Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gnosandes/userboxes/Stalinist

 __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. There is consensus that this userbox qualifies as "substantially divisive" and therefore must be deleted per WP:UBCR.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 20:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Gnosandes/userboxes/Stalinist

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Per the spirit of WP:NONAZIS, promoting a genocidal dictator that killed millions and suppressed civil liberties is incompatible with this encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Delete per nom, and block the account. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not about the academic classification of Stalin, it’s about the intent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an academic project.
 * How do you know the intent of the creator? If they are adding NPOV violations on articles about Stalin/Communism etc., proper sanctions can be proposed and imposed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why exactly should the user be blocked? Userbox deletion seems good enough if the userbox goes past the line set by WP:NONAZIS, unless the editor has some behavioral problems as well. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  16:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. How did this not get caught earlier? And should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Maoist be deleted as well, since Mao wasn’t exactly a saint either to say the least? Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Whether Stalin was a genocidal dictator remains disputed. For example, the book cover of Stalin's Genocides (2011) state: This difference in opinion among leading scholars is not the case with Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge etc. Wikipedia is governed by reliable sources and until a majority of sources agree upon a figure being irredeemably evil, we have to hold our horses irrespective of political inclinations. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Umm… then what do you call this? Under-recognition doesn’t mean “not genocide”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * European Parliament or Ukraine or Yeltsin are not authorities on categorizing an event as a genocide. There is good reason why our article starts with, was the genocide forced transfer by the Soviet government of various groups from 1930 up to 1952 ordered by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * is interesting, as is . TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am striking my keep-vote, since WP:UBCR prohibits substantially divisive user-boxes. That being said, politics is divisive esp. in an increasingly polarized world: do we nuke all political user boxes? So, not switching to delete either. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems the best link to be contained within the template would be stalinism, as opposed to the man. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Particularly in response to the bizarre Stalin apologism above.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please propose to describe Stalin as a genocidal dictator in our article-lead and then, we will evaluate the "bizarreness". Fwiw, I do support Naimark's reading. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do that, when the Holodomor article exists. WaltCip- (talk)  14:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe read the lead? I do not intend to absolve Stalin of his criminality/guilt in the chain of events but going by such standards, we need to prohibit all political user-boxes. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * False equivalence. The issue at hand is not whether or not this qualifies as genocide by the strict definition of the term. I personally do not care. The issue is the appearance of supporting a dictator who willfully wrought destruction upon his own people and those that the Soviet Union subjugated, to consolidate his own power and achieve his Five-Year Plans. At best, it's ignorance. At worst, it's an attitude incompatible with this project. WaltCip- (talk)  14:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, whether Stalin willfully wrought destruction is debated. Where does our standards terminate: Dictator, autocrats, authoritarian figures? I believe academic consensus is the best way to resolve such debates: be it for the right (Nazis) or left (Khmer Rouge).
 * That being said, I like your principled stance. Will you !vote to delete user-boxes admiring Lyndon B. Johnson, who provided active support to mass-killings on a foreign soil? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to nominate such userboxes if you find them. We're talking about the merits of this one. WaltCip- (talk)  14:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Userbox War rears its ugly, time-wasting, petty, tit-for-tat head once again. Keep because although I believe that political and religious userboxes do not belong on Wikipedia, deleting hundreds of individual userboxes in userspace is a giant waste of time and the wrong way to go about it. Also, this userbox is not substantially divisive, inflammatory, polemic, whatever, except for those people who need to deal with the fact that not everybody shares their own beliefs about what is going on in the world. Chill. MarshallKe (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The userbox simply states that the user is a Stalinist, and that could mean a whole host of things. Unlike Hitler (whose userbox would probably be broken in per WP:NONAZIS), Stalin is known for a wider range of things. While still a dictator, he is also known for leading his country through WWII and making it much more powerful, strengthening it both industrially and militarily, and more. A Stalinist could be someone who approves of Stalin's methods outside of his genocidal actions. And yes, a Hitlerist would be deleted, but those who agree with hitler's policies outside of his genocidal rampages generally call themselves Nationalists (who have a userbox at Template:User Nationalist), Fascists, or Socialists (And yes, Hitler was a socialist, at least towards white people). Meanwhile, Stalinists see fit to call themselves Stalinists even if they disagree with Stalin on some policy. The userbox also doesn't prop up Stalin himself. Overall, I see it silly to delete this userbox per WP:NONAZIS when there are many meanings and use cases which DON'T promote genocidal actions. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hitler did literally all of those things as well. He led his country through (almost all of) WWII, he made it much more powerful, and he strengthened it both industrially and militarily. He then went on to commit genocide and when people talk about how great Hitler & his policies are they're not referring to his excellent job at building a tank corps they're referring to the genocide/fascism. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read my reason? That is my main point. While it would be inappropriate to call onesself a "hitlerist" due to the association he has with genocide, calling onesself a "Stalinist" is not necessarily an endorsement of his genocidal ideas, as much as it is endorsement of other ideas he had. For many, the holodomor is not the first thing that comes to mind when Stalin is brought up (as opposed to Hitler, who always has the holocaust closely following his mention). In short, calling onesself a Stalinist does not equate to approving of genocidal policies, due to the fact that the genocide was not what Stalin was most famous for. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  13:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete while admiration for Stalin is quite widespread in ex-Soviet countries, WP:UBCR forbids userboxes which are "inflammatory or substantially divisive", and this undoubtedly qualifies.  Hut 8.5  18:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Inflammatory or substantially divisive" is abused in userbox discussion when somebody is attempting to remove speech they simply don't like, when no inflammation or division has actually occurred. I think editors have the responsibility to prove that substantial inflammation or division has actually occurred due to a userbox. There is a distinction between personally not liking something and being upset about seeing something, and actual real-life inflammation or division. The latter is an occurrence in Wikispace, provable by diffs, and the former is something we can make up in the mind of a theoretical person and use to manipulate outcomes however we want to. MarshallKe (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If something inflammatory or divisive is posted on a userpage nobody reads, that doesn't change the fact that it is inflammatory or divisive. This userbox is expressing admiration for a man widely held to be responsible for tens of millions of deaths - more than almost anybody else in history. This is not an appropriate use of a userbox and it clearly has large potential to inflame people or to cause division. Also please stop guessing at the motivations of people who disagree with you. If I support deleting something because it's inflammatory or divisive that's because I think it's inflammatory or divisive, and not just because I don't like it.  Hut 8.5  17:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * my main point is that you have not proven that it's inflammatory or divisive. We can't have policy based on stuff people can just make up. This is Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you're saying that I haven't established it to your chosen proof standard, which I don't think is reasonable. You can establish that something is inflammatory or divisive without using diffs, as those are properties of what's being said. Again this userbox is expressing support for a man responsible for very large numbers of deaths, which most people will (understandably) have a strongly negative reaction to. This gets in the way of the collaborative editing environment we hope to foster here and which is good for the project. Userpages can host limited content not related to the project but it isn't appropriate to use a userpage as a platform for expressing extremist political views.  Hut 8.5  12:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My proof standard is for you to provide any proof at all. Do you know what the word "proof" means? We get that you're mad about it. What we need is proof that a large portion of Wikipedia is mad about it. It's not all about you. MarshallKe (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You want me to prove that the average Wikipedian strongly dislikes Stalin? I thought that was obvious, but if you insist: "For most Westerners and anti-communist Russians, he is viewed overwhelmingly negatively as a mass murderer" (Joseph Stalin). Most Wikipedians are drawn from the Western world.  Hut 8.5  17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Stalin is disliked (or even hated) by the average person is neither here nor there. We have standards that must be met before we delete this userbox. MarshallKe (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This MfD is actually a pretty good way of gauging this. If people think this is offensive they will !vote "Delete". If they don't, like yourself, then people will !vote "Keep". Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually not. Most people who don't care won't say anything. Those who like to feign outrage in order to have a tiny sense of power over others, those with a toxically externalized locus of control, and those who cast themselves as the moral vanguard party of humanity (ironic, considering that Stalin believed himself to be a part of the vanguard) will flock to these kinds of discussions. MarshallKe (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see a lot of people who supposedly don't care saying something, actually. But whatever. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 08:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That basically calls into question the entire need or efficacy for WP:MFD as a venue for which to decide these things. If you are so rabidly convinced that MFDs in the case of these discussion is either non-representative of the community or does not reflect the community's opinion outright, then you ought to create an WP:RFC for it. Otherwise, local consensus is really the only way in which we realistically come to a decision, rather than moving the goalposts or special pleading. WaltCip- (talk)  14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep If we're so very concerned with all of STRIFE and DISCORD this userbox is clearly causing, just change the link to stalinism, as above. A continued POINTy exercise that gets picked up every couple months. Boring. Parabolist (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Stalin is or at least should be viewed with the same historical horror as his enemy, Hitler. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 8 February 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.