Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wōdenhelm/CSA

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: delete. Ultimately, WP:UPNOT allows for the deletion of "material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense", which is the case here, since the overwhelming consensus among the participants is that this page is inflammatory and offensive. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wōdenhelm/CSA[edit]

Pro-confederacy, divisive and offensive. Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not necessarily affirming anything, not necessarily as divisive and offensive as intolerance of records of 14 years ago. Let sleeping dogs lie. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s saying “this user is a citizen of the CSA” i.e. that they identify strongly enough with a dead racist state that they want to be considered an unofficial national of it. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a citizen does not mean agreement with the worst of the CSA’s policies. It may simply mean their birth heritage. Were there no positive features at all in the CSA? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Confederacy has been extinct for over 100 years, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CITIZEN OF IT. Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, okay, it's a tad metaphorical, but I see this sort of "Confederate heritage" nonsense across the Southern U.S. all the time. It seems to me that the solution would be to engage the user to determine the intent of their userbox. If they don't respond, then it's deadspace anyway, and I wouldn't have even bothered troubling it personally, but I guess we're here anyway. Either way, one should always consider MFD as a last resort to prevent further disruption, not as a staging ground to demonstrate our collective disgust. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOCONFED. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find a hint of any redeeming aspect of confederacy reminiscence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I am really sorry to forget to mention WP:NOCONFED as one of the crucial reasons to delete this, in my vote below. So this is a way to correct that omission. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deeply inflammatory and divisive, with the sole purpose to emphasize the connection with a state founded on slavery and racism, and support for it. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I continue to assert that the function of MFD is not to police thought in userspace. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP and Sundostund. There's no divorcing racism from the Confederacy. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:38D6:2866:26A1:4193 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm withholding a !vote for now while I look into the history, but has anybody attempted to ask this user why they created the userbox and what its purpose is? Of course they haven't edited since 2015 so are unlikely to answer, but I would have preferred an attempt to communicate with them was made before bringing it here. Unless our records are very mistaken it is unlikely for a Wikipedia editor to be a citizen of this particular unrecognized defunct country. Depending on the circumstances it probably should be deleted under WP:UP#NOT as giving "widespread offense" The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a user hasn’t edited in that long I don’t bother. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking into it further, we give a wide latitude to editors in their userspace but I can't find any justification for this to exist, especially given that the editor seems to be long gone.WP:UP#NOT seems to be the more compelling argument here, given the circumstances. If this editor returned and wanted it restored, and was able to justify it, I'd be willing to hear the argument. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inflammatory, divisive, and unhelpful (in terms of building the encyclopedia) userbox. I've previously disagreed with Dronebogus and Sundostund on other nominations of userspace pages deemed supportive of Confederatism (word?), and agreed with WaltCip and SmokeyJoe regarding the dangers of policing thought (versus the option of silent blanking in particular). However, that's for userspace text that is plausibly (even if sometimes improbably) someone working through their views about something controversial that is related to editing. My conclusion is different, as here, where someone is merely embracing labels, exploring how divisive and disruptive they can get away with being. Martinp (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes this is in userspace, but it is a userbox - plenty of editors display userboxen that are in others userspace. So if we leave it we are tacitly endorsing slavery. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --00:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenticel (talk • contribs)
Comment: So glad we've dropped any pretense. This is purely WP:NOCONFED which is neither a policy or a guideline, just something we don't like, something we had to go looking for in an individual user's space, a user long ago retired. BusterD (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a good argument as to why promoting the Confederacy on Wikipedia is somehow acceptable, or are you just complaining about the process which brought it here which is irrelevant? Dronebogus (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based reason why you reverted my good faith comment in this process yesterday? Do you think it's proper for a nominator to clerk their own MfD nomination? BusterD (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think WP:NOCONFED is a bad idea, and should not be used as argument to delete anything. It is written hopelessly broadly, in a way which groups together the explicit promotion of racism and/or support of hate groups, together with merely the expression of beliefs that disagree with a certain orthodoxy about a historical event. I and (nearly) everybody agree with excluding the former, but we have a fully adequate set of policies to deal with that already. As currently expressed on that page, blanket excluding the latter is dangerously close to censorship. It would doubtless be possible to edit the essay to reign that part in, but since a non-controversial rewrite would just cover the same ground as broader existing policies, why bother? Noting I have supported deletion here (inflammatory userbox) but opposed deletion of various other userspace pages where WP:NOCONFED was invoked. Martinp (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that NOCONFED is dangerously close to censorship. I see a distinction between declaring oneself to be a confederate, and declaring an opinion on confederacy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.