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. The previous MfD seemed to focus more on the inflammatory logo that was used, which doesn't appear in this userbox. No consensus to delete this one at this time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rogue 9/Userboxes/VRWC

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/VRWC, just glorified trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moving userboxes to the user space was the agreed upon compromise back when it was an issue the first time, and there is no need to delete it now. Please leave me alone. Rogue 9 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLEASEDONT isn’t an argument, consensus has since changed. Dronebogus (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an argument; it was a request. The argument is that it's in the user space and not hurting anything. Unlike the earlier miscellany for deletion you cite this does not incorporate the flash and circle (which is a horrifying emblem of a horrifying ideology), never has, and I would never use it for any reason. It's not the same thing. Rogue 9 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Sundostund (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First observation is the article vast right-wing conspiracy is really poor, starting from the top where it's called a "conspiracy theory". It's a phrase famously uttered by Clinton to describe an [uncontroversial] sustained campaign by a large number of figures to attack Bill/Hillary, including funding [actual] conspiracy theories in right-wing press and pulling them into the mainstream (the Vince Foster stuff, for example) and the use of those conspiracies as a pretext to look into other things. It's not exactly uncommon politics since then, but it was pretty relentless, too. The big issue was that eventually the investigation into one of those alleged incidents led to Bill lying under oath about Lewinsky, so the reductionism of the claim, and the context, led to conservatives using the phrase to mock/discredit any other objections. Yeah, deciding to use this userbox is probably an indication of someone interested in "owning the libs" (before that was a phrase), and may have trouble complying with basic wikipolicy about NPOV and sourcing in AmPol areas, but I don't see it as particularly objectionable. It's not all that aggressive, doesn't deal with current events, doesn't directly disparage our users, etc. I wouldn't be sad if it were deleted, but this one gets a big "meh" from me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of the recent history that another version was speedy-deleted two weeks ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for as long as we allow userboxen like this, which we shouldn't. "Vast right-wing conspiracy" is a pretty standard conservative meme from the '90s, nothing too outrageous about it, except inasmuch as it's outrageous that we allow userboxen like this to proliferate in what's meant to be an encyclopedia. The previous MfD seems to have largely turned on the alt-right symbol that was added to the 'box after it was created, and I think, if not for all the commotion regarding the 'box's creator, would likely have ended in consensus to revert to the original version. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the nominator is using a "what about x" deletion argument without even saying how the two relate. Looking at the article involved I also agree with Rhododendrites, particularly citing how conservatives mock the term. I also concur that I wouldn't be sad to see this one go per my "weak" keep. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.