Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ritchie333/Userbox Boris

 __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:  speedy delete. WP:G7, WP:IAR. No point having an argument about this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333/Userbox Boris

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

WP:G10, attack page on living subject that goes beyond reasonable criticism into deliberately inflammatory insult territory, and generally poor form from an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we are going to continue to permit political userboxes (I'd rather we didn't), the expression of a strong opinion that stops short of saying "X is a Y", as this one does, prefacing it with "This user thinks ..." should be permitted. I expect Ritchie333 to refrain from editing articles about the person in question; but I expect that of any editor who has such a strong opinion on a topic, positive or negative, admin or not. We do not forbid editors from holding strong opinions; we require editors to avoid topics on which they have such strong preferences that they cannot be neutral, and I regard this userbox as amounting to declaring such an insurmountable conflict. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But this one doesn’t stop short, it literally says “X (BoJo) is a Y (nincompoop)”. I don’t give a crap about people’s opinions on this (and agree with the general sentiment) but name-calling in userboxes is childish behavior that runs foul of WP:BLPTALK. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seriously? wikt:nincompoop: "(derogatory) A foolish or silly person." This archaic little epithet is something one might expect the Honourable Member for the 18th century to come out with. When I think of Johnson, a lot of other words, many of them four-letter ones, spring to mind. Not least is liar. I note that the hyperlink Ritchie uses in his pipe for "complete nincompoop" is a WP:RS that might readily be used in the article for Johnson. As per Yngvadottir, impartiality should be demonstrated (and checked if necessary) by which articles Ritchie choses not to edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. I must remember to add a link, on my user page, to the wholly impartial article for that jolly ditty "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt."
 * Your argument seems to be, if I am not mistaken, “I like it because Johnson sucks, nincompoop is a silly insult, there’s a Guardian link and also screw you JRM too lololol.” None of those are reasons I nominated this. I nominated it because it exists purely to insult a living person, and it is clearly an insult (albeit a very mild and informed one) and not an intelligently phrased criticism. Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't recall putting any of those words, including "screw you JRM too lololol." But yes, it's a "very mild and informed" insult. I think it's iNews not The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete pace, but I think BLPTALK is the primary argument—and our primary responsibility—here. If we lose this box, we still wouldn't have to get rid of other political userboxes; I see a great deal of difference in saying This user identifies as a communist/Nazi/shunter and wheeltapper and saying This user thinks BLP is a nincompoop/asshole/mofo. It comes down to whether the claim is playing the man or the ball; BLP is based around the former and literally prevents us by policy from doing the latter. But this is what the box is doing: ad hom.Incidentally, I consider this a different case to that of Ritchie's Trump userbox—also under discussion—as while that makes robust claims, they are specifically based on Trump's policies rather than merely insults.Yngvaddottir, re. I expect Ritchie333 to refrain from editing articles about the person in question; possibly. But this (Boris Johnson) and this (Partygate), are from January. Hopefully deeper digging—for which I lack the time or energy—wouldn't bring raise more examples.  SN54129  13:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors who dislike people get to edit their articles. But I think the much greater danger is the editing of those articles by editors who are big supporters, but who make no declaration of that fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 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.