- 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 discussion was delete as divisive and not supporting the main goals of Wikipedia in any fashion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Si Gam Acèh/No Prophet Muhammad Images
Devisive, anti-WMF template used to try and spread religious/political statement. The purpose of wikipedia is not to further one religion or another, which this template seeks to do. The existence of this only serves to divide wikipedians and is not conducive to harmonious editing and the continuation of the goals of the project. Terrillja talk 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: The closing admin should also use this discussion to decide what to do about
User:Si Gam Acèh, where the user has replicated the exact same template across their userpage.--
Terrillja
talk
18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Diego Grez what's up? 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am inclined to keep since this is not an official template so much as it is a userland template, and if this how this particular user wishes to express his or her sentiment against the images of Muhammad then so be it. It's no different from a userbox that says "This user is opposed to graphical representations of the Prophet Muhammad on Wikipedia, and is willing to boycott Wikipedia over it."
harej
18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it said something to the effect of "This user is opposed to the use of images of Muhammad on the English Wikipedia, I would have no problem with it. But calling wikipedians to arms and telling them to boycott wikipedia is not appropriate.-- Terrillja talk 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: if the user wished to express this opinion in a userbox of the form harej suggests above, that's fine. This template otherwise is divisive and does nothing to further the creation of the English Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - it's in user space, so it isn't really a huge deal, but it is encouraging disruption and looks like it's part of a cross-wiki disruption (see m:Requests for comment/Prophet Muhammad images around Wikimedia projects). There is no way in heck the template's demands are ever going to be met, so I really can't see any upside. -- B ( talk) 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - not causing any problems in userspace. Prodego talk 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it in its current form. I agree with Terrillja; a userbox which conveys a personal opinion about this issue would be fine. However this template is a) claiming to be the opinion of the ace.wp community, b) claiming all Muslims must hold the same opinion (very divisive) and c) is asking for a
fatwa and is an ultimatum.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- ps. I deleted
Template:No Prophet Muhammad Images. This was raised at
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_16#Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images, where David Gerard also said that "an opinion in a userbox" is OK.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) pss.
ace:Ureuëng_Nguy:Kylu has an example userbox.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- He didn't say it is OK - he just said that there is a contrast. In any event, this template clearly goes far beyond an opinion. "XYZ is a bad President" is an opinion. "This template will never be removed as long as images insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad pbuh that attack 2.000.000.000 muslims not deleted from Wikipedia." is a statement of hostilities. It would be more akin to, "All members of party XYZ are insulted by the article about President XYZ and will boycott Wikipedia until it is removed." -- B ( talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- ps. I deleted
Template:No Prophet Muhammad Images. This was raised at
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_16#Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images, where David Gerard also said that "an opinion in a userbox" is OK.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) pss.
ace:Ureuëng_Nguy:Kylu has an example userbox.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Only is divisive. Telling people to boycott Wikipedia most certainly isn't helpful. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a protest against a practice on Wikipedia of allowing images that insult many Muslims, and we should not squash dissent by deleting this. We are not a petty dictatorship. We may disagree with their position, but they should be allowed to state it on their user pages. They are not advocating violence and their position is not totally beyond the pale of reasonable debate. If this is deleted, it will only serve to foster resentment - not only do we ignore their wishes, we censor them too!
Fences&
Windows
23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how ignoring
pillar #4 would benefit the project. If someone creates something uncivil and it gets deleted, so be it, ignoring the 5 pillars so as to try and not create resentment doesn't make any sense. The say yes/no to flagged revs templates invoked debate in a civil manner. This clearly was created to attempt divide the community, disrupt wikipedia to
make a point, and there is no reason why we should ignore the basic ideals of wikipedia to give someone a
soapbox. Part of being respectful towards other wikipedians is following established procedures if you have a problem and not seeking to advance a political or religious view, which this clearly attempts to do.--
Terrillja
talk
01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That template does not go against the "fourth pillar". It is not uncivil or disrespectful. It robustly states their position and that is all. Indeed, our insistence that Wikipedia is not censored on this topic is inherently disrespectful towards devout Muslims, so we are breaching our own pillars. Your nomination is itself divisive. Others have criticised Wikipedia for any number of practices, must we force them to shut up too? Fences& Windows 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how ignoring
pillar #4 would benefit the project. If someone creates something uncivil and it gets deleted, so be it, ignoring the 5 pillars so as to try and not create resentment doesn't make any sense. The say yes/no to flagged revs templates invoked debate in a civil manner. This clearly was created to attempt divide the community, disrupt wikipedia to
make a point, and there is no reason why we should ignore the basic ideals of wikipedia to give someone a
soapbox. Part of being respectful towards other wikipedians is following established procedures if you have a problem and not seeking to advance a political or religious view, which this clearly attempts to do.--
Terrillja
talk
01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Some Muslims believe visual depictions of Muhammad is forbidden. The statements made in the box are neither uncivil nor a personal attack. The user does not say anything negative about people who disagree with that viewpoint. I'm sure we can all think of things that we would like to see changed about Wikipedia and we should all feel free to lobby others to gain support. We can also all imagine how seriously we would take it if we thought Wikipedia was doing something that made our gods or goddesses angry. If any users disrupt Wikipedia by deleting images unnecessarily, they can and should be banned. EdEColbert Let me know 06:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Either Delete per Imzadi 1979 & Terrillja, or Modify to deal with those concerns. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's my subpage. You don't have rights to delete it. -- Seulimeung ( talk) 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- MfD is for, in part, deletion of user pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Introduction. Prodego talk 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is all about inside Wikipedia, and same time many user's opinion about content/policies here, and that is not against NPOV-policy.
[1] tells much more. --
Juhko (
SIIS DAA?)
20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The nomination has nothing to do with NPOV, I have seen nothing that shows that this user was elected to speak on behalf of all muslims, rather all it does is divide wikipedians and disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, as per the nomination.--
Terrillja
talk
20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Template most about inside-WMF case and npov-police, also
WP:Image use policy. This discussion should be kept in Meta-Wiki. --
Juhko (
SIIS DAA?)
21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a page on the English wikipedia. This is the method of discussion and deletion of this type of page on this project. The discussion at meta is separate from our policies and procedures. Whatever happens at meta does not mean that any other wikis have to follow that consensus over local consensus in the form of a deletion discussion.-- Terrillja talk 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Template most about inside-WMF case and npov-police, also
WP:Image use policy. This discussion should be kept in Meta-Wiki. --
Juhko (
SIIS DAA?)
21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The nomination has nothing to do with NPOV, I have seen nothing that shows that this user was elected to speak on behalf of all muslims, rather all it does is divide wikipedians and disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, as per the nomination.--
Terrillja
talk
20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This user's whole intention is to spam this template to as many pages as he can, or at least add links to it to further his boycott efforts. He has already made it clear that he has no interest in improving Wikipedia any further as long as the images remain. It's clear the images aren't going anywhere, so this user and his template serve no other purpose than to disrupt Wikipedia. -- œ ™ 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete User pages should not contain material whose purpose is to threaten and disrupt Wikipedia. Peacock ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete User should take his own advice and start boycotting wikipedia as of, like, now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Clever but the user's advice is to boycott if a fatwa is ordered by a Muslim ulama. Otherwise, it appears he could still be willing to contribute productively to other parts of the encyclopedia. I could not find any evidence that he intends or has already been disrupting Wikipedia with regards to the Mohammed images, but this MfD is for the page listed for deletion and any complaints about user behavior go elsewhere I believe. Also you recommended delete but gave no policy reason or other justification... EdEColbert Let me know 22:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you want policies? How about "disruption"/ wp:battle? or... having been blocked once already for following through on this wp:VANDAL? C'mon... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. As per EdEColbert's comments above. XoXo ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Although I disagree with the message, I do not find it to be an abuse of user space. Reach Out to the Truth 21:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a vote, just a note. Steward
Erwin has
locked Si Gam Acèh.
Kylu (
talk)
02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since the user is now globally blocked/locked/whatever, I have a solution. I have replaced their user page with a version of {{
indefblocked}} and made an editorial decision to redirect the template to their user page. If/when the user is unblocked, they can make an editorial decision to do something else. If an uninvolved admin sees this and agrees that it is a reasonable solution, please close this discussion. --
B (
talk)
05:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should still be deleted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since the user is now globally blocked/locked/whatever, I have a solution. I have replaced their user page with a version of {{
indefblocked}} and made an editorial decision to redirect the template to their user page. If/when the user is unblocked, they can make an editorial decision to do something else. If an uninvolved admin sees this and agrees that it is a reasonable solution, please close this discussion. --
B (
talk)
05:23, 3 August 2010 (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 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 discussion was delete as divisive and not supporting the main goals of Wikipedia in any fashion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Si Gam Acèh/No Prophet Muhammad Images
Devisive, anti-WMF template used to try and spread religious/political statement. The purpose of wikipedia is not to further one religion or another, which this template seeks to do. The existence of this only serves to divide wikipedians and is not conducive to harmonious editing and the continuation of the goals of the project. Terrillja talk 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: The closing admin should also use this discussion to decide what to do about
User:Si Gam Acèh, where the user has replicated the exact same template across their userpage.--
Terrillja
talk
18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Diego Grez what's up? 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am inclined to keep since this is not an official template so much as it is a userland template, and if this how this particular user wishes to express his or her sentiment against the images of Muhammad then so be it. It's no different from a userbox that says "This user is opposed to graphical representations of the Prophet Muhammad on Wikipedia, and is willing to boycott Wikipedia over it."
harej
18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it said something to the effect of "This user is opposed to the use of images of Muhammad on the English Wikipedia, I would have no problem with it. But calling wikipedians to arms and telling them to boycott wikipedia is not appropriate.-- Terrillja talk 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: if the user wished to express this opinion in a userbox of the form harej suggests above, that's fine. This template otherwise is divisive and does nothing to further the creation of the English Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - it's in user space, so it isn't really a huge deal, but it is encouraging disruption and looks like it's part of a cross-wiki disruption (see m:Requests for comment/Prophet Muhammad images around Wikimedia projects). There is no way in heck the template's demands are ever going to be met, so I really can't see any upside. -- B ( talk) 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - not causing any problems in userspace. Prodego talk 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it in its current form. I agree with Terrillja; a userbox which conveys a personal opinion about this issue would be fine. However this template is a) claiming to be the opinion of the ace.wp community, b) claiming all Muslims must hold the same opinion (very divisive) and c) is asking for a
fatwa and is an ultimatum.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- ps. I deleted
Template:No Prophet Muhammad Images. This was raised at
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_16#Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images, where David Gerard also said that "an opinion in a userbox" is OK.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) pss.
ace:Ureuëng_Nguy:Kylu has an example userbox.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- He didn't say it is OK - he just said that there is a contrast. In any event, this template clearly goes far beyond an opinion. "XYZ is a bad President" is an opinion. "This template will never be removed as long as images insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad pbuh that attack 2.000.000.000 muslims not deleted from Wikipedia." is a statement of hostilities. It would be more akin to, "All members of party XYZ are insulted by the article about President XYZ and will boycott Wikipedia until it is removed." -- B ( talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- ps. I deleted
Template:No Prophet Muhammad Images. This was raised at
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_16#Template:No_Prophet_Muhammad_Images, where David Gerard also said that "an opinion in a userbox" is OK.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) pss.
ace:Ureuëng_Nguy:Kylu has an example userbox.
John Vandenberg (
chat)
06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Only is divisive. Telling people to boycott Wikipedia most certainly isn't helpful. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a protest against a practice on Wikipedia of allowing images that insult many Muslims, and we should not squash dissent by deleting this. We are not a petty dictatorship. We may disagree with their position, but they should be allowed to state it on their user pages. They are not advocating violence and their position is not totally beyond the pale of reasonable debate. If this is deleted, it will only serve to foster resentment - not only do we ignore their wishes, we censor them too!
Fences&
Windows
23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how ignoring
pillar #4 would benefit the project. If someone creates something uncivil and it gets deleted, so be it, ignoring the 5 pillars so as to try and not create resentment doesn't make any sense. The say yes/no to flagged revs templates invoked debate in a civil manner. This clearly was created to attempt divide the community, disrupt wikipedia to
make a point, and there is no reason why we should ignore the basic ideals of wikipedia to give someone a
soapbox. Part of being respectful towards other wikipedians is following established procedures if you have a problem and not seeking to advance a political or religious view, which this clearly attempts to do.--
Terrillja
talk
01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That template does not go against the "fourth pillar". It is not uncivil or disrespectful. It robustly states their position and that is all. Indeed, our insistence that Wikipedia is not censored on this topic is inherently disrespectful towards devout Muslims, so we are breaching our own pillars. Your nomination is itself divisive. Others have criticised Wikipedia for any number of practices, must we force them to shut up too? Fences& Windows 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how ignoring
pillar #4 would benefit the project. If someone creates something uncivil and it gets deleted, so be it, ignoring the 5 pillars so as to try and not create resentment doesn't make any sense. The say yes/no to flagged revs templates invoked debate in a civil manner. This clearly was created to attempt divide the community, disrupt wikipedia to
make a point, and there is no reason why we should ignore the basic ideals of wikipedia to give someone a
soapbox. Part of being respectful towards other wikipedians is following established procedures if you have a problem and not seeking to advance a political or religious view, which this clearly attempts to do.--
Terrillja
talk
01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Some Muslims believe visual depictions of Muhammad is forbidden. The statements made in the box are neither uncivil nor a personal attack. The user does not say anything negative about people who disagree with that viewpoint. I'm sure we can all think of things that we would like to see changed about Wikipedia and we should all feel free to lobby others to gain support. We can also all imagine how seriously we would take it if we thought Wikipedia was doing something that made our gods or goddesses angry. If any users disrupt Wikipedia by deleting images unnecessarily, they can and should be banned. EdEColbert Let me know 06:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Either Delete per Imzadi 1979 & Terrillja, or Modify to deal with those concerns. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's my subpage. You don't have rights to delete it. -- Seulimeung ( talk) 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- MfD is for, in part, deletion of user pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Introduction. Prodego talk 18:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is all about inside Wikipedia, and same time many user's opinion about content/policies here, and that is not against NPOV-policy.
[1] tells much more. --
Juhko (
SIIS DAA?)
20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The nomination has nothing to do with NPOV, I have seen nothing that shows that this user was elected to speak on behalf of all muslims, rather all it does is divide wikipedians and disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, as per the nomination.--
Terrillja
talk
20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Template most about inside-WMF case and npov-police, also
WP:Image use policy. This discussion should be kept in Meta-Wiki. --
Juhko (
SIIS DAA?)
21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a page on the English wikipedia. This is the method of discussion and deletion of this type of page on this project. The discussion at meta is separate from our policies and procedures. Whatever happens at meta does not mean that any other wikis have to follow that consensus over local consensus in the form of a deletion discussion.-- Terrillja talk 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Template most about inside-WMF case and npov-police, also
WP:Image use policy. This discussion should be kept in Meta-Wiki. --
Juhko (
SIIS DAA?)
21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The nomination has nothing to do with NPOV, I have seen nothing that shows that this user was elected to speak on behalf of all muslims, rather all it does is divide wikipedians and disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, as per the nomination.--
Terrillja
talk
20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This user's whole intention is to spam this template to as many pages as he can, or at least add links to it to further his boycott efforts. He has already made it clear that he has no interest in improving Wikipedia any further as long as the images remain. It's clear the images aren't going anywhere, so this user and his template serve no other purpose than to disrupt Wikipedia. -- œ ™ 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete User pages should not contain material whose purpose is to threaten and disrupt Wikipedia. Peacock ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete User should take his own advice and start boycotting wikipedia as of, like, now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Clever but the user's advice is to boycott if a fatwa is ordered by a Muslim ulama. Otherwise, it appears he could still be willing to contribute productively to other parts of the encyclopedia. I could not find any evidence that he intends or has already been disrupting Wikipedia with regards to the Mohammed images, but this MfD is for the page listed for deletion and any complaints about user behavior go elsewhere I believe. Also you recommended delete but gave no policy reason or other justification... EdEColbert Let me know 22:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you want policies? How about "disruption"/ wp:battle? or... having been blocked once already for following through on this wp:VANDAL? C'mon... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. As per EdEColbert's comments above. XoXo ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Although I disagree with the message, I do not find it to be an abuse of user space. Reach Out to the Truth 21:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a vote, just a note. Steward
Erwin has
locked Si Gam Acèh.
Kylu (
talk)
02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since the user is now globally blocked/locked/whatever, I have a solution. I have replaced their user page with a version of {{
indefblocked}} and made an editorial decision to redirect the template to their user page. If/when the user is unblocked, they can make an editorial decision to do something else. If an uninvolved admin sees this and agrees that it is a reasonable solution, please close this discussion. --
B (
talk)
05:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should still be deleted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since the user is now globally blocked/locked/whatever, I have a solution. I have replaced their user page with a version of {{
indefblocked}} and made an editorial decision to redirect the template to their user page. If/when the user is unblocked, they can make an editorial decision to do something else. If an uninvolved admin sees this and agrees that it is a reasonable solution, please close this discussion. --
B (
talk)
05:23, 3 August 2010 (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.