Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wumbolo/Userbox Trump

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. ✗plicit 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wumbolo/Userbox Trump[edit]

WP:UBCR prohibits substantially divisive user-boxes. Used in only one user-page, now indefinitely blocked. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Userbox War rears its ugly, time-wasting, petty, tit-for-tat head once again. Keep because although I believe that political and religious userboxes do not belong on Wikipedia, deleting hundreds of individual userboxes in userspace is a giant waste of time and the wrong way to go about it. Also, this userbox is not substantially divisive, inflammatory, polemic, whatever, except for those people who need to deal with the fact that not everybody shares their own beliefs about what is going on in the world. Chill. MarshallKe (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd be saying the same thing if this were a BLM, CRT, communist, post-left egoist anarchist, etc. userbox, so don't make strawmen MarshallKe (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "Neo-nazi sympathizers" part seems a bit divisive at first, but after reading through the original article, I see nothing wrong with it. I genuinely dislike this userbox because its beliefs conflict with mine, but at the same time, that's not a reason to delete things. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit-history of the template is interesting: check it. Supporting someone who nearly pulled off an unprecedented coup is obviously divisive. And it is not really a stretch to argue that admiring someone whose comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and as misogynistic goes against the UCC etc.

That being said, what is your opinion on this nomination? In my opinion, since the criterion for deletion is "substantially divisive", both need to meet with the same fate: deletion. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the stalinist nomination was per WP:NONAZIS, which I happened to oppose because Stalinism goes beyond his genocidal actions. As for the "substantially divisive" argument, I would argue any userbox about post-1980s politics should be deleted, since it is very much a divisive topic. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support that, as long as it carves out an exemption for issues like anti-terrorism and human rights. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serves no useful purpose. That wording is really ironic: "This user admires Donald Trump and thinks that world nations should not be run by neo-Nazi sympathizers" is a schizophrenic statement. If I didn't know the creator's own admiration for Trump, I would have thought it was sarcasm as Trump is a well-known anti-semite and "neo-Nazi sympathizer" who kept Hitler's speeches on his bedside table. -- Valjean (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needlessly divisive. The point isn whether it’s “fair” or “reasonable” or ironic or schizophrenic or whatever, just that it’s meant to start flamewars or would likely start flamewars. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inflammatory and stupid. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The purity of this comment is commendable. Dronebogus (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that nominator is an admitted socialist (see User:TrangaBellam userbox supporting the Labour Party of the Netherlands), indicating the potential for a WP:COI in this matter. MarshallKe (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not sure that is what CoI means… Dronebogus (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that users openly engaged in political WP:ADVOCACY have no business suppressing the political advocacy of users who advocate for beliefs opposing theirs. While a WP:WIKILAWYER-like narrow interpretation of WP:COI might suggest this guideline is not relevant, an in-spirit interpretation does. MarshallKe (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those things where the rules and the practice end up blurring into incoherent grey mush, so I’m relying on precedent: you can generally have political userboxes if they Just state you support or oppose something without using inflammatory language, and this one uses Godwin’s law in a manner users are clearly finding obnoxious and bad-faith. I think those arguments are much stronger than tu quoque, ad hominem, WP:OTHERSTUFF and whataboutism Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a COI, you're just calling TrangaBellam a hypocrite. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it attacks a living person with a pretty bad comparison and I don't like userboxes that do that. I am ok with pro-Trump userboxes in general though. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of the Trump angle but because of the implied attack on a living person. This is not what userboxen are for. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2022 (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.