Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  11:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Seems to be an opaque reference to the Obama administration complete with derogatory WP:EGG link; besides being ludicrously outdated also counts as fairly obvious trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Obvious derogatory, with a hardly understandable clam that an administration elected twice in open, fair and highly contested elections held its country as a hostage. This could be useful almost exclusively to alt-right supporters, and that says a lot. —Sundostund (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It has been updated, and the only reason it would be deleted is because the nominator was being childish.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace 13:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this box is childish. Biden/Obama won the election fairly, they’re holding nobody hostage. Dronebogus (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is clearly a reference to the long debunked conspiracy that Trump won the 2020 US Presidential election and possibly violates WP:ARBAP2. Wikipedia is not the place for touting conspiracy theories, and I would nominate the userbox for WP:G10 if I were certain that it qualified. Those decisions shall be left to an administrator. I note that Bedford took the time to reset the clock on the userbox to January 6, 2021, but left the WP:EGG pointing to the 2008 election. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This could also be viewed as Bedford preaching upon a WP:SOAPBOX. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - disruptive to the community, not a soapbox or a web host. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a humorous commentary on this users beliefs. The userbox concept is supposed to be a way for users to express their social, cultural, and political beliefs to other users. It's also supposed to be a little fun. This user box is not substantially offensive, and deletion of user boxes should be reserved for the overtly offensive stuff (racism, sexism, etc.).  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s delegitimization of a fairly elected president, which is borderline WP:NONAZIS (overriding democracy because the “wrong” guy won) and disinfo promotion. Dronebogus (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This was created in 2008, well over a decade before the 2020 election fraud allegations. This user box is a for criticism of Democrats in the White House. Criticizing either of the major parties in the US should be allowed in a userbox. It's a loose connection at best to the 2020 election. This has nothing to do with NONAZI.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was also by the creator about four hours after this MfD was opened, to change the date from Obama's first election to that of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. I agree completely with, in its current form this userbox isn't for for criticism of Democrats in the White House, it's implicit support for the 2021 Capitol attack. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This userbox is substantially divisive and aggressively political. Per WP:UBCR, this hyper-accusatory political stance is unwarranted and inflammatory. After nomination it was updated to now refer to the current Democrat POTUS, rather than the last Democrat POTUS, suggesting that this is just a blanket antagonism against Democrats rather than any specific grievance or reference to a specific event. Either way, it has no place and serves no purpose on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aoidh Andre🚐 02:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as I don't believe President Joe Biden's tenure has been effected by it. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but we’re talking about userbox rules not what he thinks about it. Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's harmless. As long as the editor isn't going around attempting to promote his PoV on pages? then there's nothing to worry about. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a reach to push this under the NONAZIs umbrella, but regardless, completely inflammatory. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not appropriate content. Gusfriend (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, divisive and inflammatory. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, Obama is no longer president which makes the start clock of the reference point redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – divisive, inflammatory, and just generally unnecessary whatsoever. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This feels very vindictive towards a user whom people have expressed a disagreement politically. It's literally not a widespread thing. A few points:
 * "It's divisive": no more than support for any political position. If we're going to take that route, we're gonna need to dedicate a decade to cleanup and discussions.
 * "NO NAZIS!!!" I see literally nothing to support Nazism/racism in any form or function
 * "Nothere" This user has VERY few contributions in the past year. I see no evidence that this occasional editor is THAT bad of a problem.
 * Do we need this? No. Is it more divisive/hostile/etc than any number of other things? also, no. Let it be. Anything less merely points to a leftist bias in Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve been using Wikipedia since Google search began indexing after it first went live. I later became an editor 18 years ago. In all that time, I have never seen a single instance of "leftist bias".  It’s right up there with god, goblins, jinn, Satan, fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is just frequently biased against conservatives because they believe things that are factually wrong (i.e. creationism, antivax, climate denialism, conspiracy theories). It’s biased against other groups in the same way, but conservatives are the most vocal Dronebogus (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. jp×g 09:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that means what you think it means Dronebogus (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, I am not sure what this userbox has to do with creationism, vaccines, climate change, et cetera (it seems to only mention the 2008 United States presidential election). jp×g 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for being extremely divisive, and also not at all reflecting any semblance of reality. It appears that the userbox dates back to the election of Obama, so this not actually peddling voter fraud claims, but it's still worthless. Get rid of it. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the hostage thing is weird but from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage, it seems it originates from something Clinton's presidency. The fact it originated from the Obama presidency also provides the clue that this mostly likely isn't intended as a reference to the false claims of a stolen election but instead is a general dislike of both presidencys. If it was the former, it would be enough for me to delete but for the latter, as a general sentiment and especially given some history of the term, I'm willing to let it stand. I've generally been reluctant to comment on these ubx deletions since often I've been unhappy with the userboxes but not completely convinced they should be deleted especially since I wasn't convinced a similar thing would be disallowed if it was a sentiment most editors didn't find so distasteful. And while I don't think we should aim for completely neutrality on what sentiments we allow, I definitely do not think we should prevent an editor expressing strong dislike for some US president or presidency and despite the wording that seems to be the ultimate intention here. By the same token, I would oppose deletion of a userbox, or action against a US editor who says or said Trump was "not their president". (Nowadays it's literally true so the issue is moot.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I missed the date issue I thought they just changed it to the date Biden was inaugurated or of the election day in November. While technically the 2021 United States Electoral College vote count was when Biden was truly elected under the US system, the fact inauguration was the date chosen for Obama but 6 January for Biden, strongly suggests this now intended as a comment on unfounded claims of election fraud. Even more so since the process was only completed on 7 January. In that case, deletion is the best option, it's one thing to strong dislike some president, it's another to make bogus claims. Doing so is too disruptive especially in light of the real world violence that resulted from such claims. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per . That the box was updated by the creator about four hours after this MfD was opened, to change the date from Obama's first election to that of the 2021 United States Capitol attack seems even more inflammatory than the previous reference to the 2008 election. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * exactly. Complaining about the invalidity of Obama was petty, complaining about the invalidity of the 2020 election is atrocious. Dronebogus (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I favor deleting this userbox as needlessly divisive; the creator's "updating" it seals the deal. But as a pragmatist I ask: Is the disruption caused by nominating this userbox more, or less, extensive than the total disruption or offense caused by its two transclusions, both on the pages of long-inactive users? There are more pressing things to argue about.... Ovinus (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as apparently a deliberate attempt to promote insurrection. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm so sick of these userbox MfDs. Are we just at the point where there's so little encyclopedia-writing that we need to come back every couple years and revisit which political figures are acceptable for people to endorse on their userpages? This is pointless. Can we just delete them all? I'm talking, like, no Donald Trump userbox, no Barack Obama userbox, no Joe Biden userbox. To hell with all of this dumbness. What a gigantic waste of time! jp×g 09:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to complain about that, you’re disrupting this discussion to make a WP:POINT Dronebogus (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that what I'm saying here is fairly clear: it is not clear to me that unused userboxes with political content pose such a threat to public morals that they must be actively policed this aggressively. If they do, then it is a waste of time to have individual MfDs for each one, and there instead urgently needs to be an RfC for removing political userboxes altogether, because their existence poses a dire threat to the stability of the project. If it is not, then there is no reason to be combing through inactive editors' userspace at all. In either case, I don't think there is a good reason to create a MfD for a fourteen-year-old userbox, with a single userpage transclusion, from a user who's made twenty edits since 2015, if there is no actual argument that the content of the userbox is unduly offensive ipso facto (i.e. profanity, racial slurs, etc). jp×g 11:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ovinus (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is entirely off-topic. The actual discussion seems pretty settled as “delete” and should be closed. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment again; I am directly recommending a specific course of action be taken with respect to this deletion nomination. jp×g 08:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: The userbox originally supported a conspiracy theory. Bedford's update has changed it to demonstrate support for the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Neither of these things are acceptable in a userbox. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.