Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Atmoz/third

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. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atmoz/third

Nazi symbols are inappropriate for user boxes and Atmoz seems to not care CTJF83 chat 19:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• disagree - its humour. The Swastika is not inherently a nazi symbol, although in this case the joke is by referring to the third reich. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really find anything Nazi related humorous. CTJF83 chat 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not even the Soup Nazi?! –xeno^talk 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, don't like Seinfeld CTJF83 chat 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just pointing out User:PhatePunk/userboxtest, User:SheeEttin/User grammar nazi, User:Marudubshinki/User grammar-nazi, User:Dchall1/UBX/Nazi, and User:IJA/UKIP is Crap which are userboxes that use this exact same image that haven't been sent to MfD. The svg version is used on plenty of userpages. That doesn't include other version of the swastika being used in userboxes. Plus, not sure why a symbol is not appropriate for userboxes. -Atmoz (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I hate essasys WP:OTHERSTUFF plus I was unaware of those other user boxes. CTJF83 chat 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason you have a problem with the flag of the party of Hitler but not with the flag of the party of Stalin? -Atmoz (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relevance to this MfD? CTJF83 chat 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're stating that Nazi symbols are inappropriate. I do not think they are. By not nominating User:Atmoz/arbcom for deletion I conclude that you think the use of the flag of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is appropriate, or at least not inappropriate. What determines if something is appropriate? Why would one of these userboxes be appropriate and the other not? -Atmoz (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will answer your WP:POINTY question by saying I must have been asleep in history class when we learned what the CPSU's flag was, I always thought it was File:Communist star.svg CTJF83 chat 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you're going to whip out WP:POINT like it's the ace up your sleeve, you might want to read the policy first. Can you explain how Mr. Atmoz is disrupting Wikipedia, as opposed to disrupting your indignant soapboxing, in the furtherance of the point he is making? Badger Drink (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep we should not ban humor and wikipedia should not be censored. It is only when this image is used to attack or intimidate that its use should be barred. For example an inappropriate use of the swastika would be in a userbox saying the user supported the holocaust and thought gassing Jews and homosexuals was a good thing. Someone at work sent me the linked video, it is very very funny as it really hits the issue of that third reviewer bang on the head. It is always the third reviewer that screws things up. What do they know? Polargeo (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway per WP:OTHERSTUFF CTJF83 has a userbox with a skull in it saying more people should be killed. Which I have to say without any humor I personally find extremely distasteful. Unlike the joke userbox currently under consideration. Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all The examples brought up here seem well within the broadly permissive community norms for userpages. Besides, it is Reviewer B that always gets me. That jerk. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Polargeo. Just displaying a swastika does not make a userbox inflammatory or an attack. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Polargeo. Swastikas don't always indicate attacks. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - The flag is not necessary for the joke. Encyclopedic use of the Nazi flag is fine, same with the hammer & sickle, or any other flag that some users might feel uneasy about, but their use on a userpage must conform to the standards of collegiality expected on Wikipedia, and it's highly uncollegial to use such inflammatory symbols for the purposes of making a joke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it is a matter of opinion interpreting WP:UPNOT but I simply don't find the swastika as a symbol offensive in any way and this use seems to be well within our usual leeway given to Userpages. It is all a matter of context. If I saw someone walking down my street dressed in black and carrying a flag with it on shouting "immigrants go home" then I would be disturbed, but it would not be the actual symbol which disturbed me it would be the intent behind the display of the symbol that would disturb me. Also just randomly using the symbol as a fashion icon would disturb me, less than the previous example though. In this case it would disturb me because I would suspect bad intentions and at best I would suspect ignorance of the history and implications. However, in the case of the userbox in question there are clearly no negative intentions and therefore I have little empathy with the view of users who simply find the symbol offensive per se. This view runs against the general spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and sets a bad precedent. Polargeo (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - contains naughtly external link. External links may not comply with WP:NPOV. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links are required to comply with WP:NPOV? Better get to work getting rid of AllMusic links... Badger Drink (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 卐. I'm not a fan of anti-semitism, be it in the form of the third reich of the 30s or in the form of earnest, well-meaning, but dangerously short-sighted, one-sided, and confused Palestenian apologetics of the 00's; and the stomach-churning academia in the linked blog gives my eyes a one-way ticket to the back of my head. That said, while I agree that the userbox in question is in poor taste, I don't feel it's enough poor taste to warrant deletion, no more so than incidential bad grammar is merit for a block. Badger Drink (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't seem to attack anyone to me, and I for one don't think that just because a misguided political group used it for their own twisted purposes means we should ignore thousands of years of otherwise netrual/positive use. If we chose to ignore those thousands of years of history for the swastika and instead focus on it's (ab)use by a party for less than 50 years, then by all means, delete it. If that be the case, however, please add User:UBX/Jainism, User:Sadartha/userboxes/hinduism, User:Democracy to information/u/seperation of church and state (rounded but still a swastika), and so on. אם כבר מדברים כיהודי, אני לא רואה שום בעיה כאן. (Speaking as a Jew, I see no problem here.) ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't get the joke. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If you can't make your point about a particular issue without invoking Nazi imagery, then it isn't a point worth listening to. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2010 (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.