arms be good? And there's no answer to that that will not involve you in POV statements. And as for "directly" - that POV too - many seem to feel this box "directly" incites violence. As a pacifist (if I am?), I'd say supporting troops intrinsically incites violence - all murderous wars and those willing to fight them need opposing. You just can't do this - you'll either be dragged into the quagmire of enforcing some qualifications - or else if we say "anything goes" trolls will try or patience with perdophile boxes, or ones wishing people dead. We waste time either way. My solution is 1) let's not mfd them 2) lets say, they are intrinsically disruptive and anyone with any interest in not disrupting the project should cease and desist using them regardless of their POV. Get the cancer of personal politics OUT of WIkipedia.--Docg 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for the actual troll may I suggest you first read Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Issue with userbox then aim the accusation at this MfD's nominator. --WebHamster 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem intent on attacking the person who dares to express their views inappropriately. You keep going out of your way to say that it's not just that you don't think this is the place to say what i have to say, it's that you don't want me here anyway. --MQDuck (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be right, Doc, and as a general policy proposal, perhaps it should be put before the entire community, rather than a dark corner of WP:MfD so it doesn't look like a one-off wikilawyering position on a template pro-American POV editors aren't going to like anyway. I'm thinking WP:Politics and Religion in User Space, or WP:PRIUS. (I wanted to make it spell WP:PAPYRUS but I can't figure out the "Y"). -- 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, what about WP:Prohibition against announcing personal politics and your religion in user space? That's kinda close. -- Kendrick7talk 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not looking for some instruction creepy policy, more of a mindset. Let's win hearts and minds of sensible people who are committed to this project - if you think I may be right, then help me be a persuader.--Docg 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally like my rules written down, rather than made up on a case by case basis. Of course, one problem with that which is a little WP:CREEPy, is that editors will all just become a bunch of little Abbie Hoffman's, who in pointing out in a speech that Vietnam War protesters were being arrested for carrying signs that said "End the War" that they could simply go around carrying signs that said "End the" or even just "End" and everyone would know what they meant, but there'd be nothing the police could do about it. Our editors might adapt the same way. -- Kendrick7talk 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To, Mqduck. Look, I'm not arguing policy here. And I'm sorry of I've hard on you. But you can see how this whole debate has been hot and disrupted us all building an encyclopedia. Now, that may not be your fault. But the userbox hasn't helped. Again that might not be your fault. But I'm asking you, to do this project one massive favour and let the box go. Yes, it would be nice if people with "support the troops" boxes did the same - but I can't guarentee that. I can ask you, very nicely, whilst apologising for actions of mine that have raised the temperature, if you'd let this box go. It would really demonstrate your A1 commitment to building an encyclopedia and opposing any disruption to the project. Thanks.--Docg 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    • If you feel disrupted, Doc, no one is forcing you to enjoin the discussion. This line of argument always looks desperate. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is rather lame, as we get to the same point whether or not the box is kept. -- Kendrick7talk 02:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I've always believed that appealing to better natures and higher goals is better than wikilawyering. If I look desperate, then consider in medio stat virtus et ipsa qvidem pretivm virtvs sibi :p.--Docg 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Removing all statements of controversial points of view from userpages is not my fight. I don't think it's necessary - but I don't have anything against it. Personally, I think Wikipedia is getting along fine. So I'm not going to prove my big heart to you by joining your side. But I hope you can respect where I'm coming from. I'd like to suggest that if you want to fight this battle, a place where you'll appear to be silencing the unpopular oninion isn't the best choice. If you want to make it your mission to change Wikipedia policy, you need to step back and try again with alot more tact, I think. --MQDuck (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • (ec, but same sentiment) The virtuous path would be to have a general policy. Eqval Jvstice Vnder the Law : ) -- Kendrick7talk 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Sod equality, sod general policy, to hell with wikilawyers - we are here to write an encyclopedia, not defend the first amendment. Anyone whop doesn't get that, should indeed leave wikipedia.--Docg 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So why are you at this MfD instead of editing an encyclopaedia? Is it one rule for you and another for the rest of us? --WebHamster 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Doc, I agree that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia (since it is a privately hosted website). I'm not arguing with you about this userbox - I don't have a strong view on whether it should be deleted or not; however, I dislike comments such as "sod equality" and "sod general policy". Both equality and general policy are necessary in writing an encyclopedia, because it is absolutely fundamental that we should have clear rules, so that editors can guide their conduct in accordance with policy, and so that we can avoid arbitrary and unfair decision-making by administrators. If those in power do whatever they wish without consulting the community, then a) we will have poor decision-making, and b) many editors will be driven away. Both of these things compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. WaltonOne 11:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to insist on this being personal? I don't understand your motive. --MQDuck (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I'm reminded of the old saying If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution. Of course, that's the wrong way 'round. If you want to solve the problem, propose a policy. Otherwise, the default position should be to afford editors their basic human rights, whatever their POV. You can't just take the "human" out of "encyclopedia of human knowledge." -- Kendrick7talk 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems more divisive than required and doesn't seem to contribute to the furtherence of the encyclopedia or of the building of the community. MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Speaking of political speech in User space, see User:Jimbo Wales today -- Kendrick7talk 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that is what you call a Chinese Take Out!! Aren't you just glad the Dept of Homeland Security doesn't deal with trucks and rubbish? --WebHamster 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment This userbox is definitely devisive. On which basis you are telling that this userbox is not devisive? And regarding the other userboxes, my logic will also apply there. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I not saying it isn't divisive, it's just not "any more divisive". -Halo (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Have some say in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/FreeTibet. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Political userboxes are generally allowed, and for good reason: it's easier to understand an editor's motivation if we allow them to express their politics. However, we also don't allow userboxes which incite to violence or which are otherwise inflammatory, and I think that this arguably crosses the line; userboxes are meant to build a spirit of community, not make Wikipedia a political battleground. However, we also need to troutwhack all those admins who deleted it under CSD T1. T1 DOES NOT APPLY TO USERSPACE. EVER. Otherwise we get lunacy; userboxes such as "This user supports recycling" have been deleted in the past as "divisive and inflammatory". (I'm not exaggerating, sadly.) Giving individual admins the power to make a subjective decision on what is and isn't an acceptable userbox, without consulting the community, is a very slippery slope. MfD is the right place for questions like this, hence why I'm happy that it's here. WaltonOne 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If it looks like a template and it quacks like a template then it surely checks out as a template to me. Миша13 11:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No. Templates are things that are in the Template: namespace. Otherwise you could class anything as a template; any page can be transcluded or substituted on to another page. Just because this userbox is transcluded, rather than being placed directly in code form on to a user page, does not give you the right to arbitrarily delete it. It is in userspace, and you should have taken it to MfD. WaltonOne 11:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break 3
  • Hello..can i understand what is the proplem with this userbox.--O.waqfi (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you understand what is the wrong in Iraqi insurgency? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to the sudden increase in US and British self-drive tourism to Iraq? --WebHamster 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to Saddam Hussain's experiment with poison gas? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) And he wasn't even using a userbox when he did it. It may be just me but I understand the sentiment of people fighting for their own country in their own country. I may not condone it or agree with it, but I understand it. It seems some people can see things from other's perspective and some people can't. --WebHamster 13:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please guys, keep your discussions on topic. This discussion should be about this userbox on Wikipedia, not about the real world situation in Iraq. AecisBrievenbus 13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean like when an opinionated POV editor equates the use of a userbox to terrorism? --WebHamster 13:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not equating userbox with terrorism. I am equating Iraqi insurgency with terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:WebHamster have violated WP:NPA by saying me "opinionated POV editor". Should I report him? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you volunteering for the title? I didn't refer to anyone specifically, but if you want to waste more editor's time with more of your WP:POINTyness then feel free. --WebHamster 13:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What you call WP:POINT? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So just how many discussions have you started in places like MfD and ANI since Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Issue with userbox didn't go your way? --WebHamster 13:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is YOU who are disrupting wikipedia by supporting a userbox which recognize Iraqi insurgency. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You can think what you like, but I do wish you would allow others to think what they like too. You really ought to understand the definitions of phrases you continually bandy about. --WebHamster 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Could I suggest that you keep the discussion on topic? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can, but may I recommend you don't make a userbox for the purpose... it may end up at MfD... shush, there's people around that don't like them ya know. ;) --WebHamster 13:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasm is helpful. Please continue to use it. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:24, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Why thank you kind sir, I shall attempt to do so. --WebHamster 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is in no way inflamatory. If it said "This user suports the killing of American troops in Iraq" Then I would definitly want it delted, but it doesn't. You also want to delete the userbox simply because you don't agree with it, which is not a great rationale.--Phoenix-wiki 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The keepers want to keep it because they agree with it, so that wouldn't be great rationale either. I think people are mistaking this as a battle of views, but it really isn't. At least not for me. I can't possibly condone a userbox that supports the intentional killing of American troops. But that doesn't mean that if someone made a similar complaint about any number of the pro-US userboxes that I wouldn't also support a delete. I would probably disagree with the insinuated meaning, but I would be fine getting rid of them if they mean something "bad" to someone else. Basically, just because this box gets deleted (and it will), doesn't mean you can't nominate these other boxes for deletion that you say justify this one's existence. So to borrow the words of Misza, if your argument is that othercrapexists, then feel free to deletetheothercrap too. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:49, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)It's not a question of WP:WAX, it's a question of bias. For some reason it's perfectly okay to have a pro-American soldier in Iraq userbox which is to all intents and purposes (based on your criteria above) supporting the killing of Iraqis, but surprise surprise it's seemingly not okay the other way round. So the crux of the matter is if you delete one side then you have to delete the other. Nah, fuck it, let's just delete all userboxes and then there's no argument is there? But back in the real world the genie's already been let out of the bottle. Now it's damage limitation, but you cannot have one rule for one and then another rule for another. And just to give some perspective just how many Iraqi's have been killed in their own country compared to US & UK soldiers in some bugger else's? --WebHamster 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Somehow that doesn't surprise me. --WebHamster 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you'd care to clarify your point then I'd be willing to try and understand it, but I'm getting tired of these comments. Either participate constructively in the discussion or kindly leave it to those who are willing to do so. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • What tires you is of no concern to me. My comments and my participation are not mutually exclusive. It's an exceedingly easy point to grasp which is why I presumed you being obtuse. The point is that if one finds the pro-American userboxes acceptable then one must also find the other side of the coin acceptable to. To not do so is non-neutral and shows bias. Now you state "I can't possibly condone a userbox that supports the intentional killing of American troops." so by that rationale by supporting pro-American troops one is supporting the intentional killing of Iraqi citizens. The guys with the chewing gum weren't over there to make sandcastles you know. They weren't dropping bouncy castles on the bunkers were they? It's a simple equation. Now you and others keep bringing up this killing troops rhetoric. As far as I can see the contents of the userbox do not state how that resistance is carried out. There is no allusion to killing at all. Now correct me if I'm wrong but violence isn't the only way one can resist an occupation, is it? --WebHamster 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Webhamster has a good point, on neutrality concerns here. If a userbox supporting Americans in Iraq is socially acceptable on Wikipedia, the other side of the coin must be socially acceptable, or neither can be allowed--doing so would be an endorsement of social, political, and cultural bias. Lawrence Cohen 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See that's all you needed to say, thanks for clarifying. Again this isn't a bias issue for me because I'd be willing to delete the other userboxes on the "other side of the coin". If I were for only deleting this one while insisting on keeping the others, then it would be bias. Again, the existence of other crap is not a valid argument for keeping the presently-discussed crap. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:13, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep People seem to forget that this is an international project. The American's are not the good guys, neither are they the bad guys - History is written by the victors. The Americans invaded the Iraq, we can all agree on that (They called it an invasion!) - just as Hitler invaded most of Europe, sure they have different reasons, but the local populace has the right to resist invasion no matter who the invader is. If this is removed, then all the "I support the troops" propaganda should be removed as well. Fosnez (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "I agree with this userbox" (to which "the local populace has the right to resist invasion no matter who the invader is" boils down) is not a relevant argument in deletion discussions. AecisBrievenbus 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it is. If someone agrees with the sentiment then ipso facto they aren't offended by it, thereby demonstrating that it isn't as offensive as some make out. For something to be offensive it must offend, the less it offends the less it is offensive. It's a bugger logic ain't it? --WebHamster 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I never said I agreeded with this particular userbox. What I agree with however, is that we can't have userboxes like this one referenced above, but we "allow" ones that say I support the troops.. Actually, considering those, pretty much everything in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics should be deleted... Fosnez (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate users should have wide latitude in their own userspace, as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLP or hold the project as a whole in disrepute. Furthermore, I think that the nominator has caused a great deal of disruption both here and at the administrators' noticeboards. This edit in particular sounds a lot like WP:POINT to me. (Requesting a userbox that says "This user supports legalization of biological weapons") *** Crotalus *** 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to think who is the user of the weopon. Good states can have them . Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Also don't try to turn the discuussion. The point here is this userbox. Not edits in other places. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is when the nominator appears to have an agenda. --WebHamster 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, Crotalus. I didn't realize this was the same user. I think we'll be watching him a bit more closely from now on. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break 4
  • Keep Unlike other recent userboxes like the "Better dead than red" one, this one is a general political statement, with no specific targeted inference of harm, death, or specific groups or parties. The general wording of "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation." Interestingly, Iraqi Resistance redirects to Iraqi insurgency, a phrase coined by the United States Bush administration. The wording of the box, however, could easily refer to resistance against Al Qaeda occupation, US occupation, sectarian occupation, or any number of things. If there is a problem with linking to the Western media-defined negative phrase Iraqi insurgency, just remove that link. Lawrence Cohen 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't contain a reference to harm, death, murder, violence or terrorism whatsoever... AecisBrievenbus 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That is a phrase coined by the US administration. It may have different meanings entirely outside of Western countries. It's not our right as editors here to pass political value judgements. Read my expanded comments. We need to fight systemic bias, including Western systemic bias. Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • We don't fight bias by introducing another bias, we fight bias by promoting the neutral point of view. How does this userbox promote the neutral point of view on Wikipedia? AecisBrievenbus 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Userboxes typically from what I've seen have a wide leeway, and NPOV applies to articles, not user pages or backend discussions. It's a red herring here. What bias does this userbox introduce? Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So, The US is not fighting terrorists in Iraq? 8thstar 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, they're fighting Iraqis in Iraq. People who fly full planes into full buildings are terrorists by any definition. People who fight to liberate their own country in their own country are only terrorists from a certain perspective.--WebHamster 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Probably depends who you ask, in what country. Either way, that's not our decision to make. Lawrence Cohen 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now my history is a little rusty, but didn't that mighty nation across the pond have a go at resisting an occupation a couple of hundred years ago? Seems a bit hypocritical to complain when another nation does it. Anyone for a cup of tea? --WebHamster 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By the deletion standards here, "This user supports armed resistance against British occupation in Boston," would be disallowed, as would "This user supports armed resistance against Confederate forces supporting slavery," as well. If you're going to disallow one side of a social, political, or cultural equation from having a "pro" userbox, you've got to do them all or else we're endorsing bias. That's my concern. Lawrence Cohen 17:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do those exist? Rudget. 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, those conflicts predated Wikipedia by a short few years, so I was engaging in flagrant hyperbole and straw mannishness to illustrate how absurd any arguments to delete based on political or social stances is in these cases. Lawrence Cohen 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I meant the userboxes. Rudget. 17:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, no, the American Revolutionary War insurgent/domestic terrorist userbox doesn't exist. Lawrence Cohen 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, On Islamic extremist wiki. 8thstar 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be an expression of a personal opinion rather than a propaganda/soapboxing, because the box has been displayed in the user space. Would not be appropriate in main space.Biophys (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep despite its inflammatory nature, I think userboxes should be pretty much anything goes. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Really? Some can be quite bad, such as ones that personally attack other editors.--Phoenix-wiki 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, with the exception of personal attacks I think it should be pretty much anything goes. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The right to resist is recognized in international law and the box in question is appropriate for user space. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to speedy close because this is wasting our time. Keep it of Delete it, I don't care, just close. This idealogical MfD is causing disruption, not the userpage that it is nominating. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree. This touches upon the basics of userboxes on Wikipedia: how much leeway do we give users in expressing their opinions? Where do we draw the line between what we allow and what we don't allow? This is such a fundamental and pivotal issue, that I think it would be wrong to "get this over with", as it were. It's better to have a little drama now than to have a lot of drama later on. AecisBrievenbus 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Many people claim that this userbox is causing disruption because of its controversial nature. They need to get over their problems and understand that an article on Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush ay be controversial. They claimed that we should be editing, not doing MfDs on petty subjects. Since this page is going nowhere and spiralling out of control, a simple end to this would be the answer. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been suggesting that boxes like "I support American Independence from England" would be deleted by the same logic. I'll go one better. If the pro-American boxes we have now are allowed to stay then, by that logic, a British box saying "This user supports the troops in America" would also have to be allowed. Consistency is what I'm asking for. --MQDuck (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would also like to point out that this is, if anything, less inflamitory than the pro-American one. Equally inflamitory would be something like "This user support the resistance in Iraq" (Also note that that would very much not be my preferred language). --MQDuck (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • We definately need consistency, that's for sure, but if it gets in the way of building an encyclopedia we need to ignore all rules and get on with our wiki-lives. If we don't end this soon it may become a big problem. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Only the debate is getting in the way. --MQDuck (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And one more thing: The link is to Iraqi_Resistence which, not by my choice, redirects to Iraqi_Insurgency (a term made up by the occupying force, which it subsequently sent letters to American news agencies asking them to use). --MQDuck (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone please tell me... What are the insurgents fighting for? 8thstar 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  :| Anyway... How can someone in their right mind equate the American Revolution to the Iraq war? 8thstar 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very easily for someone who can see both sides of the coin. Some of them even used the same methods, though admittedly there was a paucity of M1 Abrams at the time. --WebHamster 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the Soviets saw the breakaway of nations through the 80s and 90s--some of them quite violently--as insurgency, or terrorism. On the same lines, what of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? The mujahidin there fought back against the Russians, sometimes with guerrila tactics. Were they terrorists in driving the Russians from their country? It's all eye of the beholder, which is why we can't delete something like this based on political reasons, or even alluded ones. Do it on policy or not at all. Lawrence Cohen 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What kind of cognitive dissonance does it take to not see them both as justified in the same way? [note: "them both" being the American and Iraqi native sides, respectively] --MQDuck (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Patriotic brainwashing? Insular and parochial culture? Arrogance? --WebHamster 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, those. But I'd prefer to not get into name calling. We can say the same things while minimizing the unfriendly language. --MQDuck (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfriendly? I think WP:SPADE applies here. There's only so many words per definition. It isn't name calling and it isn't unfriendly. It is what it is. --WebHamster 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I said "minimize". To reiterate what I said above, we can point out the spade in relatively friendly or unfriendly terms. We're tasked with coming to an agreement. Personally, while holding my ground, I prefer to make friends and to not make enemies where possible, and putting people on the defensive doesn't help that goal. --MQDuck (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Making friends has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. It's neither friendly nor unfriendly, it's factual. If people don't like the truth then that's their problem, not mine. --WebHamster 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, being right isn't all it takes in this case. --MQDuck (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This I agree, it's about balance and reduction of bias. My comments were as a direct answer to a question though, not necessarily to the crux of this discussion. It seems the main argument of the detractors is that they don't believe there should be any political statements like this. This is unfortunate, for them as the situation is what it is. There are political statements in userboxes and unless there's a total ban then the only way forward is to allow statements of belief from both sides of any, errr, situation. The fact of the matter is that there will be holy hell if the pro US troops boxes are removed so realistically it's unlikely that they will be. Therefore to maintain balance boxes like the one under discussion should remain. The folks who don't want any userboxes ain't gonna get the Utopia they desire so it's about time they came to the senses and understand that US foreign policy isn't the be all and end all. --WebHamster 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to second all this. --MQDuck (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So, How are they similar? 8thstar 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec x 3) The Iraqis wear tricorn hats? May I suggest you read the relevant articles instead of asking at MfD. This is an encyclopadia after all. --WebHamster 04:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All I can do is assume that that's an honest question. They're similar because the natives of America were, and the natives of Iraq are, trying to drive out an occupation in order to gain sovereign independence - a basic, inalienable right that every people have and can never lose. --MQDuck (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Errrr, I'm not sure "the natives of America" is a good choice of descriptor ;) --WebHamster 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was wondering about that after I wrote it. I think (/hope) it gets the point across though. One is tempted to think that an "I recognize the right of Indians to resist White expansionism" would get deleted as provocative, while "I support the troops securing the frontier" would be considered a-okay. --MQDuck (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of the inherent problem here (and in your above example) is the term "resist". It seems the detractors are automatically confering a definition of violence on it when that isn't necessarily the case. There are many ways to resist an occupation, not all of them are violent. given that the userbox in question does not specifically refer to violence I can only presume that people are projecting their own motivations on to it. A guy walking up and down the main street of Baghdad with a sandwich board and an empty gun hand is resisting the occupation. So why is it that the nominator and others are implying that "resistance" means "killing American troops" and "supporting terrorism"? --WebHamster 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's separate those last two things you said. It's one thing to assume that "resistance" means "violent resistance". It's not fair, but it's one thing. It's entirely something else to assume that "resistance" means "terrorism", a difference I hope is crystal clear to everyone. --MQDuck (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As it happens it seems that the nominator (based on his use of hyperbole) is somewhat less than crystal clear about it, as are some of the members of this discussion. This is the root of the problem. People are reading things into "resist" that aren't necessarily there. They are then using this erroneous logic to try and get this box (and no doubt others like it) deleted. --WebHamster 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Another example. Remember Mohandas Gandhi? He peacefully resisted the British in India. Look up resistance in wiktionary. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
And you should look up insurgence. After all, it is insurgence that the template links to (through a redirect), not resistance. Миша13 20:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that was MQDuck's wnting. Let's delink that if that is the problem. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Misza refutes her his [sorry for the strange assumption --MQD] own argument for me. --MQDuck 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You're damn right the link is a problem - didn't that occur to you earlier? And I'm male, dammit. Миша13 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that the link was redirected 3 years ago and it wasn't by MqD then it's hardly his fault. If you notice there may be a causative link between the date the redirect was made and the Air Kickass discount-drive for Middle-Eastern fly-drive tourism. Now what do you think would happen if I moved Iraqi insurgency back to Iraqi resistance? So much for lack of systemic bias eh? --WebHamster 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • More to the point, one would hope violence is not caused or at least minimized, but it is not within anyone's rights to take away their right to resist depending on how some of them decide to do it. Support for the right to independance and sovereignity is meaningless unless it's unconditional. --MQDuck 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So the US has the same goal in Iraq as Britain had In the American Revolution? 8thstar 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Great Britain didn't know there was oil in Texas at the time. --WebHamster 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • duhhh jORge bOOsh staerteed wer fer oils! 8thstar 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I support Texan independence! Free the Republic now!! -- Kendrick7talk 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, precicely. Well, oil and geopolitical power. US history shows this to be probable, the specific facts show no other explanations to be probable. duhhh. [striked for being stupid] --MQDuck 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of being open minded, look at these creatures.[1][2] I support supreme leader Voltron! -- Kendrick7talk 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, this MFD alone demonstrates that this is an inflammatory and divisive userbox. Free speech does not exist on Wikipedia; polemic statements are not allowed in userspace. --Coredesat 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I support George W. Bush and the Iraq War userboxes are very controversial and inflammatory, and no one is suggesting anyone deletes them. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If this one is deleted based on political concerns, those have to go to. The closing admin needs to very mindful of his reasoning here. Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
And people can have "This user strongly opposes GWB" and "This user opposes the Iraq war"... 8thstar 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of something doesn't automatically justify the existence of other things. I would not mind seeing all political userboxes go. --Coredesat 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this debate has been immensely civil. As for your other claims: Sez who? -- Kendrick7talk 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
8thstar's comments aren't helping. --Coredesat 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Misza13. And per WP:UP, Userpages are "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working"--ChetblongTalkSign 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This goes far beyond just a "This user opposes the Iraq war" userbox. 8thstar 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By this logic, a "This user supports the Iraq war" would be acceptable, while a "This user supports the troops in Iraq" (which is the one that exists) would be "far beyond" it. --MQDuck 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you think that one hasn't been deleted yet? 8thstar 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you answer that one, 8th star? Please vote upon policy, not personal opinion. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Because it isn't inflammatory. 8thstar 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean it isn't inflammatory to you. The pro-US troops in Iraq userboxes are extremely inflammatory to lots of people. If you are unable to to get over your blind patriotism and aren't able to see both sides of the coin I suggest you cast your !vote and go do some editing. Your incalcitrance and inflammatory rhetorical questions are not helping either the situation or your own case. --WebHamster 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have no interest in actually participating in this discussion, please go away; you're not helping. --MQDuck 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Says it all really. So much for NPOV. --WebHamster 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - A clear-cut a violation of WP:USER and the restrictions on polemical user boxes and content in general. It serves no purpose in the wikipedia, adds nothing to the community in general, and serves only to be a pointy finger-in-the-eye to other users. It is sad that these sorts of issues invariably get argued on personal opinion (for the record, I am anit-Iraq war, actually) rather than factual analysis and policy. That is why some things are kept (pro-Israeli content) while others are deleted (pro-Hezbollah content). Either they should all go or all stay. Period. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That s exactly my point. So why did you vote delete? Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is this specific userbox inflammatory?
  • This discussion is getting ridiculous. I do not give a damn whether this userbox is deleted or not. It will make zero difference to the encyclopedia and its quality. The only reason I'm even involved here at all is because I want to make clear that deleting userspace pages under T1 is never acceptable (and ought, if done repeatedly, to be a desysopping offence). However, my comment on this important issue has been lost in a mass of political and wiki-political mudslinging. So let's get three things clear:
  • This is not an appropriate forum in which to begin an all-out war against controversial political userboxes. These things, rightly or wrongly, are currently allowed. If you want them to be prohibited (and I can see that there are sound arguments in that direction) then get consensus to change the policy.
  • This MfD is not a forum in which to discuss the morality/legality/acceptability of the Iraq war and of Iraqi "resistance", or to compare it to previous conflicts.
  • The only issue here is whether or not this userbox is inflammatory. This is what we should be discussing. Comparing it to other similar userboxes is OK, but is not a conclusive argument; the tacit acceptance of another userbox by the community does not ipso facto make this one acceptable, since Wikipedia is inconsistent, and tolerates things it does not condone. Current policy, and common sense, dictate that userspace content which is inflammatory should be deleted, as it detracts from, rather than promoting, a sense of community. The decision on whether something is inflammatory is inevitably a subjective one, so the community needs to make a decision on that. All discussion of irrelevant wider issues needs to be taken elsewhere. WaltonOne 16:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid you contradict yourself in that statement. Either the userbox makes "zero difference to the encyclopedia and its quality" or it is worth desysopping over. Which one shall it be, then (as both can't be true)? Миша13 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, you misunderstand me. This specific userbox makes zero difference to the encyclopedia. However, process is important and consensus is even more so, and it is absolutely essential that admins stick to the CSD criteria as written under all but exceptional circumstances. Whether or not political userboxes in userspace should be deleted is a highly controversial issue on which there is no consensus; therefore, it should always be determined through an MfD, not through undiscussed unilateral action by one admin.
      • I possibly did go somewhat over the top, however, in suggesting desysopping - but I do think that deleting userspace content as T1 is unacceptable, and that experienced administrators should know better than to do it. To summarise; I'm not interested in this userbox, only in ensuring that proper process is followed so that it is the community, and not individual admins, which makes controversial decisions on contestable issues. WaltonOne 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course both can be true. Sysops can abuse their power in main space and user space. The content of either space has no effect on an admin's actions. --WebHamster 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That "Wikipedia is inconsistent, and tolerates things it does not condone" is a basic part of my defense. That this debate is happening at all is ridiculous, but if the debate IS going to happen, it shouldn't resolve in favor of bias or unbalance. --MQDuck 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

← I agree with Walton on what this discussion should be about. If we keep things that suck based on the existence of other things that suck, nothing would ever get deleted. The userbox is divisive and inflammatory. There's not even any disagreement there, and there's nothing bias about that argument. The only counter-point thus far has been the existence of similar boxes, which as Walton correctly points out is never a valid argument to keep anything. To assume bias here is to make an unfounded assumption, because those who call this box divisive wouldn't necessarily call other similar boxes anything less. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:25, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)

  • Every single userbox that expresses an opinion on anything is divisive in that some people will agree and some won't. This isn't about WP:WAX. This is about dealing with bias by being even-handed. The fact of the matter is that userboxes are here to stay. Political userboxes are here to stay. So long as existing and future boxes are notcontroversially inflammatory, obscene or attacking someone or something then they should be allowed to stay. This is the case with this one. It isn't blatantly offensive to the majority of people, it isn't blatantly inflammatory to the majority of people. Remember, "majority of people" doesn't mean US citizens who support the war in Iraq. This is a userbox that expresses a belief, an opinion. It doesn't seek to "support terrorism", it doesn't seek to foment violence to achieve that resistance. All it does is show that the user displaying it opines that the citizens of Iraq have a right to resist any unwelcome occupier of their own country. This is their right under international and human rights laws. --WebHamster 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We aren't here to argue about other userboxes, and which ones are "here to stay" and whether or not they are even "here to stay", which is hardly the matter-of-fact you make it out to be. Whether or not the box supports terrorism is also not the topic of this discussion, nor is any other possible interpretation of its message. This userbox is divisive, not because it expresses a view, but because it causes excessive argument an controversy, as can be seen from this mile-long MfD. Again this isn't a bias issue. Saying we must delete this box while insisting on keeping other similar boxes would be, but no one is saying that. Yet again: the existence of other crap is not a valid argument for keeping the presently-discussed crap. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:07, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Being divisive is not an excuse to delete it. If this was the case then every userbox could be deleted. get used to the idea that userboxes are staying. The only reason this userbox is causing the discussion it has is because 1) an admin incorrectly deleted via a speedy 2) it was nominated by a troll who was attempting to make a point. The userbox itself was sitting there all happy and content until someone with their own POV came along and got the hump, and well, here we are. The userbox in question does NOT break any of the rules regarding userboxes. It is in userspace and not templates space and by consensus is allowed more latitude. So far this discussion is showing that there is no consensus with a slight swing to "keep", which it will default to anyway if no consensus is found. There are certainly more arguments for it being kept than the lonesome "well it's divisive". Unless you are prepared to start deleting other userboxes then leave this one be. You keep bringing up WP:WAX, this has no bearing as that essay relates to article space not user space. You either keep them all (within the criteria previously given) or you delete them all. For some reason I can't see you doing that. But coming back to the "divisive" argument. Who do you maintin is being divided? --WebHamster 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Being divisive is not an excuse to delete it." Actually that is the primary and overarching reason for it to be deleted, along with all others. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then it's an extremely bad criteria. Every box that proffers an opinion is divisive. There will always be someone else with an opposite one. Regardless no-one has yet said exactly how it is divisive, they've just claimed that it is. Where's the facts to back it up. This discussion itself cannot be used as it only has minimal attendance and can't be regarded as a statistically accurate model. So how about the people with Firefox userboxes, they're divisive as just as many people use IE. How about Mac userboxes, or Linux userboxes. All are divisive. --WebHamster 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The facts are here. We're experiencing them right now, yes in this discussion. It doesn't need to be a "statistically accurate model". The userbox creates hostile division within the community. Browser and operating system boxes don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:15, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Wanna bet? Operating system debates can be the most vicious discussion source on the net. Try putting a Linux one up for deletion and see what happens. The box only became "divisive" once it was put up for CSD and MfD. Prior to that it just sat there all alone and unloved. Now it's on the front page of the tabloids and the world and his wife want to have their say. I'd put a Pro-US Troops box up for MfD (based on the content of this debate it also fulfills your criteria of divisiveness) for balance but I'm concerned that it would be perceived as being pointy and/or bad faith (a concern the original nominator of this MfD seem remarkably laissez faire about). --WebHamster 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well sure if you put up one of those boxes for deletion it'll get a lot of attention, but that would happen if you put anything popular up for deletion. That doesn't constitute controversy or hostile division of the community. I imagine most people would show up just to cast a keep vote, or a delete vote on the basis of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:12, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Please, Eq. Everyone knows "divisive" is just code here for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, having now seen this a dozen times, I'm adding the use of this word as an example. -- Kendrick7talk 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt highly that everyone agrees with that sentiment, Kendrick. Divisive is CSD criteria for templates, so adding it as an example of a bad delete argument would conflict with WP:CSD. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:31, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point; although that only applies to content in WP:TEMPLATES, I'll change that to be in line with the language elsewhere. I've repeatedly asked for people to make the suggestions that would lay out guidelines here to support their arguments. Lacking that, I'm just going to clean up the discrepancies myself, per {{Sofixit}}. -- Kendrick7talk 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well let's see if the consensus on "divisive" works on the other side of the coin: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq. --WebHamster 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Divisive is not code for anything other than divisiveness. Again: This userbox creates controversy and a hostile division within the community. This is true whether or not divisiveness technically applies to this due to its location. The reason it couldn't be speedied was due to that technicality, but the that doesn't mean it's not still criteria to delete at MfD. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:05, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Nuke from orbit. This userbox, in extremely simplified terms, says "This user supports the Iraqi insurgency". A userbox saying "This user supports self-determination for Iraq" would be fine. I actually support it. Promoting violence and indiscriminate killing, though, is just unacceptable. Would a userbox saying "This user supports Al-Qaeda" be acceptable? I think not. This template is not just divisive - it also promotes killing. Wikipedia is not a place to promote indiscriminate killing. Go use Myspace or something to promote it. You might get kicked off of Myspace, though. Bart133 (t) (c) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This userbox does NOT promote the killing of anyone. Someone decided that the article "Iraqi resistance" should be redirected to one entitled "Iraqi insurgancy". In simplified terms it says "Resistance", it means "Resistance". You are the one translating it, not MQD. Given that you equate resistance with insurgency perhaps the nuke from orbit target should have altered coordinates? --WebHamster 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But the Iraqi insurgency is engaging in indiscriminate killing. When one says "resistance", it is unclear whether one means a violent resistance à la the Iraqi insurgency or a nonviolent one à la Mahatma Gandhi. In Iraq, however, there is very little, if not none, nonviolent resistance. When one says "Iraqi resistance", at least at first glance, it appears as if one means "Iraqi insurgency". The Iraqi insurgency, whatever you may say about it, does kill a whole lot of people, many of whom are civilian. I wouldn't be opposed to this userbox as strongly if it said "This user opposes the occupation of Iraq" instead. But it doesn't. The way it is currently phrased, it implies that the user with it on their page supports the Iraqi insurgency, and thus also supports its actions, including indiscriminate killings. Bart133 (t) (c) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think saying that you "support the troops" in a country where they're waging war isn't supporting killing in the same way, you're insane. That SOME of the Iraqi resistance uses immoral methods is true. I'll say it a million times: we have no right to tell the Iraqis they can't resist because we condemn their methods. But it's pure propaganda that the resistance is made up entirely of a bunch of terrorists, as though only terrorists care about their country being occupied. Further, everything beginning with "Shock and Awe" (a terrorist tactic by definition) has included indiscriminate killing/persecution from the occupation side. --MQDuck 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps if the userbox differentiated between resistance of a political nature and acts of terrorism more clearly this would not be a cause for controversy. If it were clear that this was supportive of a political movement of that nature, there would be no cause for alarm, but it's plain to see the way it is worded now why such an interpretation can be made. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose that might make it less controversial in some people's eyes, but it destroys my point. It's not about who specifically I (or whoever is using the box) support, its about recognizing their basic rights. --MQDuck 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Iraqi Independence/Sovereignty/Right to Self-Government, perhaps? Something along those lines could never be misconstrued as supporting acts of terrorism. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Do the basic rights of people include the rights to randomly kill others? No. The problem is that, by using ambiguous language, you leave an ambiguity that leaves the possibility open of others believing that you condone arbitrary violence. No side in this conflict is completely "good", but neither is any side completely "bad". Those people who oppose the occupation do have a right to exist. They don't have the right to indiscriminately kill others. Bart133 (t) (c)
  • Apparently it's only the US Airforce that has the right to indiscriminately kill people. Shock and Awe ring a bell?--WebHamster 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The prohibition against indiscriminant killing/persecution is respected about as much as the sovereignty of the "Iraqi" government. In fact, the only officer to be charged over the Abu Ghraib thing just got cleared of all charges. --MQDuck 02:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You keep using that phrase "indiscriminate". I believe I've told why I think that's unfair. But anyway, what you see as vagueness is actually the point. To give qualifiers to that right undermines the entire point: its irrevocable. --MQDuck 02:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I personally do not agree with this box, but I do believe in free expression of ideas, and DO NOT believe in suppression of Ideas. Sf46 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break 5
  • To repeat what I said up there loud and clear so all can see: This box is about an irrevocable right. To add qualifiers is to imply that the right isn't irrevocable. In other words, to suggest that the box be changed is suggesting something as bad as deletion, and I won't accept it. --MQDuck 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another point: All the box is doing is stating a fact recognized by international law that most people forget. In that sense, it's not even POV. I'm not going to argue that it's NPOV (so don't bother arguing with it unless you're bored) but it's a point that deserves being made. --MQDuck 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Would "supports Iraqi independence/sovereighty" or just "Iraqi rights" be going in the wrong direction, then?
(ed) I mean, if that's truly what you mean, then these definitions would express that clearly without the controversy. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that those rights have been co-opted by the occupation. Though they don't really mean it, the right to "sovereignty" is recognized. It's the right to resist occupation that people forget. --MQDuck 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you can say the right to resist occupation is different from the right to sovereignty. If one is being honored then the other must be honored. The only way I can see this as the only possible way to word the box would be if the real point of the box is to say "This user knows that American troops have occupied Iraq". In that case... well, just say that. Why beat around the bush? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • He isn't beating around the bush. It's quite concise already. Why are people so intent on wanting MQD to think something he wasn't thinking. It's quite a simple box/message really. The user displaying the box believes that the Iraqis have a right to resist. How the viewer reads that is up to them, but then they aren't the ones proffering their opinion are they? --WebHamster 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No one's trying to get him to think anything, although we are trying to get to the route of the message MQ would like to get across, so that we can figure out possibilities for a reword. Again, the only reason to be so against changing to "sovereignty" would be to make a point that America has occupied Iraq. So, if that's the case, we could just say that, without the "lethal" connotation: "This user believes that America is engaged in an illegal occupation of Iraq". This doesn't draw the same pictures of killing in people's heads, I think. Might be worth considering. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:23, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • MQD has said several times that he doesn't wish to change the wording, so why keep banging on about it? It is his ubx after all. I think it's pretty safe to assume that he wants that wording because that is what he wanted to say. It seems pretty clear to me that he isn't going to change it. --WebHamster 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I realize he doesn't want to, but that's hardly here nor there. Requiring a change in wording is one way to close a deletion discussion.Equazcion •✗/C • 03:34, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Another way to close it is by "Keep" without changing anything, which I think is what is wanted by the proponents. Either way I'd hate to be the closing admin :) --WebHamster 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course the proponents want it... I don't see the value in stating that. But again, suggesting a change in wording is perfectly valid in such a discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:51, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with a "lethal" connotation? --ChetblongTalkSign 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a source of friction. Without the friction, this userbox would not be considered divisive. However whether or not the lethal connotation is what's actually causing the friction is debatable. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:42, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • So far it seems a combination of patriotic bias and an inability to see other's perspectives is what is actually causing the friction. The "keeps" appear to have a live and let live attitude whereas the "deletes" tend to be right-wing patriots who think anything that opposes the good ol' USA is objectionable. Then again there's also the generic UBX haters too. --WebHamster 03:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think some of your own biases might be contributing to that summation. Please assume good faith. Don't state what others are thinking, beyond the words they've actually said. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:55, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not assuming good or bad faith. My synopsis is based purely on what has been said throughout this discussion. --WebHamster 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • YOU may recognize that the right to sovereignty implies the right to resist occupation (do you?) but most do not. In fact, the only "inflammatory" thing about this is that it reminds people of the fact they're supposed to forget. --MQDuck 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't about me, so I won't entertain the first part of your question. However, again, this seems to be an issue of conveying the message that there is indeed an occupation. This seems to be the root of the conflict (our political conflict). Generally, in cases where there is an occupation, people will condone the use of force by the occupied in order to resist that occupation. If there is no occupation, no force is warranted. These are things everyone agrees with. What I find inflammatory about this userbox is that it skips over this question, and instead states what should be done about it. It's like a prosecutor going to a murder trial and just saying we should put the defendant to death because the state has a right to defend itself against murderers. No one actually objects to the statement, so you're not even stating your side of the argument. You're making a matter-of-fact presumption. I really think that's the only problem with this userbox. If it actually stated a clear opinion, such as (as I've suggested before) "This user believes that America is illegally occupying Iraq", then everything would be fine. People will still disagree with it, but it's not that same backhand-slap-in-the-face to people on the other side. It doesn't make an assumption of fact or correctness -- it just states an opinion. I hope you'll consider a reword. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:56, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • When even the US was saying that it was occupying Iraq, did everyone "condone the use of force by the occupied in order to resist that occupation"? Absolutely not. I think that maybe you didn't think through that statement enough before you made it. Anyway, that it's an occupation is an implied assumption, but it's NOT the point I'm trying to make. The viewer can say "that's true, but I disagree with the implied assumption" if they like. --MQDuck 07:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The US said it was occupying Iraq? Not sure when that was. Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you "what's what" or read your mind, per se. I'm trying to tell you what this userbox sounds like to everyone else, and why people have a problem with it. If you don't care, you should. And whether you do or not, the decision might be made for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:52, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the constitution. Marlith T/C 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no such thing as free speech, either here or anywhere on the planet. --WebHamster 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So is that a keep or a delete or is it just an attempt at upping the viewing figures for your essay? --WebHamster 04:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Yeah, see, there's really no policy where editors collectively gave up this freedom. And it's a wiki anyone can edit, so really you are free to say whatever you like, if you are willing to face the consequences. Of course, I can't think of something counter-cultural enough that I actually support enough that I could stand up for on principle, and I won't just make a WP:POINT. I want to be like Buck Henry in that old SNL skit: I want to force bus known Communists into your living room to kill you puppy! But, ah well, for want of a nail.... -- Kendrick7talk 04:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Forget it, we are going off topic and we aren't a soapbox. Marlith T/C 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (quadruple ec) WebHamster, he already said it was a Keep, and again please assume good faith. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:24, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't assume anything. I ask. --WebHamster 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Asking if someone only commented in order to "up the viewing figures for their essay" (incidentally there are no viewing figures on Wikipedia) is a bad-faith assumption, whether it's phrased in the form of a question or not. It's also uncivil. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:32, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I would agree. This userbox is said to be disruptive. However, MfDs are quite divisive too. Marlith T/C 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Think what you like but go lecture someone else. I ask because I don't know. Maybe you know everything, I don't. --WebHamster 11:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • MfDs are not divisive in and of themselves; only the pages of which they are the subject, and the behavior of the people who participate. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:40, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Chetblong Compromise

Chetblong suggested not changing the wording, but changing the link from "Iraqi Resistance" (which, as I'm sure we've all noticed, redirects to "Iraqi Insurgency") to "Resistance Movement". I'm not satisfied with that, but I'd like to suggest an alternative:

Does Wikipedia have anywhere a copy of international law as recognized by the UN? If the relevant part can be linked to, and if it will settle this dispute, I will change the link to that. In fact, thinking about it, that may be a better link anyway. --MQDuck 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This might help. ChetblongTalkSign 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything specific enough on that page (please tell me if I missed it). However, if my proposed solution will satisfy people, I will do the research necessary to cite the relevant law(s). --MQDuck 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just war any good? Give me priests over lawyers anyday. -- Kendrick7talk 07:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Legality of the Iraq War would probably be where you should start looking for something like that. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We could change it to this:
This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation.
ChetblongTalkSign 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Even simpler, an admin could move Iraqi insurgency to the less POVed, biased and inflammatory naming of Iraqi resistance. --WebHamster 11:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to close this MFD

This MFD is an embarrassment, with some users using it to push their personal points of view (and I'm talking about both sides) without properly discussing what's best for the project. Also, although no strong language was used, there are personal attacks aimed at editors in this page, which doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.

So, how do we close this MFD? The most obvious answer is also undoubtedly futile: close as no consensus. But I fear this will only cause another MFD, and possibly wheel wars between admins. So I propose the following: either conduct an opinion poll here to get a clearer picture on where we stand (with simple sections of "keep as is", "keep with neutral language", or "delete", with no threaded rebuttals) and then continue discussion, or create an RFC where arguments can be made without patriotic or liberal rhetoric and without insults, but with users supporting or objecting views. I feel this is the only way we can formulate constructive and neutral arguments and reach a peaceful resolution. Any other serious suggestions are welcome. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the behaviour of some respected editors here have shocked me. I had never known this would be a result of deleting a userbox, but that just goes to show community opinions here, and the fact that we should value them all. I for one will be abstaining from further editing relevant to this userbox, so no-one has to worry about me deleting this again. Once again, apologies. Regards, Rudget. 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said on the talk page, the closer(s) had better be utterly careful and consider themselves warned to not even smell like any sort of politcal nature is involved in this close. It would be catastrophically bad. If there is an air that this went for any kind of political concerns, if it was a delete, it will become open season on a lot of boxes and cause a lot of strife. Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I also agree with Mtmelendez that the outcome of this MfD, which can only be a No consensus, is unlikely to help resolve the issue. We should have an RfC, or centralised policy discussion, to decide whether userboxes of this general nature (i.e. relating to controversial political issues of war or conflict) should be allowed, and then formulate a definite rule which can be applied across the board. This will eliminate accusations of bias. WaltonOne 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There's some related discussion here. -- Kendrick7talk 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

← Ugh. It scares me to hear this, from who I'm assuming was supposed to be the closing admin. I have absolutely no idea how I would close this, and was relying on one of those wise objective adminly decisions to settle it. The only suggestion I have is the reword I suggested above, which doesn't seem to satisfy the box's proponents at all, although I still consider it a good compromise. I don't think a poll is the answer (we've seen a lot of that lately...). I think there is a solution here but I think we need someone objective to step in and tell us exactly where this falls, as far as how it fits with policy and ultimately with Wikipedia's goals. In other words, there is a "right" way to handle this but we haven't found it because of the controversial subject matter. A poll won't solve that and is, I think, the worst solution, because people can cast a vote for any reason, and aren't forced to make an argument of substance. So not only can people vote based on their political views but in that scenario we wouldn't even know it if they did. At least here we can determine who is actually !voting based on a logical policy-based argument. PS I missed the RfC suggestion -- I think that would be a good start. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:49, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, we need a decision on these types of templates and their appropriateness in the project. We cannot expect one MFD nomination to establish a keep or delete project-wide consensus, nor can we entail starting one MFD-nom for each userbox expecting a clearer picture than what we see here, not at least after a cool down period. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that this about a userbox expressing a POV it's hardly a surprise that POV-based views (and insults) became so dominant. One thing that is demonstrated by this MfD is that the relevant policy is badly worded and is reliant too much on interpretation and accordingly needs an urgent and major review. --WebHamster 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that we need to make a sitewide decision like that just because of this one userbox. Is this a problem that comes up so frequently that this latest instance can be considered "the last straw", and a decision must be made now regarding everything similar? That doesn't seem like the situation to me at the present time. It seems like overkill. I think a decision should be made about this one userbox, and if that decision leaves some people unhappy then so be it. We don't have to please everyone and we're not a democracy. I include myself among those who don't need to be satisfied. Though I object to this userbox I would rather it be kept as-is rather than get blown out of proportion into a sitewide issue, all in the interest of political correctness. That's really not what we should be doing here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:15, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Policies exist to protect our users from arbitrary discrimination. If we're goning to have a don't ask, don't tell policy, we need to make sure it's fairly applied. Creating equity is an important goal when we want to create an NPOV encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7talk 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A sitewide policy is essential to solving these flare-ups once and for all, otherwise it just becomes a pissing contest over the content. It was tried here for a bit, but that came to no good end as a vocal minority only wanted to focus on the one user box in particular, rather than the issue of polemics in general. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, but I agree with the above comments. Yes, we're talking about one userbox here, and it's simple to just close this MFD, forget it ever happened, and tackle the next nomination whenever it arises. But the issues surrounding this userbox also apply to many others, and this isn't the first time we've had unfortunate incidents surrounding userbox wars.[1] When I said we need a decision on this, I meant we need clearer consensus to act on in future discussions, in order to avoid all this. I'm against closing discussions by "washing of hands". If serious issues are brought in an XFD discussion, perhaps it's time to analyze the established consensus, and either change it or clarify and enforce it. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If we could just end this madness and just close as keep and protect the page, this darn project would have nothing to gain and nothing to lose. So why hasn't that happened yet. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So... - It's been long enough and we're not getting anywhere, so if we're RfCing this then let's do it. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure what the procedure is for that at an XfD. Do we post it here, at the userbox talk page, or what? Whichever it is let's get started. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:37, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
    • Working on it now, regardless of the final decision made in this MFD. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So the RfC wouldn't be to determine this MfD. Okay. Then how 'bout someone make a decision and close this? Equazcion •✗/C • 05:29, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • This is all insane to me. If this debate IS to go on (which it has my blessing to), it should go on SOMEWHERE ELSE. Let it go on in the debate over a page that most people SUPPORT. END the debate here. If it's settled in a way that makes it appropriately relevant, THEN change or delete what's here. This is the OPPOSITE of the place people who want to delete relevantly divisive userboxes should be waging their battles. People who simply wish to wage a battle against the point of view expressed can kiss my fucking ass. I'm sick of this bullshit from them. --MQDuck 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the RFC is in place at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Userbox content. You're all welcome to comment there. Second, I've left a notice at WP:AN asking for an uninvolved admin to judge and close the discussion. I would've done it, but I've involved myself in the discussion somewhat. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 05:51, 17 January 2008 (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.