- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was that it turns out that the owner wants this kept, and so do all who have commented; moreover the nominator has no view on the matter. I hereby close this debate as "wrongly listed for deletion owing to a mistaken apprehension that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy." -- Tony Sidaway 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A very complex DRV on this userbox has just closed. Reading comments substantively, there was a consensus that a template like this one in template space met CSD T1 criterion for deletion. There was also a consensus that more discussion was needed to determine whether the sentiment expressed therein should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. Hence, this MfD of a userfied version of the userbox. It is clear the sentiment expressed is contrary to current fundamental policy; what is unclear is whether the community will tolerate or forbid the expression of such "contrary-to-policy" opinions. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As Xoloz says, this is obviously contradictory to policy, and it's a Foundation matter whether or not to change criteria for fair use images. However, I really do not like the precedent it sets to delete something in userspace just because it contradicts policy, even fundamental policy. Deletion is not the way to make people think about if they should edit in a project which has rules they don't like. - Amarkov moo! 15:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. At no point is expressing disagreement with policy, en- or Foundation-level, disruptive or divisive. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep'. A respectful expression of opinion. Another example of a userbox criticizing policy is Template:User anti-anon, which we have on several hundred userpages. "Tolerance consists of valuing the right of another person to hold beliefs that you know absolutely to be wrong." Kla'quot 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I also agree with the sentiments below to rename this userbox. Kla'quot 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above comments. Shalom.-- James, La gloria è a dio 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Amarkov and Kla'quot make excellent points here, to which I currently find little to add, except for my agreal. Charon X/ talk 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Would it be acceptable/helpful to have a userbox stating any of these?:
- "This user would prefer not having to source potentially defamatory information when writing biographies of living people"
- "This user would prefer not to use a neutral point of view if there are some agenda to be fulfilled"
- "This user would prefer not to use material that has been published by reliable sources if there are better unreliable ones available."
- Absolutely, in my mind. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If a user disagrees with policy, then that's their right. As to your examples, those are a bit extreme, but if someone were to be opposed to the current verifiability standards, then they also have the right to argue for changing them. This userbox doesn't say they are going to act disruptively or divisively, it simply says they prefer one policy option over another. To compare to your NPOV userbox example, I think I'd be pefectly within my rights to have a userbox saying, for example "This user would prefer wikipedia to adhere to a scientific point of view" or "this user would prefer wikipedia fork controversial articles." Wintermut3 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Purely as a point of information, I will remind folks that disagreement with NPOV was openly discussed in the project's early days, and led to a Wikipedia-fork by ArbCom Member Fred Bauder, employing sympathetic point-of-view in all its articles. Xoloz 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Me too. Wouldn't it be great if all the vandals would put "This user likes to vandalize Wikipedia" boxes on their userpages? Kla'quot 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and let the hundred flowers bloom. Stammer 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Abu badali's comment. —
$PЯING
rαgђ
21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I didn't voted keep. -- Abu badali ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has a terrible name. "User no GFDL" implies that the user does not like the GFDL, not that they are against replacing fair use images with libre ones. Kotepho 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. As long as it is just an expression of opinion, it should be allowed. The problem arises when the user in question starts acting outside policy. - Mgm| (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rename. While I agree with this user that our current militant free-use stand may actually hurt both Wikipedia and the promotion of free content more than it helps, I do not oppose the GFDL as this box implies. And since when have we ever deleted userboxes simply for challenging policy? Daniel Case 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep. These heavy handed attacks on freedom of expression are the reason I rarely edit this damn encyclopedia anymore. Sheesh. Jeffpw 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as an expression of opinion it's fine. If anyone actually tries to enforce something violating policy then it's perfectly justified to stop them, but it's not right to stop people from disagreeing with policy. Hut 8.5 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Move to User no fair use. Will ( is it can be time for messages now plz?) 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for obvious reasons. Its NOT divisive or inflammatory...saying "This user thinks free images SUCK!" would be. Saying that one would not prefer it to be used if there are better alternatives is another entirely. Which is hardly comparable to libel on a real person's encyclopedia article.-- CyberGhostface 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments at TfD, as well as those of the supermajority who expressed their opinion similarly. Jerry 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing so clear anywhere on Wikipedia, "It is clear the sentiment expressed is contrary to current fundamental policy." I think this user box means exactly what it says, free images, the freer the better, are better all around, and images have nothing to do with GFDL--it's a text license, strictly a text license. KP Botany 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you think something should be deleted, list it for deletion. If not, let someone else who thinks it should be deleted list it. Nothing is lost by leaving such listings to discretion. Listing for deletion on purely procedural grounds is a complete waste of time. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#BUREAUCRACY). --
Tony Sidaway
08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree. There is so much that needs to be done on Wikipedia, listing something to simply consume other editors' time, when you can't even be bothered to participate in what you list ("I abstain") is being wholely bureaucratic. KP Botany 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it should be pointed out that the "abstain" was only the
last step in a lengthy and possibly controversial deletion decision. And since the presumption is usually that the lister is advocating deletion, an "abstain" was a perfectly reasonable alternative in this case. Similarly, since it's my user space at issue, I'm abstaining; the "presumption" is that, if it's in my userspace, I'd like it to be there. (At least, I hope that's what the presumption is!)
Jenolen
speak it!
19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- This still doesn't explain why this page is being listed for deletion by someone who doesn't want it deleted. Why can't he leave it to the people who actually want it deleted, if they exist? -- Tony Sidaway 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, good grief. If you want to keep it why the heck did you post this? Please delete this mess. KP Botany 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was that it turns out that the owner wants this kept, and so do all who have commented; moreover the nominator has no view on the matter. I hereby close this debate as "wrongly listed for deletion owing to a mistaken apprehension that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy." -- Tony Sidaway 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A very complex DRV on this userbox has just closed. Reading comments substantively, there was a consensus that a template like this one in template space met CSD T1 criterion for deletion. There was also a consensus that more discussion was needed to determine whether the sentiment expressed therein should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. Hence, this MfD of a userfied version of the userbox. It is clear the sentiment expressed is contrary to current fundamental policy; what is unclear is whether the community will tolerate or forbid the expression of such "contrary-to-policy" opinions. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As Xoloz says, this is obviously contradictory to policy, and it's a Foundation matter whether or not to change criteria for fair use images. However, I really do not like the precedent it sets to delete something in userspace just because it contradicts policy, even fundamental policy. Deletion is not the way to make people think about if they should edit in a project which has rules they don't like. - Amarkov moo! 15:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. At no point is expressing disagreement with policy, en- or Foundation-level, disruptive or divisive. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep'. A respectful expression of opinion. Another example of a userbox criticizing policy is Template:User anti-anon, which we have on several hundred userpages. "Tolerance consists of valuing the right of another person to hold beliefs that you know absolutely to be wrong." Kla'quot 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I also agree with the sentiments below to rename this userbox. Kla'quot 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above comments. Shalom.-- James, La gloria è a dio 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Amarkov and Kla'quot make excellent points here, to which I currently find little to add, except for my agreal. Charon X/ talk 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Would it be acceptable/helpful to have a userbox stating any of these?:
- "This user would prefer not having to source potentially defamatory information when writing biographies of living people"
- "This user would prefer not to use a neutral point of view if there are some agenda to be fulfilled"
- "This user would prefer not to use material that has been published by reliable sources if there are better unreliable ones available."
- Absolutely, in my mind. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If a user disagrees with policy, then that's their right. As to your examples, those are a bit extreme, but if someone were to be opposed to the current verifiability standards, then they also have the right to argue for changing them. This userbox doesn't say they are going to act disruptively or divisively, it simply says they prefer one policy option over another. To compare to your NPOV userbox example, I think I'd be pefectly within my rights to have a userbox saying, for example "This user would prefer wikipedia to adhere to a scientific point of view" or "this user would prefer wikipedia fork controversial articles." Wintermut3 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Purely as a point of information, I will remind folks that disagreement with NPOV was openly discussed in the project's early days, and led to a Wikipedia-fork by ArbCom Member Fred Bauder, employing sympathetic point-of-view in all its articles. Xoloz 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Me too. Wouldn't it be great if all the vandals would put "This user likes to vandalize Wikipedia" boxes on their userpages? Kla'quot 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and let the hundred flowers bloom. Stammer 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Abu badali's comment. —
$PЯING
rαgђ
21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I didn't voted keep. -- Abu badali ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has a terrible name. "User no GFDL" implies that the user does not like the GFDL, not that they are against replacing fair use images with libre ones. Kotepho 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. As long as it is just an expression of opinion, it should be allowed. The problem arises when the user in question starts acting outside policy. - Mgm| (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rename. While I agree with this user that our current militant free-use stand may actually hurt both Wikipedia and the promotion of free content more than it helps, I do not oppose the GFDL as this box implies. And since when have we ever deleted userboxes simply for challenging policy? Daniel Case 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep. These heavy handed attacks on freedom of expression are the reason I rarely edit this damn encyclopedia anymore. Sheesh. Jeffpw 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as an expression of opinion it's fine. If anyone actually tries to enforce something violating policy then it's perfectly justified to stop them, but it's not right to stop people from disagreeing with policy. Hut 8.5 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Move to User no fair use. Will ( is it can be time for messages now plz?) 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for obvious reasons. Its NOT divisive or inflammatory...saying "This user thinks free images SUCK!" would be. Saying that one would not prefer it to be used if there are better alternatives is another entirely. Which is hardly comparable to libel on a real person's encyclopedia article.-- CyberGhostface 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments at TfD, as well as those of the supermajority who expressed their opinion similarly. Jerry 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing so clear anywhere on Wikipedia, "It is clear the sentiment expressed is contrary to current fundamental policy." I think this user box means exactly what it says, free images, the freer the better, are better all around, and images have nothing to do with GFDL--it's a text license, strictly a text license. KP Botany 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you think something should be deleted, list it for deletion. If not, let someone else who thinks it should be deleted list it. Nothing is lost by leaving such listings to discretion. Listing for deletion on purely procedural grounds is a complete waste of time. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#BUREAUCRACY). --
Tony Sidaway
08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree. There is so much that needs to be done on Wikipedia, listing something to simply consume other editors' time, when you can't even be bothered to participate in what you list ("I abstain") is being wholely bureaucratic. KP Botany 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it should be pointed out that the "abstain" was only the
last step in a lengthy and possibly controversial deletion decision. And since the presumption is usually that the lister is advocating deletion, an "abstain" was a perfectly reasonable alternative in this case. Similarly, since it's my user space at issue, I'm abstaining; the "presumption" is that, if it's in my userspace, I'd like it to be there. (At least, I hope that's what the presumption is!)
Jenolen
speak it!
19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- This still doesn't explain why this page is being listed for deletion by someone who doesn't want it deleted. Why can't he leave it to the people who actually want it deleted, if they exist? -- Tony Sidaway 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, good grief. If you want to keep it why the heck did you post this? Please delete this mess. KP Botany 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.