Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 keep, obviously--given the overwhelming support. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Nableezy


Userbox is a violation of UP#Polemic

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes" and "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)" Sir Joseph (talk)  20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Sir Joseph canvassed for this MfD at WT:UP. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closer: Sir Joseph put a notice regarding a discussion of userboxes and polemics in userboxes and what do you know someone who decided to log off and sockpuppet chimed in. Hi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 November 2015‎
 * wtf  nableezy  - 18:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Ignoring that there actually is canvassing regardless of whether a SPA has reported it, There's the whole lack of argument here of how this is actually polemic. It's hard to argue that it's not polemic when there is no reason that it is polemic provided.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We now have more than alphabet soup, still no argument for removal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to stop with your love of posting about canvassing. If I put a notice at a discussion at UP, that's a perfectly appropriate page to put a notice and it's not canvassing. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to stop canvassing. Not only is it in the inappropriate location, it's also not neutral. You were campaigning for this deletion in a RFC started by a user violating their topic ban and who, as you are aware, canvassed an unknown number of individuals to that RFC thru email and also targeting people hoping they have an emotional connection to France. But again ignoring your canvassing, you lack any actual argument for the deletion so this conversation is a resounding waste of time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia project page discussing Wikipedia Userpages is the perfect page to put up a notice about this MFD and that's why I put it there. There was a discussion on whether or not to change the policy of polemics and this has to do with polemics. Again, just as in life, just because you don't think something, doesn't make it the truth. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your were not targeting the Wikipedia project page. You were targeting a highly inflammatory discussion on the project page. A discussion that was opened in bad faith. A discussion where inappropriate canvassing  took place to advertise that discussion. Your notification again lacks neutrality. If it had actually been neutral  and if not for your recent history of inappropriate canvassing it would be easier to overlook.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a message on the project page. That is appropriate. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you discuss it at WP:AN. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If I have a problem with your inappropriate canvassing pointing it out here is more apt as the closer can take it into account when making their close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, if it makes you happy, feel free to notify whomever and where ever you need that I'm supposedly canvassing. But keep in mind that being uncivil is not cool. And also keep in mind that canvassing is not posting a message at the appropriate wikipedia policy page. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that you are canvassing when you are canvassing is not uncivil. You are canvassing. Posting a neutral message on the appropriate talk page is not canvassing. Burying a Non-neutral notification at the end of a discussion that was started in bad faith and where numerous editors were inappropriately canvassed is canvassing. You didn't post a neutral message on the appropriate talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UP is the place to put a message about this MFD. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: WP:UP would be the place to go with a neutral message about this RFC. A message with it's own section. Buried at the end of a discussion shows that you are targeting people in that discussion and not people that might read that talk page, such as the users that had been emailed and in other ways inappropriately canvassed to that discussion. Your non-neutral message also shows that it was done with the intention of influencing the outcome of this discussion in a particular way.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This was first vetted at WT:UP,  by an editor permabanned from editing anywhere in the I/P area. His suggestions are not meeting any consensus. What was objected there was the use of one adjective 'violently' in 'violently resisting' in a user box, just one of 3 elements on the page. Even were that deemed, by a wiki consensus, unacceptable (I don't think so, since the use of military means to overthrow a designated occupation is what WW2 was all about, and is covered as having legitimacy in certain forms in international law), that is no grounds for deleting the user's page. A huge number of editors have user boxes (Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues) which read 'This user supports the rights of all people to resist colonisation and imperialism,' /This user supports the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and "terrorists" the world over or This user believes in the power of violence, some of which (others exist) are far more polemical than what we have on that page etc.etc.
 * To delete a whole page, with one innocuous quotation, one userbox because of one adjective, and a list of banned I/P users on the grounds of a violation of polemics shows lack of discrimination.The proposer himself edit wars in the topic area, has a clearly defined bias, and it smacks uncannily of trying to use an obscure point to target another editor in that same I/P zone. Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying I edit war because you don't like my edits is not AGF. Second, the only way to remove a userbox that violates the UP policy is via MFD. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I dislike incompetence, and sniping, two good reasons to query this request's validity.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Recommend alternative action Either keep the page if this discussion does not end with a consensus that there is a problem or, if there is a consensus that the page has problems, mark the page as "noindex" until or unless the problematic content is removed by the page "owner." From what I can see, there are two parts of the page that are arguably problematic and at least one large part transcluded from another page that is problem-free.  Deleting the page when there is other content and where the option of "noindex" serves the similar purpose of protecting Wikipedia from being seen as a political platform seems awfully WP:POINTY, especially in light of the existing unresolved controversy about where exactly the boundaries lie between "problematic" and "non-problematic" content.  Notes:  1) I am not taking a stand on whether the content of this page violates any policy, guideline or practice, I am merely offering a softer way to resolve the issue in this case if there is a consensus that the content is in fact problematic, and 2) I am only here due to the notice on Wikipedia talk:User pages.  I am not going to take a stand on whether that notice was "canvassing" or not, as (by virtue of making this comment in an AFD that I would otherwise not have known about) I am now "involved" and because this AFD is not the appropriate venue to have that discussion in the first place.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentThey are not as Sir Joseph put it, a terrorist who endorses terror. (This is clearly polemic btw and still currently on your talk page.) I note this was created in support of free speech and to speak out against policy being used in this manner, but not in support of Hezbollah. Though it's my assumption that the Sir Joseph is calling this polemic due to a presumed support for Hezbollah. I can only assume this as the Sir Joseph still doesn't make an actual case for why this is polemic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah, Israel, and any other group or state, are not mentioned anywhere in that userbox. To argue that a userbox that expresses support for a basic tenet of international law "attacks or vilifies" anybody is asinine.  nableezy  - 22:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again this is my presumed basis for this MfD. But don't actually know since there's no actually basis given. Just a statement simply that this is polemic. I notice that you both are in a content dispute and this followed that quickly. I wonder if there is some causal relation between that and this MfD? Basic tenet in international law? Perhaps you might consider being more direct? Do you mean the right of Revolution?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The user box proclaims an obviously valid opinion, namely that it is fine to violently resist military aggression and occupation. While Wikipedia might be a better place if all political opinions were removed (search for "George W. Bush" on user pages for some of the numerous other examples), I think the statement in question has to be accepted as a reasonable view, and it does not attack or vilify anyone. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally get rid of the userbox, but since that's not going to happen, delete. The primary purpose of a user page is for Wikipedia-related activities. They are not personal web sites or soapboxes. There is room for brief statements of political beliefs, but not for content which tries to persuade the reader of the validity of those beliefs (that's what "polemical" means). This userbox crosses that line, as it describes actions the user does not agree with as "military aggression" and "occupation". Also note that user pages are not allowed to have statements that "seem to advocate, encourage, or condone...acts of violence". By urging people to "violently resist" actions the userbox clearly crosses that line as well. I know the user has been forced to adopt a wording that does not mention any specific group, but it is nevertheless abundantly obvious what the userbox is intended to refer to.  Hut 8.5  22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You go on to mention this box that the box promotes that the user disagrees with military occupation and military aggression but it actually takes no stance on these. You also go on to suggest that this promotes violence but it doesn't. This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to is not factored into your position. Protocol I acknowledging developments in modern international warfare since World War 2 added clarifications and new provisions to the Geneva convention. The French Resistance was a historic violent resistance movement. It's an acknowledgement of a right and not an encouragement to use that right. Considering the position of it's creator it's a condemnation of the chilling effect that politically correctness has on free speech.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like it or not "military aggression", "occupation" and "resistance" are very loaded terms and portray something in a strongly negative or positive light. As you've realised the examples that come to mind straightaway relate to the Nazis, and it is not unusual for people on one side of a territorial dispute to paint the other side's control as an "occupation". The idea that this userbox has got anything to do with the French Resistance is merely a polite fiction to prevent it from being removed, the link at the end makes it obvious that it really relates to the contemporary Middle East. It does certainly promote violence - it uses that exact word. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, it is an encyclopedia, and anything which is not related to the encyclopedia is heavily restricted, including the use of political polemics.  Hut 8.5  01:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Military occupation is not a loaded term. Nor is military aggression. Nor is resistance movement. They can be used as such. The question here would be if they actually are being used in a loaded manner and not if they can be. Your Reductio ad Hitlerum seems a little more loaded to me. It's a simpler matter to choose the French Resistance than say Falintil . There's also no polite fiction, you are referring to one, isn't that just a strawman? The point was not that it supports the French Resistance but that it doesn't target any resistance movement. It acknowledges a right that exists. It supports that right. The conversation behind the specific intent of the box is here. It's focus seems more on the right than the contemporary middle east.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * From the wording in the userbox and the linked discussion it was created because another userbox with the wording "This user supports Hezbollah" was thought to be unacceptable. This wording was adopted because it is felt to be sufficiently vague to dodge that consensus, although anyone who even clicks on the link will immediately see that it refers to a specific group and a specific conflict. I'm amazed that you don't think those terms are loaded. Fighting wars of aggression is a war crime under international law, and doing so was one of the charges made against the Nazis at Nuremberg. Labelling a group as a "resistance movement" portrays them in a positive light, just as labelling a group as "terrorists" would portray them in a negative light, and as I've mentioned the term is most commonly used to refer to anti-Nazi movements during the Second World War, which almost everyone has positive views of. To reiterate statements which condone, encourage or advocate violence are not allowed in userspace at all.  Hut 8.5  15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporting the right to resist the occupation of its land is all that is stated, and that is what WW2 was about. Hezbollah arose as a resistance movement to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Waging wars of aggression is a war crime that is more observed in the breach than in the observance, and, if the nation is a great power, goes unpunished, as in the Iraq war of 2003. I would no more fuss about this than fuss about some hundreds of pages listing American servicemen's wiki user:boxes stating they were veterens of wars of aggression. No doubt many are honourable men, unlike those who led them, and in doing so, violated the international law you mention. These points are only raised when there is a suspicion about a user:box implying support for any form of Arab resistance; never when the userboxes might be read to imply support for any other country's right to self-defence.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. It's got nothing to do with whether we like the ideology being expressed. I only brought up the status of wars of aggression in international law to support the point that the phrase "military aggression" has strongly negative connotations. The problems with this userbox are that (a) it's polemical, that is it tries to persuade the reader that some viewpoint is correct, and (b) it advocates violence. A userbox which says "This user is a veteran of the US Marine Corps" or "This user is a veteran of the Iraq War" does neither of those things. A userbox which says "This user is proud to defend American freedom against Afghan terrorist murderers" is polemical, and a userbox which says "This user supports airstrikes on Iran" would be advocating violence, but actual US military userboxes aren't like either of these. This userbox, on the other hand, combines both problems.  Hut 8.5  19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Second alternative solution If the consensus is that the custom userbox is a problem, there is a way to reduce the "problematic nature" of the userbox without deleting it completely: Create a redirect at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/discussion closed at 19:11 14 January 2008 (UTC) and point it to the ANI decision currently linked in the userbox. Then replace the wikilink in the userbox with this neutrally-worded redirect.  This way, someone not already "in the know" won't even be able to tell what group this person supports or opposes even if they "mouse-over" the redirect or if they edit the page.  This suggestion is independent of my earlier suggestion to "noindex" the page: Either or both may be used.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As much as I don't like the editor's record as stated on the userpage, or the userbox, I do not think there is any violation in said userbox, and we should keep in mind that editors have significant freedom on their userpages. If the userbox were not hardcoded but a template, it should definitely be deleted, but this is not the case. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This specific userbox is a template.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This attempt at suppression of legitimate user-page content is not only unethical, it is also probably illegal. We should not even be having this discussion. It is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia community. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Illegal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)
 * It would not be illegal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am wrong. First amendment rights limiting censorship do not apply to sites like Wikipedia - these sites are free to self-censor their content any way they like. See, for example, here. So there is nothing illegal in Wikipedia's suppressing opinions which, if expressed in a newspaper or other publication, would be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, is this really somewhere we want to be? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but in certain countries this userbox might be illegal, or if slightly re-worded would certainly be illegal. (purely academic, since you mentioned legality) Sir Joseph (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be illegal?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Depending on the wording of the userbox and the country of the user, it might be illegal. Similar to how Google/Bing has to censor certain results in certain countries. It wouldn't (most likely) apply in the US though. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * one of the things that the English wikipedia is WP:NOT is censored. These countries where this might or might not be illegal are free to block us. They have before, see Censorship_of_Wikipedia. This is not a justification for removal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep 1) The deletion rationale isn't really cogent, as the userbox doesn't actually appear to violate POLEMIC or other policies. 2) The userbox is wry WP meta-commentary, and we broadly tolerate that in userboxes and in userspace generally. 3) It doesn't say anything about "violence" that most people don't agree with (i.e. that if you're militarily invaded it's okay to fight back); the specific claims above that it's some kind of "terrorism" "recruitment" are farcical.  No one even needs to make a "free speech" pro/con argument about this.  I would support this userbox being userspaced, if it were located in the Template namespace, since it's unlikely to be reused. PS: No prejudice against either/both of the proposed alternative solutions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh when I said it was a template, I just mean that it is marked up directly on this users talk page. I didn't mean it was in a template namespace.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand; I'm making the point that it would be userspaced anyway, and it's already in userspace, where we're more tolerant of people expressing "wikipolitical" views, like disagreement with administrative approaches, as this userbox does.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – I cannot see any evidence of the userbox violating WP:POLEMIC. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * wtf. Don't you have anything better to do? The statement is totally innocuous and in fact is a basic international principle and has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. See this UN resolution on terrorism, for instance. "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence,... particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial  domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in  conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support." Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not the UN. The userbox in question is not up for a UN binding resolution, but whether it violates WP userbox policies and WP#Polemics. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody stated that we're the UN - the text was quoted to show that this is a basic international principle and there is nothing divisive or otherwise illegitimate about this. Others have already given reasons as to why it does not violate WP:POLEMIC, I did not want to pile on regarding that issue. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep No valid reason for deletion supplied. jni (delete)...just not interested 21:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The proposer's reasons do not appear to apply. Also, as per Kingsindian. Zerotalk 01:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove Per uninvolved Rhoark: The box reads "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." The group in question is presumably Hezbollah, considering the box links to a 2008 ANI thread about the deletion of pro-Hezbollah userboxes. The decision to do so rested largely on the "T1" criterion that is longer accepted. The most applicable current guideline seems to be User pages which prohibits user page content that advocates violence, but not statements of support for groups that may be known for violence. Nableezy's box is in clear violation of this guideline and should be removed. Under present guidelines, however, it would seem that a pro-Hezbollah statement in or out of a userbox would be tolerable, so long as it did not advocate violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.147.2 (talk • contribs) — 184.164.147.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The userbox doesnt actually advocate violence, for those among you confused on the difference between recognizing a right and advocating the use of said right.  nableezy  - 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you're prepared to draw that rather hair-splitting distinction, the wording of the guideline is "seem to advocate, encourage, or condone" violence, and I don't see how you can hold that supporting someone's right to use violence isn't encouraging or condoning violence.  Hut 8.5  19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a point to decide when the application of that has to be questioned. You want to go broadly but what about the sport of boxing? For that matter any other contact sports. But the title provides some advice when it mentions "grossly improper behaviors". Boxing is not grossly improper. It is violent and a users support of it serves no project benefit but it's not grossly improper. This here, support of the right of people to use violence to resist occupation is also not grossly improper. People using violence to resist occupation is not grossly improper for that matter. This also serves a project benefit. Beyond the violence it speaks out against the censorship. It is audacious that a majority can silence any speech here simply because they do not like it. It is audacious that an admin would censor something to avoid controversy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel is not in Lebanon at all, so what occupation is Hezbollah fighting? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a debating society or a site for political advocacy. Anything which is not related to building the encyclopedia can be and is restricted, and you have no right of freedom of speech here. The guideline doesn't ban condoning violence unless it's violence we like, it bans condoning violence. Accordingly arguments that what the userbox is supporting is right have no merit. Boxing is a sport, I don't see the usefulness in comparing it to major armed conflicts like the one this userbox is talking about.  Hut 8.5  22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Boxing is violent. Condoning the sport is condoning violence. Excluding it because it is a sport is condoning violence that you like. It does not ban condoning violence. It bans condoning grossly inappropriate behavior. Violence where it is grossly inappropriate. Using violence to fight an military occupation is not grossly inappropriate. It's a recognized right. Boxing is not grossly inappropriate (in the context of the sport) as it is a sport. Significant leeway is given to users. This is not used in excess beyond the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. It does nothing to bring disrepute to this project. The only purpose in deleting it is censorship.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is wikilawyering: manipulating the language of a guideline to say something it wasn't remotely intended for, and using borderline cases to argue that the thing isn't applicable. If you tried to nominate a boxing-related userbox for deletion on the grounds that boxing is violent you would, at worst, be told that allowing it is common sense. Using the summary section subheader as the guiding principle instead of the text itself is certainly a novel interpretation, but the guideline doesn't ban advocacy grossly improper violence. It bans advocacy of violence and lists violence as an example of grossly improper behaviour. Your interpretation wouldn't work because, as we've seen here, suppoters of one side in virtually all violent conflicts think their side is morally justified. If you have a look at the rest of the guideline you'll see that while users do have some leeway in their own userspace, there are plenty of things that are unequivocally banned, including advocacy of violence, and that principles against censorship don't apply to userspace. This userbox has absolutely nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia, it in no way fosters or encourages article improvement. If anything it does the exact opposite, by turning the encyclopedia into a forum for editors' political beliefs.  Hut 8.5  18:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont really see any advocacy here, political or otherwise. The userbox is more about Wikipedia than it is any real world conflict. The message of the userbox, if there is one, is that there is a denial of the bias in what, at the time at least, allowed for a userbox supporting the IDF and disallowed one supporting Hezbollah. Honestly, I dont really support Hezbollah, or at least if I were a Lebanese citizen I wouldnt see myself voting for them. I however objected to the silencing of people whose views on something as complex as the Arab-Israeli conflict differ from whatever the majority at ANI said. Ive seen a userbox that said something along the lines of the Palestinians already have their own country and that it is called Jordan. That to me is abjectly repugnant. But nobody tried to force it off the users page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well possibly you didn't add it for the purposes of supporting Hezbollah and encouraging violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but nevertheless that it what it does. The equivalent of this userbox would have to be something like This user supports the right of peaceful democracies to military self-defence against terrorists. That is also polemical and encourages violence, and I would be happy to vote for the deletion of such a userbox if you can find one. And thank you for taking care of the argument that this userbox has nothing to do with Hezbollah or the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Hut 8.5  18:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont particularly appreciate my words being used out of context. The discussion on the box that this one references was about a specific party of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This userbox itself does not make reference, unlike the piped links in your imaginary userbox. Those piped links make a clear connection to a specific side in a specific dispute. This userbox makes a general statement on the rights of all people, with recognition in international law, and criticizes Wikipedia's administration for disallowing a statement of support for one side of an ongoing conflict while allowing statements of support for another side. But this specific userbox does not in any way reference the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, Hezbollah, or any other party, state or individual. If you want to have an honest discussion about something it would be helpful to not distort what your interlocutor has said. How does this userbox support Hezbollah, and even if it did why is that a problem? How does it encourage violence in any way? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I know this userbox is specifically referencing Hezbollah? The wording indicates that the userbox would reference specific groups if the author was not prevented from doing so: "due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable". Hence this vague, nonspecific wording is only adopted to dodge restrictions on naming specific groups. If there's any doubt as to which specific group you had in mind, there's a piped link which tells you it's Hezbollah, and you've stated above that the userbox was indeed inspired by that discussion. My suggested userbox does not explicitly identify any specific group in the text, only in the piped links (as yours does), and it invokes a right enshrined in international law. It's still unacceptable. I'm prepared to accept that the userbox was created to protest the removal of other similar userboxes, but that doesn't counteract this. Why is supporting Hezbollah a problem? Well advocating anything unrelated to Wikipedia is a problem, as is encouraging violence ("violently resist"). As Hezbollah is widely considered a terrorist organisation, it is arguably also material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. And yes, the userbox encourages/condones violence, as it states that the violent actions of a certain group are entirely justified.  Hut 8.5  22:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the wording is vague because it is criticizing Wikipedia for disallowing support for say Hezbollah but allowing it for say Israel. But excuse me, are we talking about the same userbox? The piped link in mine leads to a discussion on Wikipedia, not an article naming a subject, and it links to that not to hide the name of the group but rather to link to to the discussion that allowed for such a hypocritical decision to be made. Your imagined scenario doesnt do that, not even a little bit, it specifically says X group bad Y group good. And I wouldnt even have a problem with that userbox, because honestly wtf cares what some random person on the internet thinks? Hezbollah is widely considered a terrorist group? No, it is considered a terrorist organization by a handful countries in the world. It is widely considered a Lebanese political party that has a military wing that, until recently, had restricted itself to freeing Lebanese territory from Israeli occupation and later defending that territory from Israeli attacks. Now most Wikipedia editors may be from those handful of countries, but all that really says to me is that systemic bias in Wikipedia is alive and well. Finally, again, no it does not. It names no group, so how can it make any comment on any group. The userbox makes a general statement, applicable to all people, and it neither endorses any specific group or justifies any violence by any specific group. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of point in continuing this as we're just saying the same things over and over again, but I'll do it one last time. This userbox has a link to a discussion called "Hezbollah userbox". The discussion is about a userbox which endorsed Hezbollah with very similar wording ("armed resistance against Israeli aggression" / "violently resist military aggression") to this one, and with extremely similar style. The wording of this userbox is vaguer, but still includes the other userbox as a special case. And, of course, the oldest version of this userbox started life as a direct replacement for the old one. This userbox is clearly and unambiguously a reference to the older one, with explicit mentions of Israel removed and a bit tacked on at the end explaining that it can't name specific groups because of the existence of an "alleged consensus" against it. It's extremely hard to avoid the conclusion that this userbox was created as a replacement for one explicitly endorsing Hezbollah with wording changed to prevent it from getting deleted. Yes, the discussion isn't in article space, and I'm prepared to accept that it was created to make a point about censorship rather than because the user actually supports Hezbollah, but neither of these points change that conclusion. And as for Hezbollah, it (or its military wing) is considered a terrorist organisation by the United States, France, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, the European Union, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. That's eight countries and two supranational organisations with a combined population of about a billion people, including (as you've noted) a disproportionate number of native English speakers, and hence editors of the English Wikipedia. I think that's enough for "widespread offence".  Hut 8.5  19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it links to a discussion, and this userbox is about that discussion. The userbox is about Wikipedia, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. The governments of a handful of countries consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, a number of others add its military wing. So what? Even if one were to accept the unsupported premise that this means that a billion people are covered under this view (which is very obviously not true), that's still a fairly small slice of the world. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep; we have no business telling people which political opinions they may or may not advocate here, even if we're opposed to the opinions in question, not to mention the fact that the userpage consists of a lot more than just this infobox. If we start silencing political opinions, we make ourselves more vulnerable to future changes in editor demographics; if the majority of editors supports deleting this one now, there's no reason to reject a future deletion request for User Israel if a majority of future editors should hold that it's merely the opposite point of view from the one in question here.  Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One box condones violence, one box just says a user comes from Israel. There's no comparison. If you wanted to compare, you could compare a userbox of Lebanon to Israel, but comparing a userbox such as the one above to a country is ludicrous. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The userbox in question (once again, note that you've nominated an entire userpage, not merely a userbox) is supporting Hezbollah, whose talking points include the illegitimacy of Israel, the evilness of its use of military force, and the justice and importance of obliterating it. The opposite perspective is that Israel is a legitimate state in the first place; if you reject this idea, you'll use User Palestine or something similar, instead of using User Israel.  We shouldn't be in the business of deciding which politics are more equal than others or saying that it's okay to support one side in a conflict but not the other.  Have you tried writing for the other side lately?  As I don't know you, this is a courteous request for information, not something scornfully assuming that you've not; it just looks to me like you're saying "that's wrong, so we need to remove it", without attempting to engage in reasoned debate.  Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But we're not discussing a User Palestine. If we were, you would have a point, but we're discussing Hezbollah, or a weasly interpretation of saying Hezbollah without really saying Hezbollah. I don't know why you would jump to discussing Israel once this is done, that would assume that Israel and Hezbollah are the same. That is not the case. I would agree with you had there been a discussion about Israel or Palestine, then we can flip the topics, but in this case we're talking about this specific userbox. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep and topic ban the petty little user who started this as an exercise to try to tar someone as a "terrorist" for supporting international law. (Half this page violates your so-called "no personal attacks" policy, quite viciously). Also, this annoying exercise should have been closed days ago.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This "petty little user" knows that Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago, so even according to third-rate journalists writing for third-rate newspapers, they would have to have a pretty anti-Israel bias to claim Hezbollah is allowed to bomb Israel. But then again, Dan Murphy is the one who said " The vast majority of the rockets from Gaza are like C-minus high school science fair projects, carry limited amounts of explosive, and are impossible to aim. For all that rocket fire, not a single Israeli has been killed by one this year." So clearly take his vote with a huge grain of salt. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. You're a liar AND a coward then. I'm third rate, my former employeers are all third rate, Nableezy is a terrorist, things I wrote that are uncontroversially true many years ago are presented by you as lies (making you the liar) and who are you again? I'm not here to debate things with people like you. A propagandist. My 20 year track record speaks for itself.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one asserting that Hezbollah supports international law. So, how does firing rockets into Israel, which they do occasionally, support international law since as I'm sure you know Israel is not occupying Lebanon? In addition, your actions on this page is just mind boggling. You are supposed to be a journalist. Is there any wonder why nobody takes your profession seriously anymore? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Genius, the userbox doesnt say Hezbollah is allowed to bomb Israel. It doesnt say every action committed under the banner of armed resistance to occupation or aggression is justified. It doesnt say Hezbollah, it doesnt say Israel. It makes a statement of support on the rights of all individuals and groups as governed by international law. And finally, as of November 2012, there in fact had been no Israelis killed by a rocket fired from Gaza in 2012. Try not to be so dishonest in your arguments as quoting out of context. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet it links to the Hezbollah userbox discussion. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks more like a link to a discussion on the deletion of a Hezbollah Userbox. A discussion where the tyranny of the majority and popularity contests can have a negative effect on wikipedia was discussed. This is a message presented by the box. Besides the people pushing for deletion, no one else seems to be concerned with Hezbollah. The words of Nableezy and the words of the original author suggest the issue being discussed is the arbitrary deletion of Hezbollah userbox. The deletion that was for the sake of censorship and the deletion of this is for the sake of censorship. No justifiable reason has been provided for deletion. There's not likely a justifiable reason for deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That links to a discussion on a userbox that was deleted and the discussion links to a discussion of another deletion of other userboxes of Hezbollah being deleted. So don't come here and say that nobody cares that people support Hezbollah. Why is the userbox linking to a discussion of a Hezbollah userbox? There is no reason other than to incite, and to disrupt. There is no freedom of speech on wikipedia and endorsement of terror is not something that we need to condone on Wikipedia. And supporting Hezbollah is certainly violating Wikipedia policies on WP:UP#polemic. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * People have different views than you. Part of being a grown up is recognizing that. One might feel about Israel they way you feel about Hezbollah. Those people dont come crying oh the mean person over there supports a racist colonial enterprise guilty of countless war crimes, and that support is "incitement" and "endorsement of terror". Grow up. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporting Hezbollah is not in the wording of Polemic. Stating support for one group does not attack or vilify any other group or anything to the effect of wp:polemic's language. To incite? To incite what? To incite people into opening their eyes at this type of arbitrary censorship? And to speak up when it shows it's ugly face? That's not disruptive, that's the right thing to do. When you start censoring this group of speech because it's unpopular, you set a precedence that is a slippery slope. What is unpopular changes with the demographic. This is why it's important to reject "I don't like that" behavior. This is why we are here, because you just don't like it. That's no justification for deletion. There's is freedom of speech wikipedia. This is one of the reasons that it exists. There are limitations to it. I just don't like it is not a limitation. There is no freedom of speech has to be the lamest argument I've seen. Academic discussion is necessary to create an encyclopedia and free speech is necessary to have academic discussion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * _'There is no reason other than to incite, and to disrupt.'. Um, Joe if you cannot see any reason other than your own, your continued comments here are quite pointless, esp. since you are hammering on an equation meme;'Arab="incitement" which is standard official usage in certain national-ideological quarters. I guess Genesis 1:22 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill (the West Bank)' is divine incitement at this point.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * keep enough has been written here already, so no point in my adding to it, except that, as a pacifist, I don't much like the box, but I note that both in national and international law the use of force in self-defence is recognised as legitimate. I can even, sometimes, respect it, the most notable example being my father, who fought in WWII in North Africa and Burma, spent 3 years as a Japanese prisoner of war, survived the Burma Railway and would probably have died of beatings and starvation if the war had lasted a few days longer. At least he had the guts to go and fight an enemy who were, unlike the Palestinians, capable of fighting back just as hard. --NSH001 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is Hezbollah fighting Israel? They are quite capable of fighting back, yet I'm not quite sure why Hezbollah shooting rockets into Israel is OK to you. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Joe, did you not learn comprehension skills in your English class at school? I did not say "Hezbollah shooting rockets into Israel is OK to you[me]", I said I am a pacifist, which is quite the opposite. I went on to say that, despite my pacifism, I can still recognise that the use of force in self-defence is widely accepted, including in national and international law. I then added, as an example familiar to me, the courage of my own father, which merits respect, even though his fighting contradicts my pacifism. --NSH001 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Except this box is about Hezbollah. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Except this box isn't that narrow. It's rather broad and the biggest issue it presents is the arbitrary nature of the hezbollah user boxes deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss Hezbollah, and in any case, Hezbollah does not fire rockets into Israel. It arose as a revolt against an Israeli invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon, and the practice ended when they succeeded in forcing Israel to withdraw in 2006. After that date, i.e., over 9 years, 2007-2015, there have been 15 cases of rockets being fired from Lebanon, of which only 2, I think, were attributed to groups regarded as Hezbollah proxies. You are talking of past history as if it were still here, and ignoring the context. It's pointless nagging away if you are unfamiliar with the topic issues.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2015 (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.