Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AniChai


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete per user request Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AniChai
I did ask nicely, but refused to remove the most divisive content from his user page. In particular, his user page states
 * "Remember: We Were Promised ALL of The Land From The Nile to The Euphrates by G-D. ALL OF IT."''

It also includes user boxes defending Kahanism, an extremist ideology which, among other things, supports deporting non-Jews from Israel. Wikipedia user pages are not supposed to be used for political advocacy, especially in cases where the views defended may be considered as extremely offensive to so many. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment you have made a very poor attempt to get him to change it, MFD is really last resort. If the userboxes are the problem, nominate them, not the user pages they are used on.--Otterathome (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The userboxes are ad hoc so they can't be submitted to MfD. (i.e., they're not transcluded from a separate page) It's a bit rich of you to say I've made a poor attempt at suggesting that he change it. If you can do a better job of it, be my guest. His response to my request was pretty clear: he won't remove the offending content and thinks it's perfectly in-line with policy. I could always remove the content myself but how is that going to be helpful. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you simply failed to say you would list it here unless the user failed to do something about it. Quoting parts of guidelines/policies would've been helpful too. I'm not in the position to decide whether the userboxes are offensive or not as I am not familiar with the term used in them.--Otterathome (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I pointed him to the guideline, he can read. And if you're not familiar with Kahanism, then perhaps you could do a little research, say by actually reading that article. Or you could look at these wonderful edits of AniChai  . But of course, it's much easier to just say "you made a poor attempt"... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Unfortunately, the guidelines at WP:USER are inconsistent. On the one hand, "statements that support controversial groups or regimes, that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence" are not prohibited. On the other hand, "[t]here is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense". The editor is allowed to use his userpage to indicate his opinions, but stating that Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates (as he does twice on this page) would mean that Israel would be taking over a highly-populated area of Egypt and either much of Syria or much of Jordan and part of Iraq. That kind of irredentism would be extreme even by the standards of the Israeli right wing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That part of the guideline is intended to mean that "support of groups, that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence" are not necessarily prohibited. However, the simple rule of thumb "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" is what's most relevant part of the guideline. This userpage is quite clearly inappropriate and even more so given the history of very questionable edits by the user in question (see my examples above or, if you're interested in some more fun examples,  ). Actually, I don't want to use the "T word" but let's just say this user does not strike me as having a particularly positive impact on the project and that's even less reason to look the other way and let this one fly. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "T word"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Terrorist comes to mind, altought idealistic-supporter-of-terrorist-organization-who-has-never-been-involved-on-any-terrorist-activity is probably a more accurate "t" word given the current evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What? No, of course I'm not saying this guy is a terrorist, I'm saying he's a friggin' Troll! I get this weird feeling that nobody participating in this debate has actually bothered looking at the above six diffs. Please do read them, the discussion will make a lot more sense. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pascal, I’ve read the diffs. Yes, he’s an occasional troll.  You could try having him sanctioned.  It would be a lot of work, far in excess of the effort he has made in provocation, and the process would serve to pleasure him.  Please read What is a troll?.  In the meantime, deleting his user page won’t solve any problem and takes us in the wrong direction.  You don’t create tolerance by being intolerant of things that offend you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the diffs too, specially the last three ones "He deserved his death. The Jew hating bastard got what he deserved" "All i want is the Defense of the Jewish People through any and all means." "Listen u fucking sand nigger. Arafat was the first palestinian. go fuck urself. mohammad can burn." . For me, she sounds like the tipical idealistic person that would openly support a nationalist terrorist group. Actually, she sounds a lot like supporters of ETA and nostalgics of Terra Lliure back here at Spain. The second sentence looks like the exact same euphemism used here to mean, hum, well, I'd rather not repeat here what they actually mean. Something to do with violence and with doing bad things to non-authentic catalan and basques that don't go to live somewhere else. Seriously, that's more than a troll. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel this way, then the appropriate forum is not here but Requests for comment/User conduct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pascal Tesson ought to decide if he wants to do this. I have only seen these 6 diffs from this editor. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's his userpage.  It's his opinion.  If you diagree, you can say so on your page.  It is not so offensive as to warrant censorship.  If, however, this user promotes or extends his view elsewhere, in ways that don't contribute to encyclopedia building, then his actions may be another matter.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's his userpage but it's also hosted on Wikipedia servers. If he wants to expose his views, he can go to MySpace or Facebook. The content is divisive and unrelated to the project. If I disagree I most certainly will not say so on my userpage because I, unlike him, respect the fact that Wikipedia user pages are not supposed to serve as platforms for activism. I'm really puzzled that nobody here seems to remember what Wikipedia is not. To quote the policy, Wikipedia is not:
 * Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

This user is clearly flaunting this important principle, both through his userpage and through his edits. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it as providing information on his perspective. It may be relevent if you find yourself in discussions with him, it may help you explain to others that his opinions can be discounted as extreme.  I think you are overreacting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Editors matter - though not a guideline or policy, this essay has had a long tenure of consensus through other userpage MFDs.--WaltCip (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument would actually make sense if AniChai was actually an editor. Clearly he is not. The overwhelming majority of his edits are either straight vandalism, propaganda, networking for editors that agree with him and insults to people that disagree with him. To put it bluntly, this is one of these editors that does not matter. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY DELETE AS PROMOTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS ON THE US Rapido is right, looking at Kach and Kahane Chai, I see a reference to a 2005 page on US Department of State, where Kach is listed under "Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" . I think that this fits several points under USER, and we should maybe add a point saying "statements about belonging to/supporting organizations listed as terrorist on the US". The fist symbol image is an image for this organization. I have no idea of what Florida laws have to say about this Keep While her comments might be offensive to some, it's inside the limits of what is regularly allowed to editors on their user pages. As SmokeyJoe says above, the page by itself is no reason for deletion --Enric Naval (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the user page is nothing but propaganda, I'm pretty sure that even most Zionists would shudder after seeing the page. The most noticeable thing you are greeted with after seeing the page is a huge "Kahanist" symbol of a white fist above a black Star of David. Almost every box on the right is involved in his extreme political or religious views. "This user is a survivalist, and has a survival retreat with a food and weapons cache."... "This user believes Kach and Kahane Chai [terrorist organisations] should be legalized.."...  (this one is almost hidden in dark blue text on black background). Along with "This User believes that Israel should be from the Nile to the Euphrates." it's very scary stuff indeed. Also something about Noah's laws right in the middle of the userboxes... why is that there? Rapido (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * also see WP:SOAP Rapido (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinion, CTPB, is not the same as propaganda.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sympathetic to Pascal Tesson's concerns in that I think more and more are using Wiki as their personal webblogs these days, but on this page, the user is not trying to present his opinions as facts. Many editors reveal their personalities, opinions, and biases on their user page (God knows why, it could end up biting them in the butt later). As long is the user doesn't present his/her opinions as fact or the truth, this page is pretty in line with other user pages. Because nothing is being mis-represented about a topic and it solely relates to the personality of the user, I vote keep.Renee (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep under present policy. I don't see how this is any more objectionable than User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist, User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/User One-State Solution, User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist, User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Legitimate Regime in Iran, User:Machete97/Userboxes/United_Britain, User:Ganchelkas/Userboxes/User Vlaams Belang, User:Regicollis/Userboxes/Frontnational etc etc etc (pop over to Userboxes/Politics and take your pick). I realise this is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but the last thing we need is another round of the Userbox Wars. —  iride  scent  15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there is any userbox listed there about organizations that are considered terrorist where the wikipedia servers are located :P How about we compare it to an userbox saying "I'm an Al-Quadist" or "I'm an etarra".--Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of "this user supports Hamas", "this user supports ETA" etc statements on userpages. For heaven's sake, we even have a PIRA Barnstar! —  iride  scent  20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, where are those userboxes? I went to the what links page for Hamas article and I looked at all user pages listed there and I couldn't find *any* Hamas userbox (assuming that a Hamas userbox would link to Hamas). I also searched "this user supports Hamas" on the advanced search of wikipedia looking on *all* namespacs, and I had only *one* hit: an ANI thread from February 2006 where they say that all polemic userboxes llike the ones saying "This user supports Hamas" should be deletedm, "Polemic boxes - these are the actual problem. These range from the mild "This user doesn't have a problem with the UN but just thinks they are useless" to the shocking "This user supports Hamas' campaign of suicide bombing"." Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive31. So, I'd say that there is consensus since frigging 2006 to delete all these userboxes. If you know of any such userbox in existance, then points us to it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, that barnstar is intended for "Historical Accuracy in IRA/PIRA history Barnstar" on User:Fluffy999. Not a valid comparison, IMO :D --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This user is entitled is his/her opinion and, frankly, if they do hold strong opinions I'd much rather they were open and up front on their user page about them. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How has a user who has made such fine contributions as this still with us? —   iride  scent  16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete I assume that a white power symbol would be removed from a user page (and quite rightly so) it is offensive and more importantly totally unsuitable for wikipedia. A user page is not a soapbox. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UP prohibits polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, which include stating the desire to invade or otherwise take over other countries. I've deleted some of the more inflammatory content. If there's any sign of it reappearing, delete. Sandstein (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont we have anything better to do? Ignore the troll, let him keep his little userpage, and work on the encyclopedia instead of just stirring up more drama then we already have. - M  ask?  19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I posted at ANI, and I got told that " the MfD should take care of itself" --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Polemical grandstanding is barred via WP:UP, and many of the keep votes should be discounted as they are simply running contrary to this policy. Yes there is a lot of problematic user content like this, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should not be a reaosn to keep.  And if anyone is unclear about this user's point of view, I direct you to this sparkly nugget of non-wisdom. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the most offensive statements. There are deeper issues for this user than the appearance of his userpage.  His first edit was to change the nationality of Yasser Arafat from "Palestinian" to "Jordanian."  If you wish to pretend that "Palestinian" is not a nationality (which I suppose is possible), the fallback for Arafat is "Egyptian" because that's where he was born.  After 1967, and especially after the peace agreement with Israel, Jordan has essentially renounced all claims to the land in the West Bank it held prior to 1967.  The Kahanist ideology that sees the Palestinian territories as some kind of extension of Jordan, or that promotes a population transfer of Palestinians into Jordan, is nonsense.  Showing this user that hate speech is not tolerated in userspace may have the effect of dissuading him from making non-neutral comments in mainspace, which would be an improvement. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Soapboxing and polemic content is prohibited according to WP:UP, this does not help to build an encyclopedia and may in fact incite trouble and drama.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 20:57, May 12, 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - can I just remind everyone throwing WP:UP and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS around that neither of those are policy. (A case could be made against this page via WP:SOAP, which is policy.) —  iride  scent  21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete U1 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.