Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishImperialist (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) 23:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishImperialist

User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishImperialist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Divisive/inflammatory userboxes are banned by policy. While I might have let “this user supports the British Empire” or even “this user believes imperialism isn’t inherently wrong” pass, the implication of supporting stereotypical

European colonialism is inherently tied up in European colonialism’s roots in white supremacy and therefore is hard to construe as anything but racist (or at best European cultural supremacist/British cultural supremacist) Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete userboxes are not allowed to contain content which is "inflammatory or substantially divisive" (
    WP:UBCR). This userbox is advocating that the UK attempt to annex a large number of independent countries which have been independent for decades, it is very likely to cause offence to anyone from any of those countries. Even in the UK there is no meaningful support for this view. Hut 8.5 19:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Question I am not fully up to speed with userbox practice but how is this really any different from Template:User USSR state or User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishNationalism even? Has anything changed since this was discussed in 2018? While I think it is crazy and depressing in equal measure that someone would use this particular one, either we allow political userboxes or we do not. It also makes it easier to identify cranks. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • the “all or nothing” argument is leak because WP has a precedent of deleting extremist or downright bigoted userboxes. The last one was arguing that ALL politi-boxes should be deleted, not just partially bad ones. I’m just going to slap a delete thingy on that soviet one. The BritNash one is less blatantly offensive since the linked article just describes the political philosophy as “advocating national unity among britons” or something. Dronebogus (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless I'm reading it wrong, the last MfD was just for that one userbox not all political userboxes. This one and the USSR one are some of the lesser offensive ones I've seen (nostalgia for USSR is a widely held view in Russia). A delete could be based on the fact that the creator disowned it although it still has a place on quite a few user pages. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The USSR one isn't necessarily arguing for independent countries to be conquered and subjugated to another country, as this one is. Re-establishing the British Empire is certainly not a widely held view in the UK. Hut 8.5 12:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because the editor who created it, hasn't been around Wikipedia for six years. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sufficiently offensive for MfD deletion. To wind back on the contentious subject of political userboxes, I suggest an RfC. I suggest pre-answering the question: If that statement is allowed in prose on a userpage, why would it not be allowed formatted into a userbox? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said “I wish the GLORIOUS BRITISH EMPIRE would re-annex all its former colonies FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT” was allowed on the page in prose? Just because it’s not “I hate Jews” or whatever doesn’t mean it’s not offensive. Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know who said that. I checked, the userbox doesn't say that. I don't think your quote should be allowed. The userbox says "modern imperialist" and I am not sure what that means. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says “supports the reestablishment of the British Empire”. My quote was just me being sarcastic, nobody but me said that. Dronebogus (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I read it as ambiguous. It could be easily problematic. Does it mean imperialism by force (Eg China on Taiwan). Does it mean a pragmatic unofficial Anglosphere alliance with the law? I don't know where to draw the lines between editors' self-expression, declaration of bias, and going too far. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It's obviously a wink wink to Cecil Rhodes nonsense that can be disguised as nostalgia for pounds and ounces. I'm just not sure where editing user pages for political content starts and finishes. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah let’s not pretend like we don’t know exactly what sort of “imperialism” it’s referring to when [[1]] is the picture. Using the image of the most (in)famous British colonialist of modern history literally stepping on Africa to promote neo-imperialist annexation is tasteless as best and casually racist at worst. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I find it distasteful. A distasteful historian student joke. It's ok to call yourself interested in British imperialism and Cecil Rhodes, and childish bad taste to turn that into calling yourself an "imperialist".
          I think a WP:UP RfC on divisive ... offensive ... distasteful ... childish userboxes is the way to go. I think trying to break new ground at MfD is not better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we just ignore all rules here and skip the bureaucracy? Wikipedia doesn’t need more guidelines on this beyond “no divisive userboxes” and “no bigotry or discrimination”, and I’ve extensively explained why it falls foul of both. Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          No. Because it is not divisive. It is too stupid to be divisive. And because there would be tens of thousands of stupid userboxes, and because you are not answering the question: If that statement is allowed in prose on a userpage, why would it not be allowed formatted into a userbox? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: It's just edgy enough for
    WP:UBCR, and I agree with the nominator that it could've gotten a pass if it had different wording. Definitely not bad in the same sense as the crusader one (that one's just outright offensive), but it's enough to be construed as potentially inflammatory. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and I disagree with SmokeyJoe's assessment that an RFC should preclude any and all MFDs of this sort. There is also no obligation to notify all of the editors that use this userbox. The inclusion of this divisive userbox does more harm than good.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, User:WaltCip, I was presuming that this userbox is NOT divisive, just sort of offensive like a bad joke. If you want to argue it is divisive, that is a good reason for mfd-ing it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Pretty divisive, and thus violates
    talk) 02:35, 12 November 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishImperialist_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1055452269"