Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Kafir Lives Matter

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Kafir Lives Matter

These userboxes were created by a banned user as part of a pattern of offensive trolling. There are several other user boxes that fall into the same category. Some are already up for deletion separately but I thought I would nominate the rest of the bad ones. Some are more offensive than others but none are widely used and they can all be deleted without causing anybody any significant disadvantage.

Individual rationales:

Template:User Kafir Lives Matter: Islamophobic trolling
Template:User Euroscepticism: Eurosceptic trolling. (Would be legitimate without the hammer and sickle.)
User:Broter/Wall supporter, User:Broter/Americanism instead of Globalism: Pointlessly trying to trigger the libs

DanielRigal (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eurosceptic (blatant red scare fearmongering), Weak delete for wall supporter (legitimate alternatives exist), globalism (possibly antisemitic conspiracy mongering even if it’s superficially innocuous) neutral on Kafir (not as virulently anti-Islam as others, could just be seen as solidarity with non-muslims in muslim-majority nations), ~~Americanism (not super inflammatory even if I personally think it’s BS)~~. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that "globalism"/"globalists" is sometimes (obviously, not always) used as an antisemitic dog whistle. Given this user's other contributions, I would not rule that out here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wall supporter: Not particularly divisive, not offensive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template:User Kafir Lives Matter. I don’t see the problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Template:User Euroscepticism. Entirely reasonable.~~ —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:User Euroscepticism, due to the flag, at best, a valid meaning is unclear and it is unexplained, not suitable for others to pick up. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Broter/Americanism instead of Globalism. Practically benign position. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the user was banned, use WP:G5. If deletion was warranted as part of the banning, please explain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I realize that you had four separate rationales for each item being voted for, but your formatting makes it appear as though you are voting four times. It seems to me that a single line with "Keep all" would suffice. WaltCip-(talk) 13:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I almost voted in different ways, but when working on wordings for each !vote in sequence, they all swung to “keep”. The rationales for each are different, and the nominations should not have been grouped. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that grouping them is kind of a WP:TRAINWRECK. TBH maybe withdraw this nomination and nominate each individually? Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are all nominated under a single coherent rationale, namely that the banned user who made them was obviously trolling. To this I will add that they were clearly made in intentional bad faith and that they serve no legitimate purpose to the encyclopaedia. Look at the "Euroscepticism" one. The completely unnecessary inclusion of the hammer and sickle was clearly a deliberate attempt inflame drama, to get pro and anti EU people fighting and possibly to get different sorts of anti-EU people to fight with each-other. There is no possible good faith interpretation. This guy got site banned (not blocked, banned and even had his IP address range soft-blocked) because he was using Wikipedia in dishonest ways to cause trouble. Other boxes are available for people who want to express genuine euroscpeticism or whatever else. In fact, there are a great many user boxes that I see and I roll my eyes at but I don't nominate those for deletion. These ones are qualitatively different. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they were almost certainly made in bad faith, but not all of them appear that way. And different people might assess each one differently, as I did. Dronebogus (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kafir Lives Matter (which definitely appears Islamophobic) and User Euroscepticism (which would be fine if it didn't equate the EU to communism). Both violate WP:UBCR. The other two are statements of political opinions which are fairly common in the United States and I'm more hesitant to delete them. Hut 8.5 18:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kafir? It appears to me to be closer to anti-theocracy-authoritarianism, leaning human rights. Is it big in Indonesia? I initially leaned “delete” but couldn’t justify it.

Neither the Euroscepticism template or Euroscepticism article mention communism. Am I missing something? SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. There is nothing to justify the hammer and sickle being used in that userbox. It is only there to troll people and cause trouble. Similarly, the choice to use the specific word "kafir", instead of any number of less loaded choices ("atheist", "unbeliever", "secular", whatever), is clearly done in the hope of stirring up animosity in the direction of Muslims. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)--DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. That includes: Don’t bring their trolling to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dubious application of that argument, considering this particular troll is long gone and we’re trying to prevent further trolling. There’s a difference between starving disruptive people of attention and lazily looking the other way. Dronebogus (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is a self-contradiction. If the troll is gone the troll is gone. A bureaucratic high profile reaction at MfD is a food offering to future trolls, this MfD is the sort of thing they want. If someone is sure this was trolling, don’t escalate to a community discussion, but quietly blank it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST: Per Wikipedia:Userboxes, Wikipedia is not the place to tout your view, particularly if it is (quote verbatim):
- Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)
- Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics
- Self-promotion or advertising
All these userboxes fall under the first or second point. It does not matter whether we like it or not or whether it is trolling or not, but whether the userboxes meet the guidelines. Aasim (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox is not an opinion piece. WP:Userboxes not not speak to this, not nearly clearly enough. If you want userboxes to exclude opinion slogans on current affairs or politics, I suggest to try editing WP:Userboxes and see who disagrees. One line of opposition is “if the statement is allowed on a Userpage, why should it be not allowed formatted in a userbox?” In the meantime, WP:Userboxes does not preclude politics in Userboxes.
On NOTWEBHOST, you need to weigh the non-project content against the user’s project contributions. While the user was a problem even before losing his way, he did make quality contributions, and these Userboxes can be seen to serve as decorations of personal bias. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need userboxes belonging to an editor who has been banned from Wikipedia. Catfurball (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things in userspace that are not needed. Not needed is not a reason for deletion in userspace. Banned users are not disappeared. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Deleting divisive userboxes is not "disappearing" a user. A record will still exist of the deletion and the discussion that led to it. The posterity argument falls apart based on that.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as extensions of a sitebanned user's extreme POV pushing. Definitely delete the Euroscepticism one for the flag (I don't know why we have to even host that on Commons) and the globalism one for the far-right meaning of that term. You could make a case for the wall and kafir ones, but, really, why? If someone wants to recreate one of those in good faith, I have no issue, but they're really productive, either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:36, 8 December 2021 (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.