Meta:Requests for deletion: Difference between revisions
Line 370: | Line 370: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
:{{remove}} Per Krd, DGtal, Swatjester and others. — '''[[User:Draceane|Draceane]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Draceane|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-20px">[[Special:Contributions/Draceane|contrib.]]</sub> 19:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
:{{remove}} Per Krd, DGtal, Swatjester and others. — '''[[User:Draceane|Draceane]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Draceane|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-20px">[[Special:Contributions/Draceane|contrib.]]</sub> 19:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:{{remove}} I am opposed to Wikimedia being involved in politics except when Wikimedia is directly affected (e.g. SOPA). The appearence of a conflict of interest has the potential to undermine our projects precieved neutrality as well as actual neutrality by making disenting voices feel as if they are unwelcome here. Wikimedia is not the whole world, and individual Wikimedians should fight for what they believe in outside of the Wikimedia universe. Inside Wikimedia we should be working on coming together to produce accurate and neutral free knowledge projects. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|talk]]) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Help:Captcha]] === |
=== [[Help:Captcha]] === |
Revision as of 22:02, 26 April 2024
Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}
, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Files with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.
Previous requests are archived. Deletion requests ({{Deletion requests}}) can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.
|
Pages
Submit your page deletion request at the bottom of this section.
The page "Access to nonpublic personal data policy-summary/" has moved to the Foundation website, and we have all these unattached translations that people still are editing, which is valueless. Probably time for a cleanout, unless someone can think of a reason not to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
See list |
---|
- Delete all * Pppery * it has begun 04:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- +1, delete these useless pages --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 06:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, I think that we should have a speedy criteria for stuff that has been moved to the Foundation site. Deleting the translation pages, only leaving the /en page as a soft redirect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted the unused units. The page display titles are still used, though they can be deleted too if @Minorax's suggestion is implemented. (FTR, right now translation of the page is marked as "discouraged".) ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) - Delete the unused units per 1234qwer1234qwer4. Hide on Rosé t 04:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hold on. I think there is a defect here, aren't the foundation wiki imports of the translation units defective, in that they have not maintained authorship attribution? — xaosflux Talk 12:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- phab:T347156 seems to still be unresolved, so these improper transwiki's haven't been resolved. — xaosflux Talk 12:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per 1234qwer1234qwer4. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion open until at least 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Beyond the fact that it is not the place of Wikimedians to take sides in armed conflicts, this open letter identifies with the Palestinian cause regarding matters within Israel. This partisanship is devisive slacktivism and should not be present within Wikimedia's servers. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There have been several open letters written by members of the Wikimedia Movement, pertaining to the Movement, hosted on Meta in the past. This statement does talk about specific actions that members of our Movement would like to see from the Foundation and is not trying to request or mandate things of organisations outside the Movement (for example, it is not asking any actions of any government or NGO). If the Foundation feels this matter is ultra vires for Meta, then they can take Office actions to remove the page and they can contact the editors there to discuss it further. I don't think this is a matter that needs to be addressed by the community on RfD — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It's important to have space for open letters from members within the Wikimedia Movement. --Kiraface (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Deleting such a document goes against the democratic spirit of the Wikimedia community. Free knowledge is an agenda in the fight for democracy and it is even expected that organizations and movements with a social impact like ours take a stand on global issues like these. XenoF (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep A request for deletion of a statement of this kind shouldn't take place in a democratic movement. If you disagree you can discuss the topic, but to just plainly ask that these words do not exist on our servers is against the spirit and values of this movement.Señoritaleona (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This open letter not only makes demands of our community and the Foundation, it serves as an opportunity for Wikimedians with shared values to connect and further strategize; it's unifying rather than divisive and is more aligned with the positive connotations of "slacktivism" than it is with the negative ones. Nyeboah (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia in general has taken a position on the Russo-Ukrainian war in favor of Ukraine countless times. So, Wikimedians can take sides in armed conflicts. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia has always shown direct support for Ukraine and Israel and recently had issues regarding how to brand what Israel was doing to palestinian people on enwiki and commons which actually disgusted me (refusal to call the Al-Rashid massacre just that but instead pushing for it to be called an "incident" was downright insulting to over 118+ lives lost that day). We are no longer a neutral site cause even today i saw people from Israel wiki (hebrew wiki) push their propaganda on commons and enwiki, if we can no longer be neutral, atleast we should act like we are.--Stemoc 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely Keep. It is what Wikipedia is for after all, an open source of unbiased information. -Filipinayzd (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep one has the right not to agree with this statement (and personally, I don't fully agree with some of its sentences) but I see no reason to delete this statement. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 16:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove While I agree with the content, Wikipedia should not engage in political advocacy, it undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this is not Wikipedia. Luisalvaz (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove I don't want Wikimedia to become another forum or social network. Wikimedia should not become a a battleground or a forum to promote our own political or religious ideas, or any kind of advocacy or propaganda of any kind that does not strictly relate to our objectives. I sympathize with many causes, but I don't express my ideas on Wikimedia pages; rather, I use social media or spaces for social or political activism that are meant for that purpose. The goal of Wikimedia is to advocate for free knowledge, to collect and develop educational content under free licenses or public domain, and to effectively disseminate it globally, not to express our opinions on any conflict. We should only express opinions when our projects are at stake, for example, when Wikipedia is censored in some regions.--Jalu (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Since when has Wikipedia politalized? Lilijuros (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment I am not at liberty to vote on this RFD, but I have updated my candidate page here -- Sleyece (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove This statement completely violates Wikimedia Foundation charter and NPOV policy. Moreover, it is one-sided, completely ignoring Hamas' massacre of October 7th 2023 and the kidnapping of innocent people to Gaza, and depicts a distorted version of reality. MathKnight (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- History does not begin on October 7th. If you have read your Torah, you should know that God has created the world and human civilization a long, long time ago. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Whatever the precedents elsewhere, Wikipedia should not be pulled left or right, pro or contra. I find this kind of thing - an attempt to identify an encyclopedia with a political statement - deeply disturbing, indeed somewhat shocking. And I state that even more firmly as an editor closely associated with working in the I/P area, basically curating Palestinian perspectives. Our remit here is to master the history and scholarship, and ensure that articles are written NPOV to that end. Political statements are facile: actually doing something to achieve informative coverage on a conflict is hard work. That is where editors must commit themselves, not to flagwaving. Horrible. I'm not neutral, but wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs (as opposed to giving detailed information about the history enabling readers to form their own opinions regarding the merits or otherwise of those perceived wrongs and the preceived 'justice' of those who claim that they are not wrongs, for example)(User:Nishidani) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Please re-read the quote contained in the statement: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". When 30,000+ innocent people are killed, neutrality becomes complicity. Silence becomes harm. Speaking up becomes a duty. This statement will not be censored. Mushroom (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove, per Kim Bruning arguments; arguments 1,4,6 would hold even if the statement authors had try just to express concern on human life loss while staying objective and not bringing specific agenda - which they clearly didn't, thus enabling also arguments 2,3,5 Шуфель (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Keep there is no neutrality when it comes to human values. I don't think this will be brought up against the situation in Ukraine, or older conflicts in Europe. Besides this doesn't apply to what is considered Not acceptable--باسم (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know how the page violates wikimedia policies. I trust no one can prove that. I've said before in a discussion: "the solidarity with human rights in safe life and other rights mentioned in UDHR isn't a violation of the neutral point of view" and I still hold this conviction. Ahmed Naji Talk 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove -- calling the crisis "Israel-created" as opposed to "Hamas-created" is disinformation; it's telling that not a single word could be spared to condemn the 10/7 attack by Hamas that threatened the lives of Israeli Wikimedians; nor is there any mention of the hostages still being held. Everyone involved with the publication of this should be ashamed of themselves. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- A more appropriate form will be Hamas-created Israel-intensified, so I see the current iteration as purely political statement that tries to shift blame on one party - i.e. the intention seems not to address the situation but to assign blame on the initial victim.
- But yeah this is still technically in scope, so it should be kept. 1233 (T / C) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- One need not qualify a statement against genocide with condemnations of the perpetrator's adversaries. AP295 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep If you disagree with this you are welcome to not sign it, or start your own competing open letter. Meta-Wiki is not censored. * Pppery * it has begun 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Since we are a global movement with a core principle based on community, free knowledge, participation and the recognition the value of all the individuals in the world, I think the correct answer is peace. Although not everyone is on the same page, the majority of people in the movement are against the occupation, the massacre and the destruction of a culture (including universities, temples and all kinds of culture heritage). --Luisalvaz (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I can't understand why some insist on deleting this statemen.. Do they want to wait for killing more innocent Palestinians while the world turns a blind eye? Freedom's Falcon (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This page falls within the scope of Meta Wiki. The rationale behind the deletion nomination is that the page does not adhere to the principle of Neutral point of view. As outlined in Meta:What Meta is not, '"Meta is not written from a neutral point of view. It concerns the entire Wikimedia community, and often contains the opinions of specific users,'" thereby invalidating the sole basis for the proposed deletion. Additionally, Meta:What Meta is not states, "Meta is not an encyclopedia, and does not collect encyclopedic information." Thus, referencing Wikipedia and its NPOV policy in the deletion discussion of a page on Meta Wiki is not relevant. Moreover, I observe a potential case of canvassing; although I do not understand the language, Google Translate outputs led me to this suspicion. -- BIDROHI Hello.. 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The page does not pretend to be an encyclopedia article but presents itself as the position of a group of Wikimedia organisations and Wikimedians. Over the history of the Wikimedia movement, the movement as a whole or groups within it have taken political positions; this is compatible with neutrality of project content and in some cases it is demanded by our cause of free and open knowledge. This wiki is not a content project and is a suitable venue for users to express opinions about the effect of events such as wars on our mission. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Wikipedia should not engage in political advocacy, it undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. שמיה רבה (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is meta.wikimedia; it's not Wikipedia -- Sleyece (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per OwenBlacker, and we are a democratic community, and it's important to have space for open letters.--Faisal talk 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Although I agree with much of the sentiment in the letter, and can respect the wishes of components of the Wikimedia empire to express opinions on political or social issues, it is not the purpose of Wikimedia as a whole. Zero0000 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, you voted remove while making an argument for keep. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Even when most of us can agree with the fact that what's happening in Gaza is horrifying, speaking about it in terms of "oppressor/oppressed" is an oversimplification of the issue and lacks the rigor Wikipedia should have. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foránea (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia, and thousands of people massacred is not an oversimplification. Luisalvaz (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel is running an apartheid state and is now committing genocide. This is "oppressor/oppressed", plain and simple. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This concerns Wikimedia communities and editors, some of whom have already been killed by this siege. Wikimedia has a responsibility to at least ensure the safety of volunteers. Why would anyone oppose this? -—M@sssly✉ 04:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, wikipedia must stand for against any kind of injustice always. Bengali editor (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is wikimedia, not wikipedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Many objections to the page's existence seem to think we're on Wikipedia right now. Not to mention that the desire to delete the page on the grounds of it being unnecessarily political is as inherently political as its creation. Battleofalma (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep justice! Why would anyone oppose this? 🌴Zulf talk 11:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep there is no hard rule that says Wikimedians cannot publish political statements. English Wikipedia doesn’t rule Wikimedia; in fact it’s closer to the opposite. I don’t like to wade too much into the political meta-argument over this deletion but this coming on the heels of an unsubtle attempt to prevent ArWiki from condemning the war in Gaza sure seems like an attempt to enforce the West’s anti-Palestinian taboo on Wikimedia. Should Wikimedia not allow advocacy? Maybe, maybe not. But as long as there’s a lopsided focus on censoring pro-Palestinian advocacy I’ll vote against every one of these campaigns. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Extremely one-sided statement which completely ignores atrocities which has been done by the other side and, above all, violates any NPOV policy that was determined by the foundation. TheStriker (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- are there any special rules? 🌴Zulf talk 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- This statement is not on behalf of the foundation, but the community (which is independent). There are not NPOV policies that limits our freedom of speech as volunteers and affiliates. Luisalvaz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep petrohs (gracias) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Partisan and unobjective. SigTif (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Joint statement by Wikimedia organizations and individuals regarding the ongoing situation in Palestine, 7 April 2024. It is about the Wikimedia project, after all, but the page title is somewhat misleading. --魔琴 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds fine Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support the page title should be changed. I also support keeping the page, of course. Le Loy (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep أمين (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Celinea33 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Absolutely bogus to believe this page is "one-sided". There is nothing "one-sided" about advocating for an ethnic group currently being starved to death and unjustly massacred. Lastly, there is no mention or support for Hamas anywhere on the page. This isn't a case of politics, this is a case of humanity. EDIT: Further explanation regarding why this page should kept in accordance wtih Meta policies: "On the topic of politics, I would like to point (to the judging admin) that if we have pages related to political issues, such as Black Lives Matter (which failed an RFD, thankfully), we surely can keep this page as well. One could also argue, based on the Meta:Inclusion policy, that the page in question falls under "documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects". A Wikimedia member from Gaza even commented on the talk page of the joint statement, detailing their struggles as a Wikimedian living under the brutal conditions Israel has imposed. A lot of the opposing comments seem to be jarred at "Wikimedia not being political", failing to consider other political pages on Meta (as mentioned above, and including 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). A lot of them are raising clearly political points, completely ignoring the very real humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza. I wanted to dwell more on my comment rather than just letting it be almost entirely subjective, and I was glad to have found some time to relate to Meta's policies." —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Keep Meta is not written from a neutral point of view. It is not an encyclopedia or other educational resource, and hence, has no need for NPOV. Wikimedians should be free to express their opinions on Meta, unless those opinions are pure vandalism or spam. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove It is a political message that has nothing to do with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Leaving the message makes Wikimedia a political entity. דוד שי (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Estyxxxx (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove This is not twitter.
- Ex ex (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- RemoveIt has nothing to do with Wikimedia Foundation. שמש מרפא (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove This statement has been replaced by Talk:Joint_Statement_on_Palestine#What_WMF_should_do? which is being deseminated on the mailing list and asking people to come here and sign. 27.32.205.146 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Mystrixo (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Utterly one-sided in favor of the aggressor, failing to acknowledge their responsibility for executing the deadliest single-day attack in the history of this conflict.
- While the diversity of perspectives in Wikimedia is valued, the inclusion of such a statement could risk politicizing this platform and alienating individuals who hold differing viewpoints. Wikimedia's primary focus should remain on providing neutral and reliable information, and endorsing one side of a complex geopolitical issue may compromise its reputation for impartiality. YedidyaPopper (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop distorting facts. The aggressor is your country. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve said it before and will say it again: arguing with an Israeli about Palestine is like arguing with a Turkish person about the Armenian Genocide. Dronebogus (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop distorting facts. The aggressor is your country. Interaccoonale (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove העיתונאי המנטר (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove דגן דיגן (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove It is a political message that has nothing to do with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia is not Twitter. בן עדריאל (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove It is a political message which should not be mentioned in Wikimedia. ykantor 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Editors and communities on Wikimedia are affected by this, as some have already perished as a result of the siege. At the very least, it is the duty of Wikipedia to protect its volunteers. Why would someone be against this?. SIR SUCCESS (NAA JAHINFO) (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep دعما لمن لا علاقة له بالحرب. أبو هشام (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - MartinPoulter sums up my thoughts well. There is no evidence the user groups are speaking on behalf of Wikimedia. However, I think the title could be adjusted to make this clear. Leaderboard (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove אייל (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove - clearly political and subjective. I would expect it to call on Hamas to release the kidnapped and surrender, not de-facto blame Israel, but that's my political opinion and it too should not appear in a joint statement. DGtal (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Not our scope. --Krd 08:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment an outsize number of “delete” voters are clearly Israeli, either explicitly or implicitly (no other country speaks Hebrew). Many of those same users have barely or never used Meta before. It’s entirely possible there’s nationalistically-motivated canvassing going on here. Dronebogus (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is clearly canvassing going on on both sides here (or at least those who have been shown to the page see the deletion discussion link at the top). Comments from Meta-Wiki regulars, and those commenting as to how the page fits or does not fit in the Meta:Inclusion policy will be more heavily weighted than the others. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Except on one side, there is an overt call to members of the Hebrew Wikipedia from someone who had never edited on that Wikipedia to urgently come and comment on this RfD. The eyesore of a banner on top (which won't be missed when it's gone) is an invitation to all, and can hardly be equated with canvassing. I agree that "on both sides" there are people who are for/against the statement itself, which is not what this RfD is about, and I trust the closing admin will be able to judge which of the arguments have merit and which are mere "voting" on the statement. In fact if this were a popular vote, I would argue that all the individuals who've signed the statement should count towards "keep". In any case, it would set a dangerous precedent if a page on Meta is deleted because someone doesn't like or agree with its content. Fjmustak (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest focusing on the merits of arguments, not on who made them. This is a cross-Wiki policy (Enwiki users probably are familiar with it as en:WP:AVOIDYOU), although apparently it has not found its way into Meta pages. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, on this very page some users are already engaging in personal attacks on others. And these attacks are not coming from people who have supposedly been called here to vote "remove". --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- People who actually edit Metawiki frequently, who have actual arguments, have a right to be annoyed and maybe a bit less-than-polite with a bunch of people who never edited this wiki in their life showing up in a coordinated mass-vote with little or no case to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think they do (have the right). There are not a lot of "people who actually edit Metawiki frequently", and most Wikimedians come here only after announcements in other projects. So I really doubt that all people who signed the original petition, as well as all people who vote "keep" here have found these pages on their own, without prompting from other users. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- People who actually edit Metawiki frequently, who have actual arguments, have a right to be annoyed and maybe a bit less-than-polite with a bunch of people who never edited this wiki in their life showing up in a coordinated mass-vote with little or no case to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is clearly canvassing going on on both sides here (or at least those who have been shown to the page see the deletion discussion link at the top). Comments from Meta-Wiki regulars, and those commenting as to how the page fits or does not fit in the Meta:Inclusion policy will be more heavily weighted than the others. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies.--Dr-Taher (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't find a reason on how the page does not fit under our scope. Its name does appear problematic as noted by 魔琴 and a rename to a suitable new title should work, for instance, Collective Letter from Wikimedia movement groups and individuals about ongoing situation in Palestine concerning Palestinian Wikimedia community, date perhaps?. Neutral point of view is not an issue here because Meta is not an encyclopedia nor is this an encyclopedic article. It hasn't been portrayed as a statement by anyone else not signing it. If someone doesn't agree, a simple solution would be not to sign it. Getting it deleting for mere disagreement is not a policy-centered idea. None of the delete voters have so far provided an argument on how this page fails the scope and inclusion policy of Meta-Wiki. I'd be glad to change my vote if there comes a policy-centered argument about how exacly the page fails and why explictly it should be deleted. I mean not just: "I don't like it", "Out of scope", "fails this policy". Exactly how and why? Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove per above. Neriah - 💬 - 22:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It's for a good cause. Some parts are rather non-specific and should probably be made clearer, but I get the gist of it. As others have pointed out, NPOV only applies to wikipedia articles. To say that everyone must remain apolitical at all times on any wikimedia site is nonsense, and would essentially amount to political censorship. The word "neutral" is being applied as euphemism to conflate objectivity and political quietism. AP295 (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- What is the rationale to say that this is for a good cause?
- Many people here don't agree that this is for a good cause. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- So Israel murdering civilians is a good cause? Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel is accused of genocide in the world court. AP295 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies. Batoul84 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. A statement of solidarity with peaceful civilians, including Wikipedians who have died in the conflict, does not violate any Meta rules or Wikimedia-wide policies. stjn[ru] 13:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove There is essay WP:Nothere which sums up why this should not be here and should be removed. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Essays aren't policy. AP295 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies hold no bearing on Meta-Wiki. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 00:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove ארז האורז (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, it is clearly ok to make a humanitarian statement, no reason to censor it. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove per בן עדריאל. --Всезнайка (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. Wikimedia projects shouldn't be exploited for spreading propaganda or advancing the agendas of terrorist organisations. The Statement bears a striking resemblance to a PR ploy by Hamas: they initiated the conflict with heinous acts like murders, kidnappings, and even rapes ("rapesistance"?), yet shamelessly shift blame onto Israel. They callously employ innocent children as shields, hiding behind them whilst evading accountability. Additionally, they manipulate casualty numbers to fit their narrative. As Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, rightly said, "You only speak on the authority of Hamas propaganda, because if you were a decent human being, you can say that the thousands that were killed on October 7 that it was a crime against humanity, it was a genocide!" We cannot turn a blind eye to the severe human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and other Palestinian terrorist groups. Let's ensure that the Wikimedia Movement steadfastly upholds neutrality, accuracy, and champions peace, truth, and justice. Free Palestine (from Hamas)! Aisha8787 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel and its proxies can claim genocide all they want but that means nothing when they’re routinely talking of ethnically cleansing Palestinians out of “their” territory. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove I don't want to be mean, but this seems to be the wrong place for this particular approach. 1. Explicitly rejects Foundation issues: ("If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."); 2. attacks/lays blame at feet of one party, ("ongoing Israel-created humanitarian crisis") thus arguably falling afoul of Inclusion policy on no dedicated attack pages; 3. Obviously DOES advocate, which would be ok, but it doesn't fit in with other essays here, since it's not really advocating for just actions actionable by wikimedia (eg. ("demand an immediate and lasting ceasefire"); . 4. It's WP:NOTHERE to build an Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Multimedia Repository, etc; 5. It's divisive to/for/between the communities in the current form. 6. Overall very little seems actionable by the foundation or the diverse wikimedia communities at this time. | Basically this is the wrong place for this sort of action. / Alternately -with editing- possibly something actionable and useful for all *could* be done(?), but the current format doesn't seem conducive to editing as such. It's a fixed signed statement, so if we edit it, we effectively change what the people signed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Remove, Wikimedia should not take sides in such a blatant matter. Seems like the authors of the discussed page are not at all worried about Wikimedians in Israel and its cultural heritage, only those in Gaza, despite the fact that Israeli cities, its population and citizens abroad are constantly subjected to violent attacks, of which October 7 and the recent Iranian missile/drone barrage are only two most glaring examples. --Deinocheirus (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Remove I'd like to see somebody calling to stop "humanitarian crisis" in 1945 in Berlin. Vcohen (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Keep Freedom of information must be free. --Д. Карнаж (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see how that applies to this situation.Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- Y) My mistake. Д. Карнаж (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove I started searching in the text: "hostage" - zero; "Hamas" - zero; "October" - zero. Stop! "Israel-created crisis", wow. I wanted to write “a usual piece of jihadist propaganda”, but no, it’s more blatant than usual. Not in my voice. --Nicoljaus (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Keep: There are already some similar pages on meta.
&& Comment to some people who voted to delete: I don't see this page having anything to do with Hamas. How much do you love Hamas that you want to write its name on all pages?Interaccoonale (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC) - Remove It's an attempt by a certain political group to weaponize Wikipedia, not to mention the grotesque distortion of reality. They failed to mention that there was a ceasefire on October 6, and that it was Hamas who broke it, starting the war on October 7. In fact, they failed to mention Hamas at all. The way they are framing the conflict, it's only Israel and the Palestinians. In their crooked mirror, there is no Hamas, no terror, no 7/10 massacre, no rapes, no hundreds of kidnapped hostages. I don't think that such Orwellian propaganda should exploit Wikivoice.
- Desertdweller1983 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- History didn't start at that time, even the past and far away. 🍃Zulf🍃talk 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I understand what history is. And I have a lot to say on the history of the conflict. But our discussion is focused on the statement in question, and my argument remains valid. Desertdweller1983 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- History didn't start at that time, even the past and far away. 🍃Zulf🍃talk 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove If the wiki community turns into a political party, I did not join such a party. Support terrorists separately from Wikipedia. Pessimist (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 00:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. Cannot participate in Wikipedia, if it supports terrorists (such as Hamas) killing plenty of innocent people,
- , using Gaza region habitants as human shield, stealing humanitarian aid, etc. Горизонт событий (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I respectfully ask that this RfD (that doesn't appear to have been made in good faith in the first place) be closed as it is quickly devolving into a political argument that has nothing to do with the statement. Canvassing for participation in this RfD on the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias has summoned people interested in suppressing voices they don't agree with who are deflecting from and drowning any legitimate discussion of the merits of the RfD. --Fjmustak (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Starting the request with "respectfully" and ending it with accusing your opponents of being "interested in suppressing voices they don't agree", "deflecting from and drowning any legitimate discussion" doesn't look good at all. I don't see any of your opponents trying to invalidate the uniform "keep" voting from at least seven Arabic Wiki users, or the unsubstantiated "keep" votes from some other users. As I stated earlier, the arguments should be assessed on merits, not on who made them - and most of the "remove" votes here do come with arguments and thus should not be dismissed just because they come from Hebrew or Russian Wiki users. Deinocheirus (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- And what about ar-wiki? Alaexis (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While every Wikimedian is entitled to their opinion and their own political activity outside Wikimedia projects, I believe the WMF, affiliates, and Wikiprojects (collectively) should remain neutral. That being said, deleting an open letter by part of the community is an extraordinary measure I think is not granted here. SOPA blackout enjoyed high support. Almost nobody raised an eyebrow when Ukrainian Wikipedia had several project pages dedicated to support the government of Ukraine, including calls to cyberwarfare. Almost nobody expressed any concern about the Wikimedia Foundation allying with Silicon Valley companies to campaign against Trump's immigration policies. And I certainly do not expect that a call to stop genocide is the instance that is off limits. Would you like more political neutrality from the WMF, affiliates, and Wikimedia projects? Feel free to start the process for a global policy. MarioGom (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was wondering why everyone from ruwiki suddenly showed up to bloc-vote against keeping. Dronebogus (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not true. At least three spoke in favor of “keep.” Nicoljaus (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Metaphor Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Or just another false claim among other “ad hominem” arguments. Nicoljaus (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. Metaphor. Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Nicoljaus: Try to assume good-faith, please (and as a native speaker, it's certainly none other than a metaphor). SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Or just another false claim among other “ad hominem” arguments. Nicoljaus (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Metaphor Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Aisha8787 posted the link to canvass to w:ru:Обсуждение проекта:Израиль#«Совместное заявление о Палестине» (WikiProject Israel), then I think it was posted/discussed on one of the Discord servers as well. stjn[ru] 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- You see, I made it crystal clear that users had the liberty to present arguments both for and against the Statement. I didn't nudge anyone towards opposing it. I made no explicit endorsement for opposition. Rather, I upheld a stance of impartiality in a realm where interests in editing articles on Israel and Palestine run high. I dare say, a statement of such magnitude deserves to echo across all corners of the Wikimedia "universe". Aisha8787 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given your advocacy of a specific point here and the ideological prevalence of pro-Israeli viewpoint in WikiProject Israel in Russian Wikipedia (as is not surprising, we literally have administrators from the occupied territories who downplay atrocities committed by Israel there), this falls under votestacking even if we apply complete AGF here. You specifically chose the WikiProject Israel, according to your words. stjn[ru] 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your idea that WikiProject Israel on Russian Wikipedia might be biased and ignoring atrocities doesn't sit right with me. Let's focus on unity and respect.If you fancy it, you could start up WikiProject Palestine. If it existed, I'd have penned my thoughts there. Aisha8787 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Who are these so-called "administrators from the occupied territories"? I'm not aware of any. Desertdweller1983 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- To my awareness, only one administrator from the Russian-language Wikipedia, of Jewish heritage, has commented here. Furthermore, he resides not in Israel but across the Atlantic, in a nation untouched by occupation. It's a clear case of misinformation and a stark manifestation of anti-Semitism. Aisha8787 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Point to me where I have said that that administrator commented in this discussion before you try to hurl slurs about my ‘anti-semitism’, @Aisha8787. I never did. I mentioned that this is the atmosphere we have to work with in Russian Wikipedia. Staunch advocacy of pro-Israeli views in violation of NPOV, PROV etc. because there are zero pro-Palestinian voices and zero oversight from non-involved parties. And you are currently responding to one of the most biased pro-Israeli users in Russian Wikipedia, in case you need any evidence for that. stjn[ru] 19:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- To my awareness, only one administrator from the Russian-language Wikipedia, of Jewish heritage, has commented here. Furthermore, he resides not in Israel but across the Atlantic, in a nation untouched by occupation. It's a clear case of misinformation and a stark manifestation of anti-Semitism. Aisha8787 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given your advocacy of a specific point here and the ideological prevalence of pro-Israeli viewpoint in WikiProject Israel in Russian Wikipedia (as is not surprising, we literally have administrators from the occupied territories who downplay atrocities committed by Israel there), this falls under votestacking even if we apply complete AGF here. You specifically chose the WikiProject Israel, according to your words. stjn[ru] 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- You see, I made it crystal clear that users had the liberty to present arguments both for and against the Statement. I didn't nudge anyone towards opposing it. I made no explicit endorsement for opposition. Rather, I upheld a stance of impartiality in a realm where interests in editing articles on Israel and Palestine run high. I dare say, a statement of such magnitude deserves to echo across all corners of the Wikimedia "universe". Aisha8787 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not true. At least three spoke in favor of “keep.” Nicoljaus (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Fjmustak. I believe that the statement aligns with the inclusion policy, because the purpose is to augment the WMF's response and support for the volunteer community in Gaza and it asks it to support the community in Gaza and ensure the impartiality of content about Palestinian genocide. We have to support our Palestinian colleagues and an open letter is a very good way to point out attention in the precarious situation our Palestinian colleagues face. They need our support. NikosLikomitros (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove because it politicizes Wikipedia and politicizes humanitarian issues. Probably the statement would be ok if it didn't mention Israel. Mentioning Israel and not mentioning the other side Israel is fighting against (It's Hamas, and not the Palestinian people) makes the statement miss the point and distort the truth. In addition, "you have chosen the side of the oppressor" again means it condemns Israel without explanations, which is manipulative. Let us keep politics out of Wikipedia. Rijikk (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Everyone dead in Gaza is actually Hamas" is a claim so outlandish that I am not surprised that only a Russian Wikipedia community member is pushing that bogus line, Rijikk. (Speaking as a Russian Wikipedia community member myself.) stjn[ru] 23:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- But... Rijikk did not make such a claim! Here is his statement, right before everyone’s eyes. But that's exactly how the big lie works. Nicoljaus (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just another example of weird misinterpretation. Sorry, stjn, I didn't expect it from you. Rijikk (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone dead in Gaza is actually Hamas — they didn't make such a statement. Горизонт событий (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Everyone dead in Gaza is actually Hamas" is a claim so outlandish that I am not surprised that only a Russian Wikipedia community member is pushing that bogus line, Rijikk. (Speaking as a Russian Wikipedia community member myself.) stjn[ru] 23:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I really can't take any time off, wow. Further off-topic discussion (i.e. not focused on arguments for or against deleting the page against Meta's inclusion policy) will result in a partial block from this page, at a minimum. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies Raedfares (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just a general comment - please stop the personal attacks. Clearly there are perspectives on both sides of the irl conflict here, and those aren't going to be properly addressed or considered as part of a Meta deletion request. Please keep comments focused on reasons to include or delete the page in question, and refrain from replying to other users unless absolutely necessary. Future replies that are uncivil / personal attacks or off topic will be removed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz Yes, I see it has become an arena for debate. 🍃Zulf🍃talk 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment why is this the subject of debate and spread everywhere and other issues?🤔 🍃Zulf🍃talk 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see it continued while I was at work. I've collapsed some of the most egregious off-topic discussions (and yes, I understand you believe they are relevant, but this is just beyond unhelpful at this point). Keep your remarks to your own comment please people. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unhelpful to whom? AP295 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, I do believe they are relevant, directly relevant, (at least those I was involved in) as they concern the probable truth/falsehood of information in the page nominated for deletion. It is inherently a political discussion. The official behavioral guidelines state the following: "Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. Collapse. If a discussion goes off topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally has the effect of ending the off-topic discussion while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. Involved parties must not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." The metawiki guidelines here [8] seem to imply that this portion of wikipedia's policy is to be observed on meta as well.
Also, assuming the template documentation is still accurate, collapsed portions can't be viewed in mobile browsers either.Mobile mode seems to work for me, though the template disables the reply button within the collapsed portion, and it would be extremely tedious to use the main edit button on a mobile browser, I imagine. At the very least, you should change the title to "Discussion" instead of "Off-topic discussion", because my discussions are obviously not off-topic. (Why else would you have felt the need to preempt my response with "and yes, I understand you believe they are relevant"?) AP295 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see it continued while I was at work. I've collapsed some of the most egregious off-topic discussions (and yes, I understand you believe they are relevant, but this is just beyond unhelpful at this point). Keep your remarks to your own comment please people. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I wanted to share that in the Wikimedia Community Discord server, the moderators shut down any discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict (including the Israel-Hamas war), because of the serious amount of moderation it requires to allow discussion of this topic. This conflict should seriously be discussed as if it is under sanction. Before posting something unrelated one should think whether it is really worth the risk of a block or having the comment deleted; w:WP:Disruptive editing. This topic has been discussed countless times at w:WP:ARBCOM and simply reiterating propaganda that isn't verifiable is counterproductive. There are outlets where one can talk about the conflict without causing disruption to operations on Meta or Wikipedia. Any person commenting should take a look at w:WP:ILIKEIT or w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT; neither of these are valid reasons for keeping or deleting a page. I don't think political reasons are a good reason why content should be removed, except when it is polemic or discriminatory or likely to bring the project into disrepute. I commend the efforts of Meta stewards and administrators here to keep this discussion focused on Meta policy rather than on personal opinions. Aasim 19:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- If anything is likely to bring the project into disrepute, it's censoring discussion about ongoing war crimes and violations of the genocide convention. Your phrasing, the Israel-Hamas war, may well be obsolete in a year or two. All of my comments are relevant to the discussion, though some have been collapsed, along with some comments made by others. Whom are you addressing, with your insinuations? While I am in favor of keeping, I don't necessary like the page, though I agree with the general thrust of it. AP295 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand that there are real people affected by this escalation in the conflict; I don't doubt it. Also, where are you getting the idea that we are censoring discussion? Administrators, moderators, and stewards are empowered by the Wikimedia community or their relevant subcommunities to deal with disruptive editing. In fact, a few months ago, the enwiki Arbitration Committee took action on canvassing within that specific topic area. All I was highlighting is that this topic area has been subject to disruptive edits and POV pushing and propaganda in the past, and that it is important to keep comments here based on Meta:Policy and not just one's feelings. Aasim 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- "I wanted to share that in the Wikimedia Community Discord server, the moderators shut down any discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict"
- "Also, where are you getting the idea that we are censoring discussion?"
- AP295 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand that there are real people affected by this escalation in the conflict; I don't doubt it. Also, where are you getting the idea that we are censoring discussion? Administrators, moderators, and stewards are empowered by the Wikimedia community or their relevant subcommunities to deal with disruptive editing. In fact, a few months ago, the enwiki Arbitration Committee took action on canvassing within that specific topic area. All I was highlighting is that this topic area has been subject to disruptive edits and POV pushing and propaganda in the past, and that it is important to keep comments here based on Meta:Policy and not just one's feelings. Aasim 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- If anything is likely to bring the project into disrepute, it's censoring discussion about ongoing war crimes and violations of the genocide convention. Your phrasing, the Israel-Hamas war, may well be obsolete in a year or two. All of my comments are relevant to the discussion, though some have been collapsed, along with some comments made by others. Whom are you addressing, with your insinuations? While I am in favor of keeping, I don't necessary like the page, though I agree with the general thrust of it. AP295 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Everything has already been said, I agree with keeping it -- Remux - Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Meta isn't censored and this is not Wikipedia to maintain neutrality; it's frustrating to hear people using Wikipedia policies to justify deleting this page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment I really don’t see the point in keeping this open any longer. The minimum deadline has passed and a majority of “delete” votes are canvassed from hewiki and ruwiki editors who have rarely or never edited metawiki and largely don’t provide valid arguments. Subtracting those and factoring in all the users who have supported the statement but not voted as of now, consensus is clearly “keep”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- +1. It would be interesting to see how this discussion looked if you filtered out everyone who hasn't made over 100 edits to Meta-Wiki over the last 12 months. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Meta is not the special province of those editors who hang their hats here. Most editors are active at their home wikis and are voicing here since they found the open letter here. When you make weak arguments like that (or cherry picking the he-wiki editors) you prove that you are only interested in forwarding your political propaganda, rather than fairly representing the Wikimedia movement. As for arguments made, many above had stated how slanted this open letter is, beyond the point that this political posturing does not belong here. Do you not lament the weak claims about canvassing and NOTCENSORED, Dronebogus, or can you only see this through your own partisan filter? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because canvassing is disruptive behavior and is visibly evident in this thread. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your summary is a rather selective one. You won't mind if I add that many above have made quite strong arguments in favor of keeping the article? Or better yet, let's avoid weasel words like many above altogether. AP295 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Presuming that this RfD is not judged as a plebiscite, but rather on the merit and truth or falsehood of each argument, it should not make much difference. That's the responsibility of whoever makes the decision. I agree that it should be kept and I believe I've made sound arguments. AP295 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Did a count and assuming I didn't mess up my counts anywhere, 33 of the remove votes come from users with fewer than 100 edits or IPs, but only 11 keep votes from users who fall into the same category. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's really quite insulting. I have made less than 100 edits to meta in five years, but my 36,000+ edits to other projects entitles me to just as much of a vote here as anyone else. There is nothing wrong with cross-posting notices on other wikis, and everyone from every wiki is welcome at meta. Honestly, wtf. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Meta is not the special province of those editors who hang their hats here. Most editors are active at their home wikis and are voicing here since they found the open letter here. When you make weak arguments like that (or cherry picking the he-wiki editors) you prove that you are only interested in forwarding your political propaganda, rather than fairly representing the Wikimedia movement. As for arguments made, many above had stated how slanted this open letter is, beyond the point that this political posturing does not belong here. Do you not lament the weak claims about canvassing and NOTCENSORED, Dronebogus, or can you only see this through your own partisan filter? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is worth remembering that we don't treat deletion debates as a plebiscite, where 50% +1 vote "wins". Deletion debates, like most other things in the Movement, are on the basis of consensus.
- There is clearly no consensus here, irrespective of whether or not we exclude any votes that might have been canvassed (and, to be clear, I am deliberately not expressing any opinion on whether they were canvassed or whether that is inappropriate).
- On the English Wikipedia, if there is no consensus to delete, the outcome defaults to Keep. Is that also the case here on Meta? — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 05:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to this and other comments re: canvassing, Meta-Wiki is a bit of a unique place in that nobody really calls Meta "home" - most Meta users are editors somewhere else and come to Meta to do specific things. As such, we typically don't see canvassing in the same way as other projects, and sometimes even like it when a wider cross-section of the (global) community shows up than usual. But the closing admin will take explicit/slanted canvassing into account when closing, and it is also typical for the arguments of users who are Meta regulars to be weighed more heavily than others when closing these type of discussions. On the topic of default outcomes, you (OwenBlacker) are correct that consensus is generally required to change the status quo, so for this discussion there would need to be consensus to delete otherwise the page would be retained. I have held off closing myself as I have done some (not particularly effective) attempts at moderating the discussion, and I think it would be better for a different admin to close it. But if no other admins have within a day or so I will. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the authors of this deeply biased statement called it "joint". In order for it to remain, there must be consensus in this discussion that the statement is truly a "joint" statement by Wikimedia organizations and individual, and does not reflect the views of only part of the community (with strong objections from another part of the community). It is necessary either to prepare a new statement that truly reflects consensus, or to explicitly notify the difference in views on such a one-sided statement. Nicoljaus (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I really, really hesitate to say this, because I expect any such discussion would just devolve into the same useless political drivel that this has... but that's a topic best discussed on the page's talk page. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The statement is clearly attributed to the signing parties. The WMF and Wikimedia affiliates have never been required to obtain on-wiki consesus to post any statement on their websites or Meta. There's years of precedents and no policy that prevents it. MarioGom (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think this would be expressed much more clearly by renaming the title to “Statement by Certain Wikimedia Organizations and Individuals on Palestine.” Nicoljaus (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there is no policy requiring that. And this is a deletion discussion. Renaming of the page can be discussed elsewhere, usually in the talk page. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bold-Revert-Descuss. We will remove this bold statement and discuss with interested parties how it can be published on Meta. Possibly with a changed title. Possibly with changes to the text. Nicoljaus (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- BRD is meant for edition, not deletion. And I don't think it would be appropriate to bold edit a signed affiliate statement. Just like you would not edit an official WMF statement once it has been finalized. MarioGom (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bold-Revert-Descuss. We will remove this bold statement and discuss with interested parties how it can be published on Meta. Possibly with a changed title. Possibly with changes to the text. Nicoljaus (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there is no policy requiring that. And this is a deletion discussion. Renaming of the page can be discussed elsewhere, usually in the talk page. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think this would be expressed much more clearly by renaming the title to “Statement by Certain Wikimedia Organizations and Individuals on Palestine.” Nicoljaus (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the authors of this deeply biased statement called it "joint". In order for it to remain, there must be consensus in this discussion that the statement is truly a "joint" statement by Wikimedia organizations and individual, and does not reflect the views of only part of the community (with strong objections from another part of the community). It is necessary either to prepare a new statement that truly reflects consensus, or to explicitly notify the difference in views on such a one-sided statement. Nicoljaus (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to this and other comments re: canvassing, Meta-Wiki is a bit of a unique place in that nobody really calls Meta "home" - most Meta users are editors somewhere else and come to Meta to do specific things. As such, we typically don't see canvassing in the same way as other projects, and sometimes even like it when a wider cross-section of the (global) community shows up than usual. But the closing admin will take explicit/slanted canvassing into account when closing, and it is also typical for the arguments of users who are Meta regulars to be weighed more heavily than others when closing these type of discussions. On the topic of default outcomes, you (OwenBlacker) are correct that consensus is generally required to change the status quo, so for this discussion there would need to be consensus to delete otherwise the page would be retained. I have held off closing myself as I have done some (not particularly effective) attempts at moderating the discussion, and I think it would be better for a different admin to close it. But if no other admins have within a day or so I will. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- "majority of “delete” votes are canvassed from hewiki and ruwiki editors" — how did you determined that votes were canvassed? Were any keep votes canvassed?
- How do you determine that keep arguments are not valid?
- Why don't we cross keep votes with not valid arguments? BilboBeggins (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment a lot of delete voters are complaining about it not discussing Hamas atrocities or supporting Israeli hostages and victims of the 7th of October attacks; why don’t they create a joint statement addressing those things rather than targeting a statement they disagree with? Because as discussed this clearly isn’t about “politicization” or “bias” because nobody complained about supporting Ukraine or opposing SOPA. Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I found out about this open letter only because some editor wanted to advertise it on en-wp. I visit Meta a couple times a year and only when I become aware of a need to do so. I quashed the word going out on en-wp but did the word get out on other wikis? Yes. Did these same editors know about Ukraine or SOPA? Maybe. It's entirely possible they knew about some statement on Ukraine and found it not worth the trouble so they ignored it. This is about politicization and bias for me: I nominated this for deletion on principle. Is everyone else opining because of political tribalism? Maybe. Does that make their arguments invalid? Unless they said that they do or don't like the letter, not necessarily. I oppose all slacktivism and the politically-compromised editors who engage in it. Your whataboutism is the same sort of weak argument like all the others you posit. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe my argument is whataboutism, but it’s at least better than what-if-ism like Did these same editors know about Ukraine or SOPA? or It's entirely possible they knew about some statement on Ukraine and found it not worth the trouble so they ignored it. or Is everyone else opining because of political tribalism? My case is based on precedent; yours is based on speculation. Dronebogus (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Per nominator, Wikimedia should not take sides in conflicts. I could understand it if the statement called for the ceasefire used a more inclusive language and mentioned the loss of life and hardships on both sides (which is not to say that they are equivalent). I see no benefit in releasing such a statement and do see drawbacks. The layperson doesn't know and doesn't care what the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia is. If they see this in the news they would see it as us taking sides and thus becoming less trustworthy. Alaexis (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- My view of Wikimedia optics has always been “screw it”. People believe whatever they want to believe about Wikimedia, and Wikimedia can’t win for losing in the court of public opinion. In any case the only people who would latch onto flimsy material like this are Larry Sanger and his wacky far-right buddies, and since when do we care what they think? Dronebogus (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The majority of people identifying as Republicans use Wikipedia [9]. Would you prefer them to switch to some kind of echo chamber? Alaexis (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Dronebogus (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't know Wikimedia only consisted of US editors. Fascinating, I know, right? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a US editor myself, so I'm certainly aware of that. It's u:Dronebogus who brought up "Larry Sanger and his wacky far-right buddies" and suggested we shouldn't care what they think.
- My point was that a lot of people of various shades of "right" use Wikipedia and that actions that would hurt the perception of Wikipedia's reliability and neutrality without having any clear benefits for the community are detrimental to the project. Alaexis (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- They already think Wikipedia is full of the dreaded LIBERAL BIAS because it agrees with the academic consensus on trans people existing and Trump losing in 2020. This isn’t going to change that. Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The majority of people identifying as Republicans use Wikipedia [9]. Would you prefer them to switch to some kind of echo chamber? Alaexis (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- My view of Wikimedia optics has always been “screw it”. People believe whatever they want to believe about Wikimedia, and Wikimedia can’t win for losing in the court of public opinion. In any case the only people who would latch onto flimsy material like this are Larry Sanger and his wacky far-right buddies, and since when do we care what they think? Dronebogus (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. We have already seen in this discussion that the main in-wiki result of this initiative is the deepening mutual distrust and disrespect between users of different opinions, to the extent of blatant accusations and offences towards the whole wikis including my home ru.wiki. Outside of Wikimedia projects the statement from Wikimedians would not raise so huge interest, but the message this situation delivers to Wikimedians themselves is totally misleading. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this discussion is understandably rather heated, but hear me out when I say it’s mostly because it was nominated in the first place, then two clear-cut cases of canvassing occurred at Ruwiki and Hewiki (no offense to uninvolved users even if I previously made some hyperbolic comments about “everyone from ruwiki showing up” above). While I have seen civil and reasonable deletion votes like yours I mostly see a bunch of people who ordinarily wouldn’t even know meta existed showing up en masse to make inflammatory strawman arguments. Discussion on the talk page has been largely unremarkable. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is important difference between fighting for free speech and fighting for free knowledge. Wikimedia projects are about the former rather than the latter. Freedom of speech includes the right of people to say and sign unpleasant statements, controversial statements, strongly divisive statements. However, for the purpose of providing free knowledge these statements might be disruptive and harmful. I would dream of a statement on this topic so well balanced to be rather unifying than divisive. But the authors of this statement opted for the text with no mention of the words "Hamas" and "hostages", i.e. for the overtly partisan statement attracting one part of Wikimedia community and alienating another part of it. They are free to speak this way. But let them do it elsewhere. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this discussion is understandably rather heated, but hear me out when I say it’s mostly because it was nominated in the first place, then two clear-cut cases of canvassing occurred at Ruwiki and Hewiki (no offense to uninvolved users even if I previously made some hyperbolic comments about “everyone from ruwiki showing up” above). While I have seen civil and reasonable deletion votes like yours I mostly see a bunch of people who ordinarily wouldn’t even know meta existed showing up en masse to make inflammatory strawman arguments. Discussion on the talk page has been largely unremarkable. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is a very reasonable and practical letter. As the erosion of free speech and public commons occurs globally, the necessity for volunteers of one of the largest digital commons to opine is clear. The genocide being perpetrated by Israeli military is very much also information warfare, and Wikimedia is involved, whether we like it or not. Let's speak clearly without stuttering. Shushugah (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reasonable reason to delete it! keep it Rah24af —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, April 25, 2024 (UTC).
- Remove Per Krd, DGtal, Swatjester and others. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove I am opposed to Wikimedia being involved in politics except when Wikimedia is directly affected (e.g. SOPA). The appearence of a conflict of interest has the potential to undermine our projects precieved neutrality as well as actual neutrality by making disenting voices feel as if they are unwelcome here. Wikimedia is not the whole world, and individual Wikimedians should fight for what they believe in outside of the Wikimedia universe. Inside Wikimedia we should be working on coming together to produce accurate and neutral free knowledge projects. Bawolff (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
No longer used per discussion at MediaWiki talk:Createacct-imgcaptcha-help. * Pppery * it has begun 21:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Think that where it is still called, it goes to what seems to be the original source of this text in MediaWiki:Captchahelp-text (which loads in to Special:Captcha/help - the link that is actually on the CAPTCHA). Special:WhatLinksHere/Help:Captcha does show some uses and not sure if this could be linked in from elsewhere. Perhaps just replace all the text with int: MediaWiki:Captchahelp-text ? — xaosflux Talk 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've fixed the one link at CAPTCHA exemptions which was transcluded in 100 pages. There don't seem to be any others. * Pppery * it has begun 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- lgtm. — xaosflux Talk 20:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've fixed the one link at CAPTCHA exemptions which was transcluded in 100 pages. There don't seem to be any others. * Pppery * it has begun 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfunny silliness. Apparently survived RfD in 2006, but I still don't see the point. * Pppery * it has begun 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete what the hell is this supposed to be? Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – I'm sorry, but what? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: It's nonsense.. Justarandomamerican (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to be one of the only defenders of old essay pages here... but this is too much for me haha. Delete. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Templates
Submit your template deletion request at the bottom of this section.
Categories
Submit your category deletion request at the bottom of this section.
Files
Submit your image deletion request at the bottom of this section.
Redirects
Submit your redirect deletion request at the bottom of this section.
Requests for undeletion
Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.