Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EReb88

 __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:  keep. WP:SNOW; clear consensus that offensive names and single offensive userboxes are not sufficient reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:EReb88

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Long-dead account that made almost no meaningful mainspace edits, with offensive username (“reb”= rebel i.e. confederate) and userbox (which is hand-coded into the page so there’s no template to delete). Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Being inactive is not a reason for deletion of userpages.
 * If the username is offensive, see WP:BADNAME, MfD is not for discussing bad usernames. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. The account was basically never used for editing, just as a "storage area" for neo-Confederate sentiment, which is obvious just by looking at its name. The hand-coded userbox is a particular reason for deletion. —Sundostund (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is hand coding a reason for deletion? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the userbox isn't formatted as a template. With hand-coding in place, there is no other way to delete it. But still, the offensive name is also a reason for deletion. —Sundostund (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What’s offensive about the name? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As the nominator mentioned, the name is offensive because it suggests rebel, i.e. Confederate (“reb”). Its clearly an allusion to Johnny Reb. —Sundostund (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone should write an essay explaining where the line of acceptability is. Neo-Confederates are not actually illegal, unlike neonazis, are they? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully agree on the essay – we need a work on the line of No Nazis and No racists, when it comes to Neo-Confederates. Their groups maybe are not illegal, but they certainly fall under the racist/hate category, and are listed as such by the SPLC. I really think that such views shouldn't be tolerated here, and I am sure that most users share that opinion. —Sundostund (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nazism isn’t illegal in America either. But we still de facto ban it on Wikimedia. Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the correct wording is: "Wikipedia does not want to associate with people that hold these views". Its like any company as it looks bad for Wikipedia to have userboxes in support of taboo subjects. How far does this go though, and who defines where the line is drawn? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully support that wording. —Sundostund (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If this username really is offensive then why wasn't it brought up at WP:UAA? You are saying that this name was overlooked for almost 6 years? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per my comment above. I'm sorry but this is a stretch to make, and sets a bad precedent for other names with "Reb" in them. Reb stands for Rebel? How do you know its confederate other than that one userbox? Are we going to delete other names that have "Reb" in them possibly meaning "free spirit"? I would bring this up at WP:UAA which is the appropriate venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having in mind the userbox with the Confederate flag, I think its more than clear what "Reb" stands for in this case. I wish that its meaning is "free spirit", but that's simply not the case... And yes – IMHO, all other names with "Reb" in them should be "afraid for their very existence", if they combine that name with pro-Confederate material on their userpage. As I said above, I fully support the idea to have that formatted as a essay, or even better as a policy. —Sundostund (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Ok I'll concede that this one is just muck-racking. Just remove the one userbox and that's that. The account hasn't edited in 6 years. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. "If this username really is offensive then why wasn't it brought up at WP:UAA?" Precisely. Deleting entire userpages because we merely disagree with username choice, implied by userbox choice, is disturbingly close to censorship (and may well be seen by outside opiners as censorship), and the community has not gotten there yet. Further, I'm opposed to rewriting Wikipedia history, eliminating attribution by selective deletion of userpages. I agree "...this is a stretch to make, and sets a bad precedent for other names..." If Wikipedia has allowed users to say offensive things in the past, we owe it to the entire community to discuss or "...write an essay explaining where the line of acceptability is." I'm ok with eliminating infoboxes or even sections of userpage text if necessary where brightlines are crossed. But deleting entire userpages (and therefore attribution history) is over the line. This sort of userpage deletion discussion deserves a more central discussion venue. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: MfDs shouldn't have to deal with username violations. Remove the offensive userbox from the userpage and move on. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:33, 3 October 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.