Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:عمرو بن كلثوم

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم


Appears to contravene WP:USERPAGE, WP:WEBHOST, and WP:SOAPBOX. Basically, it is a userpage that is being used exclusively to advocate a political position on the Middle East conflict by inference from a large number of quotes. Note that I am not advocating against a limited amount of political expression on a userpage. However, the level displayed here crosses the line of what is an "excessive unrelated content" as defined by WP:UPNOT. A discussion on the user's talk page resulted in the user not agreeing to remove the content: User talk:عمرو بن كلثوم. I am therefore asking to determine whether there is a community consensus to delete or not delete. Singularity42 (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete consists almost entirely of material giving the user's opinion on political issues. A brief statement of the user's opinion would probably be acceptable, but this crosses the line into advocacy. Note that the third quote is not by Paul Warburg but by his son James Warburg (which should be obvious if you note that it is dated 18 years after Paul's death). Hut 8.5 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Time and again, Wikipedia proves it's taking sides when it comes to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Take for example most or all the articles on Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank (e.g. Modi'in_Illit), in the infobox there are always referred to as being in Israel, when no single country in the World recognizes this. Back to my userpage, I have only quotes in my page, plus some user boxes, but no personal opinions. Still, to show my good will, I have removed the quotes in question (2nd hand quotes) and cut my page size in half. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are users whose user page consists almost entirely of quotes advocating the Israeli position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then they should be (and will be) treated in exactly the same way as you. Hut 8.5 16:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How is this taking sides on the Arab/Israeli conflict? I would take the same position if your userpage was using quotes to advocate for the opposite political position (and I have done just that in the past).  The issue is that WP:UPNOT specifically prevents a userpage from being used excessively for a use unrelated to Wikipedia's puposes.  Advocating for a political position on the Middle East conflict (and to say you just displaying quotes and not stating your own beliefs is a bit of a red-herring; the userpage is being used solely to advocate for a political position) is unrelated to Wikipedia's purposes. While I appreciate that you have removed some of the quotes, your userpage is still being used to advocate for a political position on an issue unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose. Singularity42 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the comment under the Apache picture at the bottom of this user's page. Let me see your neutrality there. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparing apples and oranges. As Hut 8.5 said above, a userpage that consists almost entirely of quotes advocating the Israeli position [or any position, I should add] in the I-P conflict should be treated in the same way.  The userpage you have pointed to consists almost entirely of anything but a political position, other than one line in a picture caption.  Again, I take no issue with a limited degree of political expression on a userpage.  But substantially using a userpage to advocate for a position is what crosses the line. Instead of looking for other examples or making straw man arguments, how about you explain why you believe your userpage isn't contrary to the guideline in WP:UPNOT? Singularity42 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you will have to show me where in Wikipedia guidelines I am breaching anything. According to the previous discussion on my Talk page, the first section (mainly its title) was controversial to another user and yourself user singularity, but the rest was fine. I have actually deleted almost all that entire section and its title. Checking USERPAGE, I have not found in my userpage anything that "crosses the line". I am not advocating Nazism, Neoconservatism, fascism, terrorism (Israeli or otherwise), Bushism, Zionism, pedophile acts, violence, etc. All I have is a few quotes, including from Israeli papers and politicians, related to the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. How is that crossing the lines? عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your user page still consists mainly of quotes advocating your political views. Your user page isn't a soapbox or a platform for advocacy. WP:UPNOT prohibits Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia, and Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons, and your user page is still breaching all of these. One user said on your talk page that the problem was the first section and its title, but I don't agree with them (and nor does anybody else). If you get rid of all the quotes, and the first userbox, then I will change my opinion to Keep. Hut 8.5 08:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah, woah, woah. You are telling me now what user boxes to put and what to remove. You are crossing the line here, and I will not be intimidated. Anyway, there has been a previous discussion on this user box here and it was decided to keep it, so I am not removing it. As for the quotes, again, I am not the author of those, and some of them are Wikipedia material copied here. I have already wasted too much time on this discussion. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion wasn't an MfD debate and took place well over three years ago and thus can't be said to represent current consensus on the issue. In any case the userbox in question was referred to only in one short section in which the general opinion was that it was either disruptive or silly. The fact that you are not the original author of the quotes or that they are present in Wikipedia articles is irrelevant, what counts is that they are clearly polemical material advocating your political views. The other userboxes are just brief statements of opinion which is acceptable. Hut 8.5 14:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - We are allowed to include favorite quotes on our userpages. The demand for the removal of the userbox in question goes against a number of past discussions that determined that this userbox may be used on user pages. Find something more important to do with your time people.  nableezy  - 14:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not allowed to have anything on your userpage which is listed in WP:UPNOT. Quotes are not exempt from this. Hut 8.5 16:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:USERPAGE: A number of users have Wikipedia and sister project content such as (free use) pictures from Wikimedia Commons, favorite Wikipedia articles, or quotations that they like.  nableezy  - 16:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the very next sentence: Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion. The quotes here are advocating a position on a political issue. Hut 8.5 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nop, this is not blatant promotion or battleground for unrelated matters. Everything on my userpage IS related to Wikipedia content, and referring to it. I never had any dispute with anybody over the content on my userpage. Having a position on political issues is part of what a USERPAGE is there for. I feel I am wasting my time again. Please check this USERPAGE and tell me where my userpage is breaking the rules. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think the 6 quotes listed cross the line into "blatant promotion" or anything else. Many, many people have material that advocates a political position on their userpage. This is not some 10 page screed, this is a relatively small collection of quotes. I see no reason why that small collection of quotes should draw any attention, much less a request for deletion.  nableezy  - 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A collection of quotes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not related to Wikipedia at all. Your userpage crosses a line between merely briefly stating your opinion (such as your userbox which says "This user supports the independence of Palestine") and actively trying to persuade the reader that your opinion is correct. It has a collection of quotes which portray the Palestinians as downtrodden and abused, the Israelis as oppressors, and the Americans as trying to establish a world government. The quotes thus try to get the reader to sympathise with the Palestinian cause and are therefore promotional (they promote the Palestinian viewpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and polemical (in that they are attacking Israel and the United States).
 * Having a position on political issues is definitely not what userpages are there for. User pages are there to facilitate collaboration on encyclopedia building. Some kinds of statements on political issues are tolerated but they are not part of the purpose of a userpage. As for your claim that "I never had any dispute with anybody over the content on my userpage", two editors have in the past left you messages saying that your userpage is inappropriate and we are definitely disputing the content of your userpage now. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am not attacking the US, nor my quotes are. You see, you misunderstood them, so they are obviously not working as a promotion of a certain point of view. And in response to those two users, I deleted the section that was inflammatory for them. Period عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply asserting that I am wrong is not an argument. And you can't have addressed Singularity's concerns or he wouldn't have nominated the page for deletion. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page is well within de facto limits as established by other user pages. Take a look, for instance, at User:GHcool. There you will find several screens full of argument in favour of the Zionist position. And not just on his user page, he also has an extensive set of sub-pages elaborating the same POV, linked from his user page. There have been several attempts in the past to get this removed or reduced. In such discussions in the past, although I disagree strongly with his POV, I supported his right to state it, subject to removal of all mention of other editors (which last condition I believe he has complied with, though I haven't checked recently). User:عمرو بن كلثوم's page is well within the de facto limit established by GHcool (and other user pages), even more so now, following the changes User:عمرو بن كلثوم has been making to his page. I draw the line at anti-Semitic remarks - which should be removed - but the rest of the original page as nominated for deletion was almost entirely copy/pasted from various other user pages, which have been around for years, without, as far as I am aware, any dispute. --NSH001 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that some people have managed to avoid getting their pages scrutinised doesn't mean this one shouldn't be. This example can't really be said to be representative of current consensus on the issue, as it hasn't been discussed in over three years (and even then the debate ended in "no consensus"). WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * quoting OTHERSTUFF doesn't cut it. You and the nominator have claimed that you would treat pages with the opposite POV exactly the same. But we all know that GHcool's stuff isn't going to be removed (nor should it be, in my opinion), so all you would be achieving is confirming Wikipedia's systemic bias against the Palestinians. I might also add the obvious observation, that trying to censor someone's views in this fashion is hundreds of times more offensive than any possible offense caused by the original page. There are better thing that you and I could be doing with our time than arguing here. --NSH001 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about Palestine. If GHcool's userpage were sent to MfD then I would argue that the section "Views on Israel" ought to be removed or severely trimmed (bits of it specifically discuss Wikipedia's treatment of Israel, these are much easier to justify). Wikipedia isn't a forum, a soapbox or a platform for the exchange of ideas, so an argument that removal of such views is censorship is invalid. You fail to understand the problem with such pages: it is not that they may be offensive but that they are divisive and inconsistent with our commitment to building an encyclopedia. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I understand perfectly the purpose of the guidelines. It's a judgement call how far a particular page meets, or doesn't meet, the guidelines. I'm saying we have a de facto standard for what satisfies the limit, a standard that works well. You are arguing for a narrower interpretation of the guidelines. I don't see these pages as divisive, but I do see MfDs such as this one as divisive and time-wasting. --NSH001 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your "de facto standard" is that it's not a standard at all. The fact that you can find similar material on some other userpage does not mean that the community endorses, accepts or tolerates such material or that the guidelines are interpreted to allow it. It could just as easily be that the material hasn't been noticed or that it isn't worth anyone's time to try and get rid of it. The only thing that definitely does have community consensus is the guidelines and this page violates them. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 09:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment two other editors with lengthy pro-Palestinian quotes on their userpages have now taken part in this discussion. I suspect we may be looking at canvassing. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Canvassing? It couldnt be that two user's who have commented on the talk page of the user in question and have that page in their watchlist saw this nomination and decided to comment? It has to be canvassing? Canvassing would be impressive, as neither I nor the user in question has e-mail enabled. How were either of the editors with "lengthy pro-Palestinian quotes on their userpages" canvassed? Is there any evidence for such a charge, or are unsubstantiated attacks the default reply when people oppose your view? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, having seen that it doesn't look like canvassing. I just thought it was slightly suspicious that two users who don't regularly take part in MfD debates happened to come across this one, but evidently there is an innocent explanation. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So Hut, are you going to nominate GHcool page for deletion? Compared to my page, it's a lot more elaborated with stronger personal opinions on a political issue not related to Wikipedia. In addition, it looks like a monograph with a lot of original research in it. It's funny and ridiculous to see how fellow Zionists give him credit and barnstars for his "defense of neutrality" on Wikipedia. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be a particularly good use of my time. Someone would probably accuse me of being biased against Israel and point to examples of pro-Palestinian userpages in an attempt to justify it. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you are openly against Palestinians given your opinions and record here, but you are afraid of being depicted as anti-Israeli for opposing a more politicized page openly advocating everything Israel does? Same double-standards time and again. In that case, stop wasting our time here. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again I'm being accused of bad faith, so I'll have to repeat myself. I am not arguing that this page ought to be deleted because I am against Palestine (note I didn't nominate this page for deletion). I am arguing that it should be deleted because I don't think it is an appropriate use of a userpage. I haven't nominated the other userpage for deletion because (a) that would mean actively going out to find content that I don't think is appropriate and nominating it for deletion as opposed to commenting on something someone else has nominated (I don't want to become the policeman of the encyclopedia's userpages), (b) I don't engage in contentious MfD debates on a regular basis, and (c) I don't think I would enjoy a raft of pro-Israel partisans accusing me of being anti-Israel any more than I'm enjoying a raft of pro-Palestine partisans accusing me of being anti-Palestine. Such considerations are in any case irrelevant to the question of whether this userpage breaks the guidelines. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The guy has a User page with user boxes and everything, and he has some quotes also. Big deal. Maybe it would be better if Mister-Unpronounceable-Arabic-Letters-Shoving-It-in-the-Face-of-Westerners moved the boxes to the top of the page, but come on! It's a User page; let the User use it. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2011 (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.