Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 28

28 February 2008

Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah (edit | [[Talk:Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This category was deleted 5 times for different reasons, once because of Wikipedia:CSD#C3, once because there were no users of the user box, and three times because it was a recreation of deleted material. Accompanying user boxes were also deleted. There was a debate that took place here when a user, User:Noor Aalam started creating the userboxes on his own userpage and an administrator, User:Sandstein, started deleting them. It seems that there was no conclusive result of the debate but users repeatedly deleted these user boxes until the debate was ended inconclusively, despite a good faith effort by User:Noor Aalam to revise the boxes. A user box was even created later protesting the deletions. I believe deleting these user boxes without comprehensive debate was a violation of ideals of free speech not to mention wikipedia's policies. There are comparable user boxes that have survived deletion review here and to delete this one and not those is inconsistent. Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand the connection between the debate on "userboxes" at ANI. And this category. Note that the debate on userboxes wasn't even about userboxes but about wiki code that looks like userboxes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The code was acting as a user box (I think that's the definition of a user box). I'm not sure what the contents of the category was because it was deleted, but it's on the same general topic as the userboxes so I thought we could debate them here and sort it out.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: Cdog asked me to come here.
• This is simply a case of systemic bias being allowed to run roughshod over WP:POLICY. Frankly, I've said what I needed to say at the incredibly frustrating ANI discussion. There is no objective evidence that voicing support for Hezbollah (or at least for Hezbollah's resistance to aggression from outside) is any more controversial or "likely to give widespread offense" than voicing support for George W. Bush, Avigdor Lieberman or any of a host of other. Or take User:UBX/Iraq Camp, which proudly proclaims the Wikipedian's participation in a brutal and disastrous war of aggression which has been, conservatively speaking, 10 times more devastating than the Bosnian War. That Hezbollah has been assigned the moniker of "terrorist organization" by a few Western governments is entirely irrelevant; international condemnation of the Iraq War, the attack on Lebanon, or the occupation of Palestine has been far more strident, and come from a much larger segment of opinion.
• Does DRV have a place here? Well, I don't know. No actual "deletion" took place; a clique of admins (most of whom are identifiably aligned with the Israeli right) took it upon themselves to simply blank anything that looked like a "pro-Hezbollah" userbox and threaten anyone who put it back with blocks. Honestly, I don't expect to win this fight. Just close the DRV and move on. Hezbollah is doing just fine without us. <eleland/talkedits> 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't the deletion of this category in line with changing userboxes to code? In otherwords, if users want to post personal stuff on there user space they should go ahead but shouldn't expect to use "main space resources" to do it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't thing the userbox should be deleted. It wouldn't change the world after all. Let have freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't affect Wikipedia in upper layers.RFG17 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: My issue is basically this.

The following user boxes were proposed:

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This user supports the political wing of Hezbollah.

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression.

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This user supports Hezbollah.

?This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is afraid to name particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.

It's debatable whether these user boxes give widespread offense. Although Hezbollah (or a part of it) has been designated as a terrorist organization by six countries, there are many notable exceptions, and many countries openly support Hezbollah. In any respect, it's clearly debatable and the last debate was inconclusive. There also seem to be several comparable user boxes that survived deletion review, notably:

This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation.

which survived deletion review here. And

This user recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return.^‡

the deletion of which was overturned here. The Hezbollah user boxes do not appear to be libelous or explicitly inciting (from what I can see), and although they may contribute to wikipedia being used as a soapbox, we should at least be consistent with our application.

I note for example:

This user is a Zionist.

which apparently has never been targeted for deletion, but it is probably susceptible of raising the same tempers. It is irrelevant whether you agree with Hezbollah's views. The issue is whether members of the wikipedia community should have the right to express their agreement.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• General comment on all of the userboxes shown above and their associated categories. This is all crap. I am offended by all of it. There is no collaborative purpose for these, and they do offend. They should all be eliminated with fiery salt and salty fire. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• General comment I am responding to notification by Cdog. I personally disapprove of almost all userboxes, the exceptions being language proficiency (for finding non-English speakers to assist in translation) and maybe "I'm a boy"/"I'm a girl" (to save people writing the (s)he thing when in doubt). The rest of them should all go in the trash, and I don't buy the argument that it's good to know someone's biases up-front, if you have a bias, try that "log out" button or stay away from "edit this page". That said, userboxes seem to be with us, and I would support the existence of the Hezbollah userbox only in the form where it supports the peaceful aims of Hezbollah, namely social works such as health and education, and political advocacy which disavows violence to achieve political ends. Franamax (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting position. The original userbox ("supports Hezbollah") could have been interpreted in that way. The later userboxes ("supports resistance against Israeli aggression", etc) could not have; but they were written explicitly to support defensive warfare. The last one I had before I was forced to remove it even had a caveat "legitimate means," but that was apparently not relevant. <eleland/talkedits> 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• no political categories, period. I haven't decided yet what my position is on the userboxes. I was asked by Cdog to come here, but I don't think he targeted one particular side of the debate? —Random832 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure. I tried to ask everyone from the last debate to give their opinions. I also asked a number of members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship of which I am a member to weigh in. I also asked an administrator from Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, User:BD2412 for some advice about how to appeal the deletion but he has not yet gotten back to me, which reminds me I have to tell him this debate is going on.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)