Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Core desat 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia
A highly divisive userbox, which refers to a non-existent campaign supposedly dedicated to removing all mention of Northern Ireland's former flag from Wikipedia. This of course contradicts assume good faith as it accuses Wikipedia editors of belonging to a conspiracy. Contradicts the WP:USERBOX guidelines: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." and "Express what you like, rather than what you don't like. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't. Express what you do, rather than what you don't.". Potentially contradicts "Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.", as it accuses other Wikipedia editors of politically-motivated, biased editing. Lurker (said · done) 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and userboxes shouldn't be used as a "weapon" in order to resolve a content issue (no matter how important it may be). Grace notes T § 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. With any luck, it won't be recreated later. John Carter 16:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:USERPAGE and (to the extent that it applies to WPian behavior as a general rule not just to article text), WP:NPOV. Agree with the above that this also transgresses WP:AGF, WP:USERBOX, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NOT. Among others.  I cannot think of any userbox that has come up here any time in the last two years that more clearly needs to be deleted, and there is certainly nothing in policy or guidelines or just general common sense that could plausibly argue in its favor. It should also be noted that the handful of users sporting this userbox have in several cases been almost militantly disruptive in their editing with regards to the Ulster Banner; there is no "campaign" to "delete" this flag from Wikipedia at all, in constrast to normal, sensible editorial consensus that it, like other highly politicized symbols, should not be abused by being placed where it does not legitimately belong in WP articles.  On the other hand, there clearly is a small camp of mutually organizing editors who are attempting to push the use of this flag in inappropriate ways, and the userbox at issue is their rallying symbol.  If for no other reason than that, this ubx should be deleted. Cf. the deletion of the entire Esperanza project for a very strong precedent; there wasn't even anything aggressive or combative about Esperanza, it was simply the clear community consensus that factionalization and members'-only club formation within WP is entirely unwiki. PS: The "competing" userbox that someone created against this one as a joke to point out its absurdity should also be deleted (since its continued existence would make John Carter's concern above about recreation of this one more likely to come true); discussion of that is on record at the original MfD on this one, and the userbox in question is manually-edited code at User:Padraig3uk (not a template), and the user whose page it resides on has already (see 1st MfD) said it would be okay with him to delete it along with the one subject to the MfD. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I second the deletion of Padraig3uk's related userbox, and I'll leave a note on his talk page since I can't find a way to put a deletion template there which is specific to the userbox. Lurker  (said · done) 14:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no campaign to delete the Ulster Banner, there is attempt to ensure that it is used in its proper historical context and its current use in International sport. As for the userbox on my userpage as SMcCandish has pointed out above I said on the first MfD I will gladly remove it myself if this userbox is deleted from wikipedia.--Padraig 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- there is an open mediation on the issue of using the flag of Northern Ireland (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage). Once the issue has been resolved here, the userboxes will become redundant anyway. Astrotrain 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * hear hear it would be inappropriate I think for a userbox to be deleted during a mediation on the issue the box describes. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment is that why you altered the userbox on your userpage in case this one is deleted, you should note that if that occurs your will be deleted as well.--Padraig 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * reply No, rather because part of the "end of deletion" tag was showing on the box. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree: The mediation is not about this userbox, the userbox violates numerous policies and guidelines, the mediation is not binding, and the mediation may not conclude with any party's satisfaction, much less make the issue moot/redundant. Don't confuse ArbCom cases with voluntary and unofficial mediation attempts. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The mediation is about the "issue" described in the userbox- namely the use of flags in Wikipedia, so it is relevant. As far as I can see those who are using this box and the opposing box are signed up to mediation. So if the mediation is successful, then there is no need for the boxes (at least in their current form). I don't really use userboxes so I don't care if it is deleted or not, but I just wanted to point out that parties are mediating on the issue and it will hopefully be solved anyway. Astrotrain 10:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The fact that they both touch on the same topic doesn't make the one relevant to the other. A simple example: If I had a mediation case pending, and created a ubx that advocated one position or the other for the outcome of that case, it would be perfectly appropriate for TfD to delete that template as soapboxing and abuse of userboxes and userpages to push a PoV and engage in battlegrounding. Oh, gosh, that is actually the exact case right now. Imagine that. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which userbox was created first? Also to point out the mediation begun after the creation of these boxes not before. My main point is that the users with both boxes are in mediation- therefore these userboxes will become obsolete in anycase once the dispute has been resolved. This is not a keep vote, it is a statement that others may wish to consider when they are voting. I have not voted on the issue because I don't really care whether these userboxes exist or not. Astrotrain 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions.   — Lurker  (said · done) 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions.   — Lurker  (said · done) 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No positive collaboration can come from this userbox. hmwith  talk  16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although a similar userbox along the lines of "this user supports the use of the Northern Irish flag" would be acceptable. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As above agree with padraig. BigDunc 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a divisive userbox.  It exists due to the divisive campaign by Irish Nationalists to remove the flag of Northern Ireland from wikipedia.  This userbox is not the problem.  And the problem is under arbitration.Traditional unionist 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Assertion of a "campaign" is not evidence of one. So far zero evidence has been presented supporting this very accusatory assertion. The fact that you admit that it is divisive, regardless of your opinion as to the source of the division, is by definition at Wikipedia an argument for its deletion, however you would like to spin it.  Aside from that, the assertion is "patent nonsense", definition #2 - it is an argument that appears to have some rationale behind it until examined, at which point it it clearly makes no sense at all.  Flag of Northern Ireland has not been targeted by anyone, for any reason, for deletion as evidenced by that redlink, ergo there is no campaign to remove the (former) flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia. QED. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For evidence, see comment below.Traditional unionist 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment.There is NO flag of Northern Ireland except the Union Flag. BigDunc 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in the name of the conspiracy. Not only does it show the flag, it announces it to the whole world.  That just won't do.  --UsaSatsui 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


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