Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aminz

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The result of the debate was speedy keep as withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aminz

Sadly there is no way to nominate a section on a page - the section I am concerned with is why pornography is bad. This is a clear breach of WP:Soap. In particular point 1 - That userpages should not be used for advocacy and 2 - userpages should not be used for opinion pieces on politics. There are various simplistic points in there that are suitable for a blog but not for a wikipedia community page. The reducation of the complex subject of rape to If one's idea about sex is correct, he will never rape. is pretty bad and the juxtaposition of pornography/rape and the statement This is especially important because some girls dress in a way to get attraction. also troubles me. Is there an issue with a woman dressing how she likes to get attention? The whole thing is clear soapboxing and clear breach of policy. Fredrick day (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• speedy Keep - content removed. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On a procedural matter, I asked the user twice to remove this section from his userpage citing the WP:SOAP restriction - here, and here. The editor has suggested that this is a WP:POINT nomination because of our interaction on the Muhammad article - and this is because of our interaction there (which to my mind has been without problems) but not in the way he's suggesting. When you interact with people on a talkpage, it's pretty natural to check our their userpages - that's how I came across it. I've something like 20,000 edits across my two accounts (this one and a retired account) and I was never blocked or sanctioned under either name, I don't do Point or waste people's time with AFD or MFD unless I think there is a good reason. - this nomination is because of a policy breach and nothing else. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I spend all of my time on Wikipedia contributing to it. That section is not meant to advocate anything nor is it related to politics in anyway. I feel this is quite normal, do not think it offends anyone and it is hidden. I don't think it stops myself or anyone else from contribution to wikipedia (wikipedia's main goal); to the contrary mild sections, I think, makes Wikipedia more "alive". May I ask why you are this much interested in my user page? Just wondering why you are willing to spend your precious time filling up this form to have it removed? I have a feeling that this is related to our dispute regarding the images in Muhammad's article. Would you have done the same if I had given you a compliment on every edit you had made? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a section entitled "why pornography is bad" not an automatic breach of WP:SOAP? how is Another effect of watching pornography is that it encourages looking lustfully at girls when you go out. This is especially important because some girls dress in a way to get attraction. Now, why is this bad? Because you are going to marry someday and you've got to have all your focus on your wife when you go out for dinner. NOT advocacy for a certain POV worldview.

"Just wondering why you are willing to spend your precious time filling up this form to have it removed?" because I asked you twice to remove it as a clear breach of WP:SOAP and your reply was If you think the current form of my page is not good (I think it is good), you can try MFD. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (edit conflict) - WP:SOAP does not prohibit you from expressing opinions in user space; it prohibits you from actively trying to impose your opinions on others. While I may not agree with the content of the section, which also appears to be all original research, the fact is that the user (who, judging from their barnstars, contributions, and talk page is a very active editor) simply wrote down their views and put them on their page. In other words, this section is in the same vein as a userbox declaring a given editor to be a Republican or Democrat or an essay supporting or condemning censorship--it's just their opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Besides, given that it's in a hidden field on their user page, it's not exactly like they're beating you across the head in an attempt to make their point. --jonny-mt 09:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear the version I saw wasn't hidden - those must have been added later. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, please say something that is believable. When you were adding the tag to my userpage you didn't see the hidden templates [1]? How did you create this page without clicking on the link from my userpage? How could you not see the hidden template when you were taking the above quotes from it? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I use scripts and had taken the quotes last night - I write stuff like MFD nominations off and so took a copy (although I have so much crap in my monobook, I'm not actually sure what does what anymore) - it wasn't there when I went to bed last night and as I put in the edit summary - I'd perfer not to delete the whole page just that section but the MFD process doesn't seem to allow for selective sections of a page to be picked. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, our dispute on Muhammad has nothing to do with this. You claim to have nominated my page for deletion without actually seeing it? Please stop harassing me. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a dispute on the the muhammad page, I've just had a look and as far as I can see, we've never actually interacted on that page. If I was following you from page to page, you might have a point about harassment but besides our interaction here and your userpage, I don't edit any of the same pages (expect for the muhammad talkpage). Please be rational about this, just because I nominate something I think is against policy, it doesn't mean I have some form of grudge. I nominated your page on it's content not the owner. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - To clarify, the issue of whether the content is hidden or not was not the basis for my keep argument--rather, I disagree with the contention that this runs afoul of WP:SOAP. I'd also like to ask both of you to please calm down, assume good faith, and let the MfD run its course. If you feel you absolutely must have an extended conversation about the reasonings behind this MfD nomination, please take it to the talk page to avoid cluttering up the discussion. Thank you. --jonny-mt 11:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Broad latitude to good faith contributors to state their opinions on their user pages. Not hurting anyone. Martinp (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is completely ridiculous. One essay, which might be soapboxing, depending on how you look at it, is not a good reason to delete an otherwise perfectly within wikipedia policy userpage. The essay can be dealt with via WP:AN/I if it is a problem (personally, I see no problem with it). But one essay is no reason to sack the entire userpage. Yahel Guhan 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. MfD isn't for content disputes if the article is otherwise okay even to nominator. Doczilla (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And it is a content dispute. My cookie jar's contents=cookies. That userpage's contents=words. The issue has to do with what combination of words forming statements, ideas, or information should be contained in any section of a userpage. Just as we do not delete an entire mainspace article over one section, we should not delete any other entire page over a specific piece of its content. Doczilla (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep and a pretty marginal nomination. Perhaps the nominator should consider it properly and withdraw. --BozMo talk 12:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The relevant section is in absolutely clear violation of point 1 of WP:SOAP. Look at what the policy states (emphases added):

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia is not propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

The section under discussion is clearly advocating a position - and some of the point made are not supported by relevant research in the area. "Why pornography is bad" as a heading is not neutral. Declarations such as "it contributes to increase in rape" are only acceptable if supported by a substantial body of evidence. The fact that no contrary view is included would only be acceptable if disagreement was WP:FRINGE and could be omitted following WP:UNDUE. This is not even vaguely close to being the case here.

I take no position on the deletion of the page, but the section in question is a violation of policy. To the closing admin, unless a policy-based reason for ignoring this unambiguous violation of WP:SOAP is advanced then the close should note that the section is in violation of policy. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that the closing admin doesn't need your advice on policy. As they know, and you will learn, there is a very strong case history in Wikipedia for the community giving considerable latitude to the content of user pages. You might equally argue that pro-gay userboxes such as the one you display amount to WP:SOAP. That is after all advancing a position (as well as a posterior). But I would oppose the removal of that too. If users cannot in any way reflect their views on their userpages it makes it much harder to monitor COI and POV. And what Aminz has done is not exactly in your face. --BozMo talk 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BozMo. Originally I thought the nominator brought this up because of a content issue, but Jay*Jay's comment shows that there is at least one person who, for whatever reason, feels this is not appropriate. I do not think it was really violation of a policy but at the same time I don't have any specific reason for insisting on keeping the section. So, I will remove the section. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BozMo, this is not the place to discuss your opinion of me - we can take that to your talk page. For the purposes of this discussion, I will simply note that your only attempt to respond to the policy argument that I have advanced is an attempt to equate a biased, unreferenced POV advocacy piece with a userbox. The rest is playing the man instead of the ball, which I will take up on your talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Now that Aminz has acted unilaterally to address the concern raised - for which I have commented on his talk page - there is no further need for this MfD. There is no longer any policy violation that I can see. As such, I have struck out sections above declining to take a position on the retention of the user page. Perhaps the editor originating this MfD might like to join in moving it be speedily closed as "Keep" now that the concern raised has been addressed, as there is thus no longer any policy basis for a deletion of the page. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (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.