Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Hammering Hammer

 __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:  no consensus.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:The Hammering Hammer

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This user page is full of violations of WP:POLEMIC. The user has been notified about this, and simply ignores the warning or adds more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. Would be U5 if user had fewer edits. Uhai (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about this one. It may be close to being inappropriate but we do allow a lot of individual efforts in user pages, so I an inclined to Keep. --Bduke (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The page is not only in violation of WP:POLEMIC:
 * "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia"
 * but also of WP:USERBIO:
 * "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia."
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Is within reasonable leeway. It introduces the user, and it is relevant to the user’s choice of articles that they edit.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this time. It isn't obvious to me whether this exceeds the usual tolerance for user and draft space.  May change this after seeing what other editors write.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Divisive political content on userpages is unacceptable. I'd argue that any content stating your political beliefs borders on violating WP:UPNOT and WP:SOAPBOX, but criticizing another ideology (regardless of what it is) is a clear red line. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a divisive and inflammatory violation of WP:POLEMIC, WP:UPNOT and several other policies and guidelines, as noted above. Not to mention that the user ignores the warning, and even adds more of the similar content. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 06:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I'm really not a fan of the "rules for thee but not for me" standard that applies in userspace when it comes to whether or not to allow political opinions/views. We've allowed users like JRSpriggs to openly voice political views on their userpage, although admittedly they do so in a more subtle or nuanced fashion and they are a more established contributor. Reading through their Talk Page as well, it definitely seems as though THH has been immediately put right on the war path with other editors, which I guess is not all that surprising since they started out by making poor edits in political topics. I really see this ending no other way than with the userspace being deleted and the user eventually being blocked, but this whole exercise is rather saddening. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that MfD at the time, but if it were nominated for a third time, I would opt to delete. Polemic content in userspace is detrimental to user retention and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. The issue, as I've said in the past, is a lack of enforcement, including double standards such as this. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Thebiguglyalien here, and I don't think that just because that userpage survived deletion, that this one should also, that sounds too much like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to keep one offending item because another offending item exists. The problem is that JRSpriggs not only survived MfD twice, but with a clear "keep" consensus both times. I'm not saying we should keep one because the other exists. I'm saying that there is a double standard that applies to contributors based on how productive they are, and I also think we're kidding ourselves if we don't think there's a bias in favor of some political beliefs/viewpoints and in disfavor of others.
 * If you want to go nominate it again, go ahead, but you're going to get the same outcome as the last time. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it a bit surprising that has chosen not to respond as of yet, considering it is their userpage in question and they've made some edits since the nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I personally find many of the opinions contained therein to be (at best) naive....but well within leeway for userpages (per SmokeyJoe). With regards to claimed violation of WP:POLEMIC, I see merely (somewhat voluminous) listing of own beliefs, no polemicizing against those holding other beliefs. With regards to WP:USERBIO, I see absolutely no personal information at all (information about personal beliefs is not the same as personal information about the individual!) Martinp (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nuke with Tsar Bomba per WP:HID. Just look here. Last time I checked, "states' rights" was a dog whistle. Also, "Opposing affirmative action" speaks for itself (it basically means "fuck minorities"). I don't think that's within "leeway". USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 14:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Striking as based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ABF. USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 04:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I would be supportive of deleting a page whose only (or primary) purpose is disruptive (including hate/dog whistle), and (as a non-US person) might not recognize it if coded enough, I think we have to be super careful to not deem content hateful/offensive just because a bunch of us (probably most of us) disagree with it. As to your specific points: 1) At the "here" you point to, I see a list of beliefs I disagee with. Full stop. As to states' rights, I learn from the Wikipedia article that it is sometimes a dog whistle. Other times, perhaps not. And there are many people who support helping minorities get treated fairly but disagree with the implementation of affirmative action. Bottom line: I am in support of removing blatantly disruptive and hateful content, I am not in favour of removing content from user pages just because a lot of people diagree strongly with such opinions. Martinp (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d like to say I did not intend to use states’s rights as a racist term. I am not that kind of person at all. I believe states should have the right to choose about subjects like whether to legalise marijuana and euthanasia, both of which I disagree with but respect the state’s decision. And with affirmative action, I oppose it because I believe it is a racist program, I.e. saying minorities Need assistance in education which is clearly not true. Many minorities are smart. They don’t need help in education, or at least they don’t need the use of quotas as they should just be accepted to be as smart as any other group. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for clarifying, and sorry for all those aspersions above. I have striked my !vote. But maybe you can trim polemic content on your userpage and hide controversial parts under collapsible table? USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What might be controversial to you may not be controversial to them, so you either should define what those viewpoints are that you deem controversial, or at least understand that - as Martinp says - there are people out there with differing perspectives and ideologies from you. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I really understand well enough that people with diffrerent ideologies do exist, thank you very much. The Party is working on that problem. Now, that's enough back-and-forth over some striked vote by some annoying dummy. Over and out. USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 14:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Devil's advocate, but I don't see how this is polemic, given it's not attacking opposing ideologies, and I don't see how this is against USERBIO because I find it in reasonable leeway and it could help inform about the types of articles they edit. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The userpage is a clear violation of WP:UP, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NOTADVOCACY, as it contains polemic political statements or opinions unrelated to Wikipedia. I don't think this is appropriate for Wikipedia, and is probably better suited to another site. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not trying to pick on you specifically, GBW, but several people in this discussion have asserted the page is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. While that sounds like a nice argument, I think it falls flat. WP:POLEMIC proscribes "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities." However, the page is merely a list of brief links/bullet points of beliefs; there are no statements attacking or vilifying anyone (if there are such statements in the Wikipedia articles linked to therein, we should edit those articles to remove them...). And the definition of the word 'polemic' linked to is "contentious rhetoric intended to support a specific position by forthright claims and to undermine the opposing position." The user page in question makes no claims and undermines no positions, just notes one person's agreement with positions which it so happens various conservatives tend to hold. I don't see WP:ADVOCACY either, since no attempt is being made to persuade or influence at all. (I do see the argument for a perceived violation of WP:UP, though I personally am not persuaded by it). Martinp (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2023 (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.