Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Strike Eagle/BLA

 __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 as amended  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Strike Eagle/BLA


Unused and unnecessary userbox. Violates WP:NPOV and also the general policy regarding WP:USERBOX on WP:SOAPBOX and extremist views, which is as quoted (from Userboxes): 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. It also lays a POV precedence for other similiar userboxes to be created. What's next, maybe a userbox called Template:Users supporting the break-up of India?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain how the original userbox language "This user supports the liberation of Balochistan" violates one or more of the above listed content restrictions. Also, where does "POV" appear in Userboxes? -- Uzma Gamal (talk)


 * While this may qualify for deletion but I don't get how the example you cited may be a POV. Its a fact that happened in 1947. -- S M S  Talk 15:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha.... I never noticed the pun. Perhaps I should have clarified, 'Republic of India' :)  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, the infobox text is, "This user supports the liberation of Balochistan."


 * A very quick search picks up these for starters:


 * Now we either keep all, or delete all. Balochistan (or the break up of India, or a free Tibet) are not special cases. WP:OSE apart, it seems clear that political userboxes are tolerated to a level more generous than either the letter of the cited policy, or the gist of the nomination here. Accordingly I see no reason to single out this particular userbox for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the "keep all or delete all" argument is not really valid, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I do not have any opinion to share at this moment about the examples you've cited, but I will make a point that each of these examples should be viewed independently. Disputes such as Israel/Palestine, Tibet, Kashmir etc. have international scope; there are international governments which have formed their own stands in regards to these issues, wars have been fought over them, they've been a subject of the academic press and thus the level of appropriateness for having userboxes for them would be a different case. I don't think that it is a balanced comparison to compare those examples with comparatively obscure/smaller-scale nationalist movements. If what you say is indeed true (that there is a level of tolerance for such templates), then I foresee userboxes being created for all sorts of obscure movements from the most obscurest places, and that is where it starts to become an unnecessary soapbox. As I said, this is where we start to have stuff like Template:Users supporting the break-up of India.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mar4d....What's next, maybe a userbox called Template:Users supporting the break-up of India What do you mean by that?..It makes me think that if this box is kept, you may create those userboxes.Please explain. Thanks  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  05:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep though I think it should be reworded to replace the word "liberation" with something else. Limited expression of viewpoints on topics unrelated to Wikipedia is permitted on userpages, and one sentence is certainly limited. A simple statement of opinion is not polemical, as being polemical requires that the content attempt to persuade the reader that the viewpoint is right. A userbox of this type could actually be used to help the encyclopedia, by disclosing the potential bias of an editor working in a certain topic. Yes it's unused but it was only created yesterday, and NPOV doesn't apply to userpages. Support for greater autonomy for Balochistan doesn't strike me as an "extreme viewpoint", and "extreme" isn't the same thing as "small minority". There are very large numbers of userboxes saying "this user supports X" or "this user opposes Y", if they are to be deleted then that needs a much bigger discussion than this MfD is likely to get. Hut 8.5 17:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time I wrote this comment I wasn't aware that the term "BLA" and the use of the word "liberation" were meant to refer to the Balochistan Liberation Army, which certainly could be considered an extremist group. I see the userbox has been reworded to get rid of "liberation", but I suggest it also be moved to a new title. Hut 8.5 15:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's why it is named after the acronym BLA in the first place. For those who don't know, the BLA is a militant organisation that has been designated as terrorist by the governments of Pakistan, United Kingdom and the United States.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep ‣ Mar4d, you have a giant swathe of user boxes promoting Kentucky Fried Chicken, newspapers, and various political views (including the issue of Kashmir about which you say you "don't have an opinion to share" above), and Strike Eagle's user page is a solid wall of them, but you're going to make a slippery slope argument that this single one on the wrong sort of too-"obscure" issue will have some sort of terrible repercussions that we need to go preemptively edit someone's user space to prevent? WP:NPOV applies to articles and isn't a requirement for users to police their thoughts or anything like that, but how about another one that normally applies to articles: Wikipedia is not censored.  And unless I'm missing it, you did not attempt to persuade Strike Eagle of this yourself on his or her talk page before making this nomination, as is recommended in the main MfD project page. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And may I ask how Kentucky Fried Chicken or newspapers are relevant to this? I think my statement was clear, by not having an opinion, I exclusively mean not having an opinion on whether or not that userbox should exist. Note that there are other variations of that userbox, see 2 and 3 that have equally opposing POVs. I know they've existed but I have not nominated them. As I said, that's a separate case and the appropriateness of a userbox may differ for each issue. This discussion is only about the BLA userbox. The main concern was that if there's a level of tolerance for such userboxes, than anyone can create a userbox propagating other political views too. Would you agree to have a userbox supporting a militant organisation? How about an al-Qaeda or Irish National Liberation Army userbox? Would your WP:NOTCENSORED argument and not policing people's thoughts stance apply there or do the standards change? I am talking about laying a precedent here. As for your last point, the user was notified on their talkpage of this discussion.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 02:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As for KFC, just making it clear that you give yourself a pass on the commercial promotion in the passage you quoted in your nomination.


 * Wikipedia is not a system of justice to set and overturn precedents in. Secondly, this wouldn't even be a precedent, for example:


 * Not to mention that almost every single nation that any Wikipedia user might express allegiance to is a militant organization. Users who are trying to be disruptive to make a WP:POINT or are breaking laws somehow are one thing, but no, I don't think we should be in the business of deciding whether or not groups that users want to express allegiance to or approval of are "authorized" or "allowed". -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 03:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Struthious Bandersnatch.  →TSU tp* 23:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The userbox, as of now, is also unused.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the policy/guideline indicating that unused userboxes are subject to deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with you.....there are hundreds(or thousands) or boxes not used....they are not deleted and this one is no exception.  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  13:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I think Struthious and Hut mentioned everything.There is no need for me to elaborate further.BTW, I replaced liberation with Independence as suggested by Hut.Balochistan conflict and Kashmir conflict are not comparable:I agree..however, when we have one for the liberation of Xizang..I don't find it any violation in having one for Balochistan.And as Andy said..if all the similar userboxes were to be deleted, I have no objection in this one getting deleted too.Thanks  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  05:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a little curious about the title of subpage you have chosen, BLA. After seeing the BLA disambiguation page the only I find relevant to this userbox is terrorist organization Balochistan Liberation Army. Were you referring to this? -- S M S  Talk 08:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the whole MfD is about the same..:)  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  12:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The original text "This user supports the liberation of Balochistan" was changed during this MfD to "This user supports the independence of Balochistan." If Strike Eagle agrees to not revert the Userbox back to the original language, that would help reslove the issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  13:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Close - The original language of the userbox was changed to "This user supports the independence of Balochistan" and Strike Eagle agreeded to not change it back to the original language listed in the Mfd. The MfD discussion now is moot. Given that there never was any clear explaination of the supposed userbox language violation, seems time to close the discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (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.