Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Maoist

 __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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Maoist

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Per present established in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gnosandes/userboxes/Stalinist, endorsing the political philosophies of ruthless authoritarians who slaughtered thousands if not millions in the name of said philosophy is incompatible with the spirit of WP:NONAZIS and Wikimedia in general. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maoism has reasonable supporters.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete - Although Maoism has reasonable supporters, Maoism is even more divisive to Wikipedia than Nazism.
 * The largest AFD discussion ever conducted in Wikipedia was completed about a month ago, of Mass killings under communist regimes, and two of the three usually cited examples of mass killings by communists were the Great Chinese Famine and the Cambodian genocide, both of which are attributed to Maoists (Mao Zedong himself and Pol Pot). I am not taking a position at this time on whether those links are correct.  However, the controversy in Wikipedia was the result largely of the brigading of a very large number of new editors whose interest in Wikipedia was to ensure that it documented that there have been atrocities committed by communists.  So:  Maoism, and an argument about Maoism, caused great division within Wikipedia.
 * We don't need user boxes that will restart previous battles in Wikipedia.
 * Imagine invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND to justify continued userbox warring. WP:BATTLEGROUND opposes a delete vote, and it's discouraging that the Wikipedia community continues to fold under the pressure of obvious feigned outrage. It's time to grow up and realize that a mature, reasonable person doesn't care about a Maoist userbox. Nobody wants to say this, but a Wikipedia editor must not be this thin skinned. It's time to stop enabling perpetual childhood. MarshallKe (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Dronebogus wrapped the above comment in a show/hide tag claiming it was unconstructive, despite it containing more than one argument based on guidelines. 1) BATTLEGROUND supports ending the userbox wars 2) a mature, reasonable editor is not bothered by this userbox, so it doesn't fall afoul of the userbox standards and 3) Wikipedia editors need to have maturity. This one is less guideline based and more precedent based, as maturity has been a factor invoked in many discussions about banning users. Dronebogus, you done messed up by trying to hide a valid argument. Take the trout. MarshallKe (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning for "divisive" is not valid. It is not sufficient that the general topic around a userbox has been a divisive issue in Wikipedia. This reasoning would demand the deletion of an anti-Maoist userbox, as well. What else has divided Wikipedia? Deletionism versus inclusionism. Yet, nobody is going to MfD these. You should have to prove that this userbox itself will cause substantial chaos in the Wikipedia community, and an MfD discussion with four whole participants who disagree with each other doesn't count as proof. MarshallKe (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * “substantially divisive” IS actually written into userbox policy, believe it or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions Deletionism v. Inclusionism is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF, nobody cares. The Anti-Maoism thing is Whataboutism. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The editors who use the box have been pinged, so it’s as fair as we can manage. “It hasn’t offended anyone yet, and if they are offended they’re babies and need to grow up” is a bad argument. We can’t poll everyone in the damn wiki so we have an open debate. That is how it works. If you disagree with userbox policy then this is not the place to complain about it. Dronebogus (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be educated about userbox policy. I am aware of "substantially divisive". My argument is that this userbox isn't, and it quite obviously isn't substantially divisive, and no valid evidence has been provided to the contrary. WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions and is massively abused as a bludgeon to dismiss valid comparisons. Cries of whataboutism are also similarly abused in Wikipedia to bully users who have an intuitive style of thought, and to avoid addressing those users concerns. I never said we needed to poll the entire wiki, I said that those who want to delete a userbox have the burden of proof to provide valid evidence that the userbox policy has been violated. It is not valid evidence to cite the fact that the mass killings article was debated extensively, because debate is not equivalent to division. MarshallKe (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As this is a serious deletion discussion on arguably reasonable self-expression, I think that all the stakeholders, namely the editors transcluding the userbox, must be invited to the discussion. I therefore am pinging them below.
 * User:Doodlepoodle
 * User:Bolegash
 * User:Gr8opinionater
 * User:SomeDudeWithAUserName
 * User:Guto2003
 * User:Initforthelutz
 * User:Trilletrollet
 * User:Excharlie
 * User:Trilletrollet
 * User:נוביסלב ז'אליץ'
 * User:Apeiramon
 * User:Luckyfuy
 * User:Paritus34251
 * Everyone should know that this discussion is not a vote, and the above pinged transcluders are to be expected to all be pro the userbox. Nevertheless, they may have something meaningful to say, and have the right to say it, before their self-expression is censored from their userpages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The following users have been inactive for at least a year, so don’t expect any response from them:
 * user:SomeDudeWithAUserName
 * user:Doodlepoodle
 * user:Bolegash
 * user:Luckyfuy User:נוביסלב ז'אליץ' user:Excharlie and user:Apeiramon have also barely made any edits so I’m not sure we should expect a response from them either. Dronebogus (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if at least one of them could explain why they choose to label themselves with the user box. User:Apeiramon, for example, self declares/asserts that they are a communist, a Marxian interpreter of economics, a Marxian generally, and a Maoist.  There is a clear philosophical theme here, and it is not fair to insist that being a Maoist means being a supporter of bad things that happened under Mao's leadership of China. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Maoist" as I understand, generally endorse Mao's actions in China as being good for the country. C933103 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that modern Maoists support Mao’s philosophy, without explicit comment on specific actions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:POINT. Not inflammatory. Not divisive. People who are mature enough to edit Wikipedia are not going to be substantially upset by merely seeing this userbox. Get real. The Userbox Wars are about WP:POINT. MarshallKe (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MarshallKe, that isn’t how you use WP:POINT. POINT is about gaming the system to try and get what you want, or to bludgeon an existing argument elsewhere on the wiki, not nominating something for deletion based on policy. There’s nothing here going on out-of-order, and the discussion was completely civil and reasonable until you showed up making thinly veiled ad hominem attacks about other editors being thin-skinned and immature. If anyone is being “POINTy”, it’s you, since you not only posted twice in this debate to say “userbox deletion sucks” but have also already done this at the stalinbox MfD. Dronebogus (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All I see here is an editor who plays victim while bullying other editors who have differing beliefs. I am merely inclined to debate in this MfD. This isn't bludgeoning (I have seen real bludgeoning. It's bad), uncivil, or attacking, and honestly I'm feeling bullied right now. If you have concerns about my behavior, I beg you, go straight to AN/I. MarshallKe (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You posted an unnecessary comment, it’s bludgeoning. I’m angry because your “keep” arguments seem more like passive-aggressive complaining about userbox policy than anything about this particular box, which is all I wanted an opinion on. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m also unimpressed by an editor who talks about how nobody should be thin-skinned on WP but then immediately turns around and complains about being “bullied” because someone disagrees with them and criticizes their behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of your points have already been addressed by another editor during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gnosandes/userboxes/Stalinist so I’m not going to bother trying to reiterate their respones. Dronebogus (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: One of the main political parties in Nepal is the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), so there is some legitimacy to Maoism in the general political sphere, as opposed to Nazism. Additionally, some of our editors from the PRC may legitimately identify with this purview. All that said, I wouldn't complain if it was ultimately deleted, as I see where the argument to delete comes from. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid deletion policy cited in rationale. I uniformly question the motives behind it.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can cite WP:UBX “inflammatory and divisive”. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by another !voter in another MFD, "inflammatory and divisive" is highly subjective when it comes to a userbox of this sort. It is doubtful that identifying as a Maoist meets even the most liberal application of that subjective standard. WaltCip- (talk)  15:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The ideology have modern followings, including modern political parties, is not an argument that it might be better than Nazi or not. C933103 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any evidence here that someone identifying as a Maoist is tantamount to saying they support Mao's actions. Maybe that is the case. I won't claim to be an expert in that branch of politics. But it's a logical leap. If the delete !voters want this to be held as akin to supporting Nazism, they need to show that being a Maoist is the same as being a Mao apologist. Maybe they can show that, but they haven't so far, so keep unless someone can make that case. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 07:17, 21 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.