Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox

This userbox was featured until recently on

That userbox is too inappropriate, offensive, and controversial. Sincerely, --

Tally-ho! 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The userbox advocates "armed resistance", which in itself seems too provocative for Wikipedia. Linking the term to an organization which is deemed terrorist seems to imply the user advocates terrorism. I support the removal of the userbox. Jeffpw (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i stated on the tk pg, i am willing to change it to "This user supports Hezbollah" and remove the rest. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that userbox is a perenial problem. That version is toned down - agression used to wikilink to massacres - but still in my opinion, divisive and soapboxing. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the box to

Noor Aalam (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no desire to restart The Userbox Wars — but how is this any worse than at least 50% of the entries

iridescent 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

For starters, I don't see any userboxes there linking to terrorist organizations. That makes a difference to me. Also, it seems prudent to confine the discussion to this one box, instead of widening it to an elaborate debate of boxes in general. Jeffpw (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I've nominated the Dead Marxists userbox for deletion. How are some of these allowed. "This user believes Vince Foster did not commit suicide, but was instead murdered to prevent him revealing information about Whitewater." What is the point of this? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six countries view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which means that the majority of the world doesnt. Bias should be avoided. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way: How does having this userbox on your user page promote building the encyclopedia? If we can't come up with a good answer to that (and not just in reference to this particular userbox - I'm not trying to target Noor Aalam personally), then that's a pretty good indication that we've got something superfluous on our hands. I'm not interested in wandering into userbox wars either, but if having one causes disruption for more than a few editors, then there's rarely a good reason to keep it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are coming across several userbox issues lately, and this makes me wonder, should we actually try to establish a guideline for the userboxes themselves? I know

WP:USER covers it nicely, but maybe a very direct set of content instructions can prove useful for new users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There is another userbox on Noor Aalam's page that should be assessed as well—the one that advocates the vandalism of the George W. Bush page. Disagreeing (even vociferously) with a politician is fine, but advocating the vandalism of a wikipedia page is not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Also an unacceptable userbox. I have removed both. Regarding the Hezbollah box, we have been through this a number of times before. See the next subsection. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any userbox advocating vandalism is wrong, and should be removed. Supporting Hezbollah is another matter. Some people say they support Israel (which was responsible for many civilian deaths during the Israel-Lebanon conflict), so why is it incorrect to support Hezbollah?Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlessSins, please realize: a userbox saying "I support armed aggression against Israel", is no different than one saying "I support XyZ Holy city being bombed". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox says "resistance," not "aggression," so your comparison is totally irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) See below; it has been deleted three times as divisive and inflammatory. There is nothing that the wikipedia project gains from that userbox, and a lot that it loses.

That is simple nonsense, Avraham. CSD T1 applies only to pages in Template: space, per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. I realize that you are outraged by the claim that Hezbollah (in addition to whatever else it may do) resists Israeli aggression, but your outrage does not hold sway over the Wikipedia. I and other editors I know regularly come upon outrageous statements in userspace and talk space, but we do not seek to censor and/or block those who make them.

As I'm sure you know, there are about a gazillion userboxes which support political parties, political positions, ideals, charities, and perhaps even local bakeries. If you feel this is a problem, fine, but don't address it by removing content which you personally disagree with in the guise of enforcing

WP:SOAPBOX. <eleland/talkedits> 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Eleland, the fact that the template was substituted, instead of transcluded, just means that it was missed when the template was deleted. That userbox was deemed inappropriate for wikipedia -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar user boxes, from which "there is nothing that the wikipedia project gains". Example would be a userbox supporting Likud,[1] a party which doesn't want the Palestinians to have their own state,[2] thereby denying them the right to self-determination.Bless sins (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a Template: page was speedily deleted does not, and cannot, mean that similar content was thus forbidden from userpages. A policy which would forbid the simple statement "This user supports Hezbollah resistance against Israeli aggression" from userpages would require a lot more discussion than a unilateral procedural deletion under CSD T1. <eleland/talkedits> 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so nitpicky with the rules and recall that they serve a purpose. Circumventing that purpose with a subst does not negate the fact that the material (clearly) can be reasonably considered to be offensive or inflammatory.

The userpage policy prohibits such content on userpages, and it doesn't matter that he went the extra six characters and two clicks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at Noor's userpage, I would have to add the "This user wishes to test the limits of userboxes" userbox. The first version above IMO is clearly unacceptable, the second somewhat less bad, but still showing blanket support for an organization which advocates unacceptable use of violence to achieve political ends. How about a userbox with the Hezbollah symbol and a message supporting peace? That would put it on a par with that horrible box suggesting DVD's shouldn't have region codes, a clear attempt to destroy the Western economic order. Unless the laws of the server location clearly state that any mention of Hezbollah is prohibited, the userbox in question is just political advocacy like many others, providing it disavows the advocacy of violence. Franamax (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I was attempting to "destroy the Western economic order". Should i remove that as well? Noor Aalam (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

advocates unacceptable use of violence to achieve political ends - as opposed to the organizations that advocate acceptable use of violence to achieve political ends? —Random832 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, all political advocacy userboxes are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. The only use they have is giving a clue about which editors are here to

See {{User Hezbollah}}

This is just a substituted version of a template that was deemed inflammatory and deleted three separate times as a

The substituted userbox was also found on User:Yahussain (Supplied by User:Embargo here) and User:Aisha uk. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further action

Thanks to all of you for your comments. Consensus appears to be that userboxes expressing support for Hezbollah are divisive and inflammatory, especially substituted copies of the multiply-deleted {{User Hezbollah}}. I will remove such boxes from userspace and enforce the removal with protections and/or blocks if required. Sandstein (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about boxes such as these?[3] You are forgetting that divisiveness can be caused not just by Arab groups, but Israeli ones as well.Bless sins (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a template in user space, you are free to open a

deletion discussion about it. In my opinion, all political or ideological userboxes should be deprecated, but our current consensus only supports the removal of those that are considered too inflammatory. This includes support for Hezbollah, which is widely recognised as a terrorist group, but not for Likud, which is a mainstream political party. (It may be worth noting that I am Swiss, do not adhere to any religion and do not consider myself to have any personal stake whatsoever in the Arab-Israeli conflict.) Sandstein (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hezbollah is also a mainstream political party. It is part of a coalition that holds 35/128 seats in the Lebanese parliament.Bless sins (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is a terrorist group which intentionally kills civilians to further its own goals. The Likud may be evil capitalists and anti-concessions, but I don't believe they have a militia which goes around murdering people. However, if you see a userbox supporting Kach, then by all means please bring it here for deletion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need a paramilitary group. They have the

WP:NOT. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Noor Aalam was just blocked for 24 hours. The block was regarding his edit to User:Avraham's page.[4] Edit another user's page (without their permission) is inappropriate. However, User:Noor Alam did not place anything offensive. The edit was basically a removal of userboxes. Nevertheless, User:Noor Alam realized his mistake and immediately self-reverted within one minute.[5] I don't see how any harm has possibly been caused.

I know that editing a userpage without permission is inappropriate. However, a 24 hour block (usually given in cases of editwarring and 3rr) is too excessive. Please also consider the fact that the user immediately self-reverted their edits.Bless sins (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are more trouble then they are worth. They really are. Why do we have them at all? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly (regarding the advocacy userboxes at least). --

Folantin (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's funny this came up because I recently found this [6] the users main goal on here seems to collecting user boxes, barnstars and playing some kind of find a hidden page game. While I don't think there is anything that can or should be done about it, I think it's a small sign of things heading in the wrong direction. Ridernyc (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His page is kind of cool 'tho, IMHO. Looks like he has been around for awhile, also - best not to template the regulars, as you did on his talkpage.

talk 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. I am one of the users who had the first userbox ("supports armed resistance"). I had never actually placed political opinions on my userpage, unless you count "supports the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," until I noticed that other users were being threatened by administrators for placing the Hezbollah userbox.

This enforcement of

Furthermore, the process by which this decision has been made is in no way suitable for determining Wikipedia consensus. Previously the template version of this userbox was deleted under a criterion which only applies to userboxes in the template namespace, and which is related to the Userbox migration effort, which intends that "All controversial and divisive userboxes, including those currently in Wikipedia:Userboxes will be migrated out of template space into userspace or an appropriate subpage, such as a corresponding WikiProject." Note migrated, not deleted. Editors are now citing these procedural deletions as proof positive of a consensus against including statements of support for Hezbollah resistance. Whether or not such a consensus exists has not been determined, and the previous procedural deletions have, in themselves, no value in determining what consensus, if any, there is. Nonetheless, some administrators believe they are justified in removing the userbox, and in threatening and blocking those who restore it.

As a result, I am placing the userbox shown here on my user page. I trust that a civil and honest expression of dissatisfaction with a decision made by administrators cannot reasonably be taken as some form of disruption, and will not lead to threats being directed against my continued participation in this project. <eleland/talkedits> 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A case can be made that these edits are a violation of

WP:POINT. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to mention that supporting violent resistance to anything is completely inappropriate for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so users who express support for, say, the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, on the basis that it is armed self-defense, will be censured? <eleland/talkedits> 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Incerdently could you can it with that PC rubbish about "armed resistance"? Either call for genocide or stop messing around.Geni 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, woah, woah, woah, WOAH. Who said anything about genocide?! I support Hezbollah in its defense of Lebanese territory. Genocide, terrorism, or even attacks on military targets outside South Lebanon have nothing to do with it. <eleland/talkedits> 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please that silly PC line about legit targets and all that? If britian had thought like that it would probably have lost the Second Boer War. If you are not prepared to advocate genocide it is probably best you go back to your hippy friends and talk about peace. Psudo hawkishness is mearly anoying.Geni 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Avi's objection to anything violent. So if some is proud to be part of the Israeli army (which has killed many innocent civilians), they should be censured. Should this apply to all armies, as military men (soldiers etc.) are trained to be violent.Bless sins (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlessSins, I hope you're not siding with this user because you have the same relgiion as theirs. Do you agree that its not ok to have this userbox? "This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression." This line is identical to "This user supports bombing of such and such cities", which I'm sure you would not agree with. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless BlessSins has experienced a de-epiphany and converted to atheism, that is not the case. <eleland/talkedits> 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no, "supports armed resistance" means "supports armed resistance," not "supports every action carried out under the banner of armed resistance," rendering your second point equally moot. <eleland/talkedits> 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, this is a pointy userbox (which you posted above). Please remove it and stop the drama. We are not here to show our support of armed resistance against each other's countries or regions. We are here to edit the website and contribute to it. Per

WP:UP#NOT

, which says:

"If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.

"If you do not cooperate, inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)."

"if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption."

"Other non-encyclopedic related material"

"Extensive use of polemical statements"

So anything disruptive is not allowed on the userpage and this is being disruptive, not to mention, pointy. Please remove the box. See the bold above. The community is asking you to remove the box. The box can only be on your userpage with the community's consent. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression by other parties. The day that becomes "disruptive to the community," "non-encyclopedic," or "extensively polemical" is the day he walks from this encyclopedia. <eleland/talkedits> 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The forefathers of this editor resisted armed aggression in August 1914 and Sept 1939. I'm rather proud of it, and I've noticed many others proud of their willingness to do the same. Where's the UserBox with which I can advertise my support for such conduct? PR^talk 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good well, we dont need editors who dont care about showing support for violence against countries of other editors. Thats just being insensitive (to say the least). I dont think the website will miss them. We need people who are here to build articles in a positive cooperative atmosphere. If you want to support violent resistance against some countries and want to rally for it, this is not the website for it, obviously. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not remove this box, but I don't object if other admins want to. Yes, this is obviously a silly userbox, but we prohibit disruption, not silliness. As noted below, this general kind of "I hate someone!" userbox may at least be useful in quickly identifying problematic editors. Sandstein (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole thread amusing, because this userbox only advocates ideas set forth in this subversive and problematic document. (I admit that this document may be offensive to inhabitants of one specific country.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic purpose

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these sorts of userboxes do serve an encyclopedic purpose. Whether it's this one, or the Dead Marxist userbox, or the Hillary-Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster userbox, they identify editors whose dedication to a deeply controversial cause is so deep that they are extremely unlikely to be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally, collaboratively, and civilly in the long run, and are much more likely here to be part of a

LOL. Sadly to say, you actually have a point. -- Avi (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eleland put this userbox on his/her userpage. Yet he/she has been a valuable contributor. This is probably true for users who put userboxes supporting Likud.Bless sins (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reply from Number57 above: "The Likud may be evil capitalists and anti-concessions, but I don't believe they have a militia which goes around murdering people. However, if you see a userbox supporting Kach, then by all means please bring it here for deletion." --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an advantage to indicate any "political" partisanship you may be guilty of. The thing that's really objectionable is people flaunting a particular (usually distant) ethnicity and then seeking to cause revulsion in others (eg by denial of widely attested atrocities). That seems calculated to incite hatred of the grouping you link yourself to - in the full knowledge and expectation that your supposed fellows could (and perhaps already do?) suffer violence for your brazen attitudes. PR^talk 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the irony which you're pointing out, but it misses the point... if someone can't edit neutrally or provide acceptable citations for controversial claims, it's not likely that it'll take weeks or months to notice. For that matter, what an editor believes is irrelevant, so long as their edits meet WP criteria. I can believe that the sun orbits the earth, but that doesn't matter so long as my edits to

WP:FRINGE. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

While I understand, and mostly agree with MastCell's assessment that users who use these sort of userboxes essentially paint the POV bullseye on their own backs, I recognize that WP Policy and Guidelines say that when a UB hits the tipping point of irritating others, it needs to be re-evaluated. The problem is that this isn't Fatah or Hamas he's supporting, but a terrorist group, plain and simple, who play to the crowds by giving away food and such to finance their bombings. If this were a Fatah or Hamas Userbox, I'd be supporting him. It's not, it's like putting an 'I heart Al Qaeda' userbox on your page. People have found it offensive, and as such, it needs to go. ThuranX (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Why is okay for users to display support to some political parties but not others? Under the Republican Party control of the White House, people have been locked in cages without any evidence of guilt, People have been captured and tortured, and then released without any regret. They are responsible for starting the war in Iraq, which has resulted in many people having been killed and others have become refugees. In Israel Likud and Kadima are responsible for killing many Palestinians and Lebanese, they dropped over a million cluster bombs before the end of the war, yet admins seem to have no problem with people displaying their userboxes. These groups dont need militias when they have the best armies in the world to follow their orders.

I would like to display this userbox on my userpage. It doesnt advocate violence, and is no different than having the userbox of the parties mentioned above. If this is not acceptable I will put the userbox that eeland created above. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The merits and demerits of other nations, parties and groups do not matter here, and this is not a political discussion forum. Whether you like it or not, Hezbollah are considered a terrorist group by much of the world. Such boxes are divisive and inflammatory and help nothing in building this encyclopedia. Do not add "I support Hezbollah" boxes and/or flags in any flavour to your user page, please, or they will be removed and your user page protected. Thanks. Sandstein (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem to be suffering from a lack of worldwide view. Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party with a militant wing that confines itself to defending Lebanon from Israeli attacks to the most of world. To six countries in this world, it is listed as a terrorist group based on their misconception that is responsible for attack in South America carried out by an unaffiliated group. Tiamut 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy towards userboxes must be consistent. We shouldn't censor certain political userboxes but allow other political userboxes. Also please see the userbox below. It is used by some Georgian wikipedians in their user space and the wording comes straight out of the Georigan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I'll leave it up to the community whether user space should be a mouthpiece of the Georgian ministry of foreign affairs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user opposes aggressive separatism in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and supports the unity of the Georgian state.

Kill all userboxes that have something to do with politics. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that time of year again? Oh golly, I'll get out my uniform from the 'wars and we'll have a good scrap like in the old times. I can't wait for the "you deleted my userbox" "this userbox is evil, kill it" wikidrama to erupt once more. CharonX/talk 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above userbox seems to be advocating peace over terroristic withdrawl from a nation. How is peace controversial? ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it uses revanchist agitprop that seeks to reverse military losses that occurred a decade and a half ago. See here:

Georgians and Abkhaz (as well as Armenians, Ossetians, and others) eventually understood that talking to Westerners (that is, representatives of the Ultimate Power) about ancient history is a waste of time. Clever consultants emerged who taught them politically correct language that was more likely to win over these strange people. Georgians learned to speak about aggressive separatism that is threatening international stability.

I believe it was most likely added in good faith that perhaps those users heard their government use these words and repeated them in their user space. It is propaganda nonetheless. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the extent of propaganda pushing on Wikipedia with reference to the frozen conflict zone, it would be a net improvement. I see nothing wrong with the Georgian user box, at least they make they views clear whereas others obfuscate POV pushing under the guise of professed defense of the elusive NPOV. —PētersV (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian "userbox" that irritates Pocopocopocopoco is not a userbox at all. It is a code. I was just wondering what this user thinks about the Russian irredentist userboxes which directly reflects "peaceful" political propaganda of the Putinite administration.--Kober^Talk 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user supports the peaceful unification of Ossetia.

This user supports independence of Abkhazia.

PētersV is correct. People who have the "aggressive separatism" userbox (which uses the same wording as Georgian government hired consultants as per the cite) make their POV clear and as per MastCell it identifies editors whose dedication to a deeply controversial cause is so deep that they are extremely unlikely to be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally. As per the userboxes that Kober posted, how the heck is advocating for self-determination considered Putinite irredentism? Is having a pro-Kosovo self-determination userbox Bushite irredentist? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocopocopocopoco, I think in general ANI is not a place for

Atabek is absolutely correct. Does not Pocopocopocopoco really think that "unification of Ossetia" is a Russian irredentist concept? Is he suggesting that the Russian userbox implies the "unification of Ossetia" within Georgia? He also seems to be not very well informed about these conflicts as he apparently thinks that Kosovo seeks the unification with the United States and the US tries to annex it. It should be noted that all other separatist entities in the post-Soviet space have declared their desire to establish some kind of federative links or be directly annexed to other (internationally recognized) states which have supported them ideologically, economically, and militarily.--Kober^Talk 05:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, this section of ANI is for the discussion of appropriate userboxes. Nobody here is soapboxing other then yourself so please read

WP:KETTLE

as well.

Kober, I would suggest that you be selective with the people you choose to support your case of appropriate user space content.

Armenian Genocide denialish content in his user space until it was removed by admin user:Chaser. From what I have read about that period of Ottoman history, it was no picnic for Georgians either no? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Pocopocopocopoco, can I suggest you tone down a bit? I once asked our Russian colleagues to stop recapitulating Moscow's policy of inciting inter-ethnic tensions out here on Wikipedia. You are very much mistaken if you think that I should hate any Mongol, Turkish, Azeri, Persian and Russian editor who appears here because Georgia suffered at hands of the Mongol, Ottoman, Persian and Russian/Soviet empires.--Kober^Talk 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocopocopocopoco, I asked you a specific question to which there is a specific answer, which I don't see in your reply above. How are separatism vs. territorial integrity in Chechnya and Kosovo different from Abkhazia, Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh? The answer to this could shed some light on your

WP:WikiProject Karabakh

.

As far as your other comment goes, I don't oppose userboxes summarizing opinions, and as long as there are userboxes calling for recognition of claims of Armenian Genocide or opposing its denial, userboxes opposing those political views can also legitimately exist. And I removed those userboxes neither because of Chaser's edit, which was restored afterwards, nor because of any change in my position, but simply out of sensitivity to the feelings of Armenian contributors. Thanks.

talk) 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Very diplomatic Kober, it's really too bad that you can't just simply say that Atabek was wrong to put that type of material in his user space. Also see his comments above supporting userboxes that deny the Armenian Genocide. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH

SIGH Haven't we been here before like, a million times. Userboxes, root of all evil, yadda yadda yadda... So far I felt MfD could deal with problematic boxes quite well (or they can get hit be G10), but if you want to reopen that can of worms a third time... count me out. CharonX/talk 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one polemical (pro-Hezbollah) userbox is to be axed, then the ALL have to as well. Toss the pro-Israel, toss the Vince Foster murder conspiracies, and the entire lot. Individual MfDs is an absurd waste of time as it will just attract the pro and anti crowds surrounding whatever topic the box is covering. This needs to be done in one fell swoop.
Or hell, here's an easy solution; just replace them all with the one I have on my page, and all will be well. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the userbox here is not transcluded from a template page, to which deletion processes can be applied (and have been, see {{User Hezbollah}}), but consists of code directly embedded into the user page that needs to be removed by hand. Sandstein (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know

I'm not really a part of this, but... What if the userbox in question was just changed so that, to read the text, it had to be highlighted? Then a passerby won't read it and be offended(so easily).--Heero Kirashami (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this discussion is exhibit A for removing any politics-related user box. they don't add to wikipedia. SJMNY (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome on Hezbollah box?

I'm confused as to the outcome of the discussion. Avraham says the use of the template is forbidden because it was speedy deleted, but since the template shouldn't have been in mainspace in the first place, there's no was to appeal this at

That assumes you really believe that Hizbullah is a political party, and not a terrorist group, an opinon contradicted by multiple governments and apparently, many Wiki-editors. ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really anymore, as they disarmed back in 2006. I

wrote an article about the whole history of this conflict. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the point I've been making all along, and being accused of "wikilawyering" for it. The procedural deletion of a template in wikispace can have no implications for the deletion of the information contained in the template across all user pages for all time.

Also, ThuranX, you do not help your case by making completely counterfactual (in fact laughable) claims. Hezbollah is a political party, a militant group, arguably a "state-within-a-state," and has been assigned the completely politicized and discredited moniker of "terrorist group" by governments which are themselves no stranger to terror. Above, I linked to a poll which showed that the United States government is generally considered far more threatening than Hezbollah, as is the Israeli government. <eleland/talkedits> 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disarmed, you say? Y'all may be interested in the following, all no more than a few months old:

• http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/upload/hl_1038.pdf
• http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106284.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/wlebanon125.xml

I can get you more if you need. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so maybe I stopped paying attention to that whole arming thing. Still, they do sweep most elections in South Lebanon. I don't think we can arbitrarily censor a voice of support for them as they are, like it or not, one of Lebanon's major political parties. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As user pages are governed by policies and guidelines such as governed by

Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content would trump both. Hezbollah is still felt by the majority of the world to be a terrorist organization first and foremost, and a userbox supporting it is felt by many to be tantamount to a userbox saying "I heart terrorism" which is inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

eleland, you need to get your incivility under control. The group was called terrorist by other editors in THIS thread, so there's proof one. As for governments calling it so, you sdon't deny it, then you accuse me of having no facts. Pathetic argument style, running to ad hom implications and mockery. We could get into the whole 'Syria backs them in Lebanon' mess, but it's irrelevant. the Userbox offends those who consider hizbullah a terrorist group, and it should be gone, end of story. There's more than enough discussion up there to make that clear, I thought. Clearly, some need it spelled out in more detail. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article itself doesn't start off "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization..." so Avi's claim that this is the majority POV in the whole world is fairly dubious. In fairness, we'd have to ban all voices of support for all Lebanese political parties. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Hezbollah#Designation as a terrorist organization. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my personal opinion, they're terrorists, as are essentially everyone involved in any armed conflict and many who aren't; the term "terrorism" is virtually meaningless. My comment about "counterfactual claims" was related to your bizarre declaration that Hezbollah is not a political party. On to substantive issues: it's completely inconsistent to state based on the political decisions taken by 5 governments and the EU, that the majority of the world considers Hezbollah to be terrorists, while ignoring poll results that show the majority of the world considers George Bush and Israel to be more threatening than Hezbollah. If Wikipedia means to remove all political statements which offend people, fine, but that essentially means removing all political statements period. I never before felt the need to express my support for Hezbollah's right to conduct defensive military operations on Wikipedia (note: not for Hezbollah generally, although that is also a legitimate view.) But if such expressions are to be systematically removed, Wikipedia is abandoning any policy of neutrality and enshrining systemic bias as part of its culture. <eleland/talkedits> 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the EU rejected the designation. But, in a similar vein, as a

Roman Catholic, I don't particularly care for their undermining of our perpetual control of Lebanon. But just because someone disagrees with me doesn't mean I'll stand by and see them muzzled. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Offensive userboxes/remarks are offensive regardless of the group they are directed against. There is another offensive comment (see fifth quote on User:Boris_1991, "show me...") - this time its not against Israelis but Muslims. Equity (if there is such a principle on wikipedia) says that we should be treating offenses against both groups equally. I tried to bring this to the attention of Avraham (see User_talk:Avraham#Userpage), to no avail.

Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I responded on your talk page. By remaining silent, it implied you agreed with me. -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response appeared to have said "I shall not remove this quote as I have not removed others". Thus I lost hope of seeking the removal of that material through you.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; quotes are a different kettle of fish than userboxes, and require their own discussion. You asked me about quotes; this is about terrorist-group user boxes. -- Avi (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if I write "I support Hezbollah" in quotations and without a userbox, it'll be ok? To me offensive concepts, whether in userboxes, or in quotes don't seem to be much different.Bless sins (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe that is what I said. . -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you asked me what action I was taking about a particular quote, and I answered you. Whether or not we should have politically-charged quotes from political figures or terrorist leaders is its own question, which should be brought up. But not in this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it shows the absurdity of your position? I don't understand why putting such sentiments in a userbox somehow is different from the same non-graphical expression. If another user can't quote

my Pope (quoting someone else) I'm now officially offended. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not saying it is or isn't, Kendrick. I am saying that procedurally speaking we are discussing the Hexbollah userbox and its ilk. Your arguments above fall to the fallacies of

perfect solution fallacy. The fact that a different problem may exist elsewhere in wikipedia is no excuse to propagate the problem under discussion. -- Avi (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Pepperoni.jpg

Baloney .

-- Kendrick7^talk 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this comes down to is that you cannot ban one and endorse the other. As long as pro-Israeli, pro-whatever faction/ideology userboxes remain, then there is no legitimate basis to blow away pro-Hezbollah ones either. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur a larger discussion must take place regarding all userboxes. Your statement is incorrect, I believe, in that Hezbollah is more than a political party, but an internationally recognized terror organization. The Labour party in Britain, the Right-to-Life party in the US, and the Partai Bulan Bintang of Indonesia are not. The difference is clear and critical. We do not allow userboxes that are tantamount to supporting terror operations. -- Avi (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would a userbox supporting the Israeli army be unacceptable? There are many who feel they engage in terror operations. My point is who decides and how do we ensure consistency without succumbing to bias? Tiamut 15:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Israeli army been designated an official terrorist organization? No. Has Hezbollah? Yes. Therein lies the difference, for now. -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of fallacies, how about special pleading? The policy is related to content "likely to give widespread offense" or to "bring the project into disrepute", not about the purely political "official terrorist" designation, which you've adopted ad hoc to push through your POV. <eleland/talkedits> 17:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham, it does not matter whether the IDF has been designated or not, as it does not matter with Hezbollah. No part of the section

WP:USER regarding polemical user page statements lists "terrorist organization" as a qualifier; you saying it does does not make it policy. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The community has spoken regarding Hezbollah ({{User Hezbollah}} was deleted more than once. It has not spoken regarding the IDF. Thank you for making my point for me -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made any points unfortunately, and continue to dodge those made by others. When a pro-Hezbollah box is deleted while a pro-Iraqi resistance box is allowed to remain, the there is a serious, serious problem here that needs to be addressed. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, nominate those for deletion, and drop me a line on my talk page when you do. This one has been deleted three times now (see {{

Perfect solution fallacy

).

comment T1 is not a criterion for userspace, and {{User Hezbollah}} has never been deleted for any other reason. —Random832 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an even stronger allowance for deletions from userspace; see

Wikipedia:User page#Removal of inappropriate content. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This point has been brought up, incorrectly, before. Substituting userboxes into user space instead of transcluding them is not a protection against their being deleted. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YES IT IS, if they were not deleted for anything other than

WP:CSD#T1, which, as can be seen from the T in front of it, means "this shouldn't be a Template:", not "this shouldn't exist". —Random832 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We have an even stronger allowance for deletions from userspace; see

Wikipedia:User page#Removal of inappropriate content. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) No, the community has not spoken. A total of 3 administrators have correctly deleted a political template in user space, per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. That does not and cannot indicate what the community thinks about the broader issue. (My guess is it thinks, "SHEESH, this again, *sigh* whatever.") With apologies to Niels Bohr, stop telling the community what to say. <eleland/talkedits> 18:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Eleland, this userbox has been judged unacceptable three times (in March and April of 2007). This box missed the mass deletion due to its being substituted instead of transcluded. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same arguments, without any attempt to refute apparently valid points made against them, is a sign of

intellectual dishonesty. <eleland/talkedits> 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I, and others, have made valid responses to each of these points. Please re-read the discussion (not just one subsection) and perhaps you may wish to take your own advice -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Eleland, I have responded on topic. You, and others, have been bringing in extraneous, off-topic arguments (see

logical fallacies you are committing. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But you are ignoring

WP:CCC. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Certainly,

WP:CCC, But based on the responses above (from both sides) it clearly appears that it has not. If anything consensus is shifting to disallow more than just userboxes that support designated terrorist organizations. People who brought arguments here claiming that political party userboxes should be removed as well would certainly feel that Hezbollah is inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Taking each and every box to MfD is a pointless time-wasting exercise whose results will largely depend on which POV crowd can rustle up the most warm bodies on any given day. This needs to be addressed as a whole, whether that is via Arbcom or some other venue. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, but that is not this discussion (see above). -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming there was a community discussion to delete this userbox --

WP:UP to declare speech that you in particular don't like to be widely offensive, when a number of editors here really aren't all that offended by it. That seems to be what the discussion is about, and as such we keep going in circles. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to agree with Kendrick's analysis. Avi, you keep talking about "the community has decided"... Are you implying that Kendrick7, Eleland, Tarc, BlessSins, Random832 and myself are not part of the community? I'm only listing the editors whose names appear in this section who seem to find the selective focus on statements supporting Hezbollah to be just a tad curious and arbitrary. On the flip side, there's only you. Tiamut 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire discussion. However, to help you, I will list a few names:

That's inappropriate. Several of those editors spoke out against all userboxes, several against all political userboxes, several against all controversial political userboxes. Do attempt to preserve some nuance here. Relata refero (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What nuance? All clearly agree that this userbox needs to remain deleted. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'État, c'est moi... <eleland/talkedits> 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the comments of other users. I was referring to this last section alone. It's obvious that there are at least five editors here who find this decision to be unsatisfactory. If I review the discussion above I can surely list more. My point was, you keep citing " the community" as though there was some kind of hard consensus. There wasn't. And I'm sure there would be more voices expressing disapproval but for the fact that no one wants to be labelled a "problem editor" by going to bat for people's irght to political expression, especially when they're told that the view in question is beyond the pale (when in fact it's not in most of the world). Tiamut 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tiamut, and lying about there being some pre-existing consensus (we have been through this a number of times before) is getting to be my least favorite trick around here. Everyone goes along with the phantom consensus, and then when someone figures out there wasn't really any such previous discussion to begin with, it's too late -- all those people who just went along to get along are pointed to as a real consensus. Funny how that works, eh? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, it was deleted on three separate occasions. The consensus is that divisive material may be removed. This userbox was judged by a wide range of users to be divisive, thus its removal. Please explicitly point out any prevarication. Making claims that other editors are "lying" is an

argumentum ad hominem and is something, that I'm sure you well know, that does nothing to further any discussion. Once again, please do not mix other issues in as well. If you have a problem with a group of userboxes, quotes, whatever, follow process. I still have yet to see any valid reason for recreating this template that was judged inappropriate for wikipedia. Do you? -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't call you a liar, I simply said you lied. You said we have been through this a number of times before and despite repeated requests, you haven't actually been able to point to such discussions. No one can be everywhere at once in our community, so when someone makes such a statement people give them the benefit of the doubt. Whatever your intention was in making this claim, I really don't like being hoodwinked. As for userpages: I want, at times, to know who I'm editing with, whatever their background or views, and as such I'm quite libertine on the matter. If Hezbollah wasn't a major political party in Lebanon, I'd concede. But if we allow such expressions of political belief for one party, we need to allow them for all. I won't concede on this so feel free to suggest the next step. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Tiamut,consensus is never "hard"; as Kendrick pointed out,

Sorry Avi, but this is where you lose me. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization to the governments of six countries in the world. The rest of the world thinks they are a legitimate Lebanese political party and movement. Your reasoning suffers from the lack of a worldwide perspective. While it's easy for you to shut down dissent on this issue by characterizing it the way you have, it isn't very fair. It's also quite worrying, since it means that an admin's personal biases can be used to eliminate expressions of support for select political parties or movements on an arbitrary basis. Tiamut 05:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it to me. When, and by whom, was that decision made? And a proof by assertion isn't going to fly. <eleland/talkedits> 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:User_Hezbollah. -- Avi (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely worthless discussion, per my repeated explanations about

WP:CSD#T1 and Wikipedia:Userbox migration, and my comment about intellectual dishonesty above. See you later. <eleland/talkedits> 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact that the template was ruled divisive does not change as to where the html or wiki code resides, Eleland, as you well know. I am sorry you have run out of patience and feel frustrated ; it was not my desire to upset you per see; rather, it was to refute the arguments brought here, in which I seem to have been successful. I have yet to see a valid argument for re-creating this userbox. -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you have yet to provide a valid one any of this, whether it is for its re-creation or for why there should not be a uniform policy to either allow or bar all of this horseshit. (Imaginary concensus is not a reason). It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to call one divisive and another not divisive based on one's own personal bias. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you seem to be guilty of making assumptions and conclusions that are not based on evidence. It is understandable because you seem emotionally involved in the issue, and although I have explained this a number of times, I will

assume good faith

that you truly did not follow the entire argument and are responding out of emotion, as opposed to being intentionally personally insulting.

To make things very simple: The issue here is solely about the appropriateness of re-creating the Hezbollah userbox. The existance of other divisive templates, although unfortunate, is a matter for a more general discussion, and is no excuse for recreating this template.

Now, unless you can supply a reason WHY the userbox should be recreated that is not fallacious, we are in agreement. And saying that "X, Y, and Z are wrong, so mistake A should be allowed" is a classically invalid argument.

What is further interesting is the (unintentional) hypocrisy of some of the particpants here. People complaining about various userboxes who have political userboxes on their pages that do not serve to enhance building the encyclopedia. In this regard, I agree with you, Tarc. I do not have, nor do I recall having (although I cannot swear as to the fact) any userboxes on my page that are not indicative of my wikipedia-specific editing philosophies, articles, projects, or positions in which I am able to help others. I would suggest you look at some of the pages of contributors to this discussion and see if they are talking one way and acting another.

So, other than you starting a new discussion about all non-wikipedia related userboxes, or at least those that are felt to be divisive by a significant portion of the community, what is the remaining concern here? -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, not all 'horseshit' is created equal. Saying "this user opposes George Bush" is obviously different than "this user supports violent armed resistance". I dont know what the big deal is. Did you see below that this same contentious user Noor Alam had a userbox which said he supports vandalism on Bush's Wikipedia biography? Do you think this user even has a right to own a user account here unless he explicitly and clearly apologizes for that userbox? Peaceful disagreement is obviously ok in any situation, supporting "violent armed resistance" (bombs and guns) is obviously not. Dont feed the trolls. We can discuss this all year long though if you guys want. Really, making a fuss out of nothing. If anyone comes here to this website to support violent armed resistance of any kind, they're welcome to leave this website please. This is not the place to do that, maybe a fanatic internet forum is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not "obviously different". Yes I have "followed the entire argument", and that pathetic little canard that you and avraham have tossed at everyone in this topic is getting a wee bit tiring. The existence of other user boxes and the fact that they are allowed to exist is entirely appropriate to the discussion of the pro-Hezbollah box. If you disagree, that's your right, but I'll be damned if I am going stand to be talked down to by you and told not to bring my own opinion to the table, i.e. that the deletion of this user box is grossly unfair in the face of allowing similar, but ideologically opposite, sentiments. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So whats your main point here? You want the Hezbollah userbox to come back? (minus the "violent armed resistance" phrase ofcourse which will never be allowed in any case). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all memberships in/supports of 'armed groups' should be banned. This includes Hezbollah, Syrian army, Iranian revolutionary guards, the Taliban...and, oh yes, the IDF.Bless sins (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Avraham's request, I started a new discussion here.Bless sins (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discussion is on the Pope's quote; FYP - Kendrick7^talk 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (fixed your post)[reply]
• The fact that the template was ruled divisive does not change as to where the html or wiki code resides - Correct. However, the fact that it can be speedily deleted for being divisive does change depending on what namespace the code resides in, see
  WP:CSD. There is no speedy deletion criteria for divisive user page content. —Random832 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We have an even stronger allowance for deletions from userspace; see

Wikipedia:User page#Removal of inappropriate content. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

None of those are speedy deletion criteria, and, moreover, a T1 deletion with a stock deletion summary does not constitute a judgement on those points. —Random832 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading those sections, neither of "likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense" seems to be met, and the volume of discussion here about this indicates that "the community [...] would rather you delete some content from your user space" is very much up in the air. Whatever ends up being the case, the matter was NOT decided by those speedy deletions. If it is substed onto someone's userpage, its removal must be discussed. If it is recreated in userspace as a userbox, it must go to MFD. The speedy deletion is NOT a sufficient "precedent" —Random832 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not happy that my user box supporting Hezbollah was removed and if I may have offended anyone I would have gladly removed it myself and do not require for it to be removed for me. I do not support the killing of innocent people and that includes Israelies and Palestinians but I believe and wish for a peaceful end to the middle east conflict which will not happen in the near future if he Israelies continue to occupy land illegally. Aisha UK 18.33, 3 January 2008

People seem to be forgetting the other userbox that Avraham removed [8], [9], [10]. However he/she does not seem to have a problem with the userbox on the righthand side. I am dismayed at this hypocrisy.

This user opposes George W. Bush.

This user supports President George W. Bush.

Let us be honest, here, Noor. Your userpage had neither one of those userboxes, you had:

This user opposes George W. Bush and supports vandalism of his Wikipedia biography.

Which promotes vandalism of an article, completely inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had that userbox see here [11], [12], [13] . scroll down and you will see it Noor Aalam (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had that box but it was changed, when it was found to be inappropriate.( see link). You are the one who is lying. In the edit summary it was mentioned that i changed the userbox. Also I did not have the support Bush userbox, I am just pointing out that others can have support Bush userboxes but i couldnt have the oppose Bush userbox. Noor Aalam (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; I did not see the change to the box. The oppose Bush box is fine; my apologies and I'll restore it to your page. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned I changed the box in the edit summarry, so its no excuse that you didnt "see the change". What would happen if i did that, a month block? LOL. Noor Aalam (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that as an "excuse" but as an explanation. I am glad to admit when I have made a mistake, which includes acting too quickly and missing an edit summary. In the case of the removal of the "oppose Bush" box, I have, and you have my apologies. Anyway, we start applying phantom blocks at the 24 hour level, you know that . -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Alam, you had the vandalism promoting userbox from Nov 15 to Jan 3 [14]? You were lucky to not get banned or blocked. Really, we're being too nice to people here. This is just trollish to say the least. You should ideally have been blocked for atleast some time for edit warring to put back your "supports violent aggression" userbox. Lets stop this discussion and get back to what this site is for. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which is, apparently, being offended by what's on other people's userpages. Relata refero (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think if I put up a userbox saying "this user supports violence against Relata", it would be wrong of you to be offended by the box? Obviously there are offensive things in the real world which are not all fully allowed (example: you wouldnt find the 2girl1cup site being broadcast on national TV? Why because it would be offensive to the masses), and likewise is the situation in the virtual world: you cant allow anything and everything. There are certain things which are offensive and have to be regulated. Oh and, I cant put up an image of the 2girl1cup thing on my userpage, or are you saying I should be able to do that and shouldnt be fined for it? What are you trying to say? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That if it offends you, don't look at it. Simple. I don't see why there's been so much drama over this. Either remove all userboxes or none. Lets not try and determine what's objectively offensive, because much smarter people than us have demonstrated how difficult that is. Relata refero (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of what else is or is not acceptable, no user box (or anything else) should ever be allowed to promote/encourage vandalism of a wikipedia page. SJMNY (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there any more discussion to be had here, or should this be marked as resolved on ANI? —Random832 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm marking as stale and closing. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]