Guy Chapman has this on his user page (now shifted to a sub-page).....
So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.
It is the conclusion of a long winded rant, titled "On politics".
The governing policy for this sort of thing is WP:POLEMIC, which says....
you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute
It is inarguable that the statement fails the policy, because the only way this statement is likely to be uncontroversial, is if the following propositions hold (based on WP:COMPETENCE, the page Guy links to by way of explanation).
-Supporting Trump is an indication you are illiterate (presumably because if you can read, you would be persuaded by all the sources Wikipedia considers reliable, that you are a fool or evil, and would therefore stop supporting Trump)
-Supporting Trump is an indication you are incapable of identifying reliable sources. In other words, you do not accept the Wikipedia position that every word that appears in Breitbart or the Daily Mail, is a politically motivated fabrication
-Supporting Trump is an indication you are incapable of explaining yourself to others, and that if you find yourself in the minority in a Wikipedia debate, instead of respecting consenus, you will probably start shooting people
-Supporting Trump is an indication you are probably not going to realise you are too stupid/biased/evil to be editing Wikipedia articles like Abortion or Immigration, meaning the Wikipedians who are competent will have to waste their time cleaning up after you
As I hope even screaming hardcore Democrats would accept, these statements are ridiculous and offensive, and if it became known they were the uncontroversial view of the Wikipedia Administration, there would be hell to pay. In other words, bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
What is also disreputable about this statement, is that it appears to advocate the banning of Trump supporters from Wikipedia not for what they do on Wikipedia, but what they believe. Wikipedia does that already of course - if you turn up and declare you think sex with children should be legal, or if you turn up and say Mexicans are vermin, you are toast. But this level of offensiveness, is where it usually stops. You are not, for example, banned from Wikipedia for saying you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, even though the statement is homophobic. You would be banned only if you started adding that to articles.
In case anyone is confused about whether or not Guy really does mean Trump supporters should be banned for what they believe, not what they do, he was nice enough to confirm it.....
if you come to Wikipedia to state that astrology is true, that the two state solution is the only acceptable outcome, that gay marriage is legitimate and beyond question, or that Christianity is the only truth about the world, you are not competent to edit. And that is the situation with Trump. Anybody who sincerely believes Trump to be a good president, should not, in my opinion, be here. And I explained why. What that means is that I will not give the time of day to people who try to argue that Trump is a good man. I am talking here about the kinds of people who say that God anointed Trump. That is disqualifying. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no mention here at all, that the editor needs to do anything at all, not least do something considered disruptive, for Guy to consider them unfit to edit. The obvious conclusion being, as a Wikipedia Administrator, he intends to use his power to block people, to ensure they cannot edit.
This is Wikipedia. They're biased as fuck, they're not even consistent in their biases, and they don't care who knows it. They flaunt it.
It seems clear, ironically, that Guy has already shown he needs to be blocked for lacking the WP:COMPETENCE required to be a Wikipedia editor. But this is Wikipedia. You cannot block Guy Chapman. He is Wikipedia.