Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem (2nd nomination)

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 23:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem

User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Delete transphobic dogwhistle. Dronebogus (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It’s ok to declare that you are cognitively compromised, but it is not ok to vent that nonsense SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  SmokeyJoe, just out of curiosity, what convinced you to change your vote from the previous MfD? I assumed that any repeat voters would vote the same way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that you see the two Userboxes as similar proves that you take a superficial view as to what is really going on. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm referring to this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you were referring to User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist, and with your cookie-cutter nominations, I thought you were considering them identical. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, thanks for the question. I disagree with your characterisation of “convinced”. I form a judgement, and cast a !voting statement, and perhaps I lean to making a clear strong statement that appears to overstate my conviction. I actually consider these Userboxes recently listed at MfD as scattered over a poorly defined grey zone.

  What’s changed since 2020 is this time the words “transphobic dogwhistle”. Societal norms are changing, and Wikipedia standards are changing, appropriately in response to societal norms (I oppose Wikipedia being used to lead social change, except through education). I disagree that this userbox is “particularly inflammatory”, but I do agree now that this userbox brings Wikipedia into disrepute to validate it by use deciding again to “keep” it. If a user wants to explain their position (their POV) more articulately, I would support that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply. It looks like we have similar thoughts regarding societal norms and social change on Wikipedia, we just have different approaches on how to respond to it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I disagree with this being a 'dog whistle", it should go because Radical feminism is divisive in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi everyone, please explain this to me, I'm concerned that I might just be unclear about the exact meaning here. I would like to say that I am not in any way transphobic, and if there is no interpretation of this userbox other than that, then I will delete it immediately. I wanted to display it as it is the only userbox available that is tagged to Radical Feminism, something which is not exclusive to Trans issues (and tbh, I wouldn't have considered trans issues central to radical feminism - that said, the inclusion of the words biological sex did always strike me as odd). Rad Feminism involves beliefs like being opposed to legalizing sex work, as it looks beyond choice feminism and considers the negative impact (subjective) that such legalization often brings women. Also, having a quick look at the wiki page for Rad Feminism, it's clear that there are trans-supportive rad fems. How is this a dogwhistle? For me, I like having an infobox about feminism that sets my beliefs apart from middle class white feminism, which often promotes choice feminism without considering the impact of patriarchy on choice. Anyway, just my two cents. All replies greatly appreciated. Xx78900 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's divisive, probably a dog whistle, and because it's divisive it could be interpreted by some that the user might not make neutral edits to articles on similar or related topics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 10 November 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.