Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Keep  No matter what this page purports, it is on a Wiki, so it is freely editable. However, it is also a gentleman's opinion regarding a controversy relevant to the encyclopedia; as a courtesy, other editors should not edit the page in a way that distorts the presentation of the editor's opinion. Since the page concerns a relevant discussion of the encyclopedia, it is reasonable for the community to allow the page to remain as a courtesy, and to promote dialogue. The consensus below concludes that such an allowance is in order. Also, as a mutual courtesy, one would expect that no talk pages discussing these issues would be blanked by anyone (except for vandalism, nonsense, etc., of course.) Xoloz 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies
This user A. L. M. has created this essay page but does not allow community to edit it or even discuss it. This is a violation of WP:OWN, WP:USER and WP:NOT. Any attempts to edit or discuss the page are removed. From WP:USER, "content is only permitted with the consent of the community". User ALM has been told by other users as well not to own this essay. Either they should agree on letting the community edit and discuss the page or let it be deleted. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is not an essay. It is work in progress for filing an arbitration case. I will like to see comments of people who will vote to delete it. --- A. L. M.  15:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, whatever it is, an essay or work in progress, as I said in the nomination, you cannot own content according to WP:USER. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Content is allowed in userspace at the consent of the community, not allowing people to even use the talk page is out of line. 3RR does not apply to userspace, so MfD is the only recourse. You say it is not an essay, yet it is an expository piece that you refer to it in content disputes. It sure looks like you are using it as an essay. This could be a very useful essay if the community was allowed to have input, but if you demand ownership then it is just soapboxing. Important concerns are being ignored, and even blanked. Attempts to talk to you about this on your talk page have also been blanked. I suggest a word processor if you don't want other editors input. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have given fair chance to talk at the talk page and your issues are addressed very well See the talk page. If you wish to hijack it by starting voting on the talk page then I cannot allow it.  I need many people help to make it well-written. Hence I have posted it on many places and I will file arbitration case in couple of weeks. --- A. L. M.   15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Please see the histories of User talk:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies and User talk:ALM scientist for attempts to discuss these issues that have since been blanked. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I blanked it after discussing in detail with HighInBC. See this history. The discussion was OVER when it was blanked. YES I plan to blank my page regularly, instead of archieving. What is problem with that? --- A. L. M.  15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The post you removed on the essays talk page was not to you, it was a request for other editors opinion on the matter to settle a difference of opinion about references we had. You removed my request for more opinions and forced your way. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about my User talk page? Why you have provided its link above? --- A. L. M.  16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to demonstrate that steps were taken to explain the inappropriateness of page ownership prior to this MfD. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. --- A. L. M. Can you help?  16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: It is perfectly within policy to remove content from your own talk pages (contrary to some beliefs) (See WP:USER). → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate was crossposted to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam by ALM scientist at 16:28, 5 May 2007Proabivouac 08:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... what? This is his viewpoint on the situation. Misguided, yes, but the fact that other people disagree with him doesn't mean that he is not allowed to express these viewpoints... -Amarkov moo! 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Expressing is ok, but ownership is not: "content is only permitted with the consent of the community"


 * Either that means that the community gets to supress opinions we disagree with (absurd), or it means that we get to control what opinions people have (both completely absurd and impossible). Are you going to go into people's Wikiphilosophy pages and tell them what they believe next? -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what does it mean then? "content is only permitted with the consent of the community" - --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That means that you can't have inflammatory rants or deleted content in your userspace, and then justify it with "but it's MINE!" And your argument seems to be that this page is only bad because some people get reverted when they edit it. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is we get reverted when trying to talk about it on the talk page even. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is some discussion on the talk page. The things which were reverted looked more like "We're going to establish a consensus to MAKE you think that these things should be in the essay!" And while it is rude to revert people's comments, consensus can't decide what someone is allowed to think... -Amarkov moo! 16:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know people's view on this varies but mine is clearly that in your own user space you should be free to keep content which is relevant to your work on Wikipedia (such as a bookmark list, content from somewhere else you are rewriting, stuff you are translating etc) without it being messed up by other people. Stuff not related to WP is another matter but this material clearly relates to ALM's editing on Wikipedia and is not in namespace. I have pages like User:BozMo/wpcd2 where I put things and would revert other edits and many other people do too. --BozMo talk 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If many people wanted to edit your page and you werent letting them, you'd be in violation of "content is only permitted with the consent of the community".--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - i think the essay has a long way to develop, but i don't think editors should be too forceful in dictating what what ALM's page should state as opposed to helping him to express his perception of a particular dispute. i don't agree with the removal of talk page comments, but i don't think it justifies this MfD. the nominator himself has a page virtually identical to this: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies.  ITAQALLAH   20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ItaqAllah, yes but I didnt assume ownership of the page. You missed the point in this nomination, which was ownership. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is not in article space and is clearly ALM's (and others) view on this topic. I don't see a problem with this page but rather, if the matter is taken to arbitration as ALM intends, then it will settle the issue once and for all - which would surely be a benefit to the community and I commend ALM on taking this initiative. In regard to "content is only permitted with the consent of the community", ALM is part of that community and as his userspace, he has freedom to note down things which are relevant to his Wikipedia activities without having it changed/reverted by others when asked not to. Furthermore, "content is only permitted with the consent of the community" is mentioned under the sub-section for Removal of inappropriate content. I can't see anything inappropriate in the page. The other relevant quotes from the policy are:
 * "...by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others"
 * "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission"
 * "The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so."
 * User pages can contain "opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed"
 * → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 23:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per comments by A.L.M. and Aktar. --Webkami 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad faith nom.--Kirby♥time 01:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Kirbytime, there is no reason at all to claim, as you've done, that this nomination was made in "bad faith."Proabivouac 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You seriously have to be joking if you don't think that Matt57 doesn't have an ulterior motive in noming this, considering that as itaqallah pointed out, he has a subpage with similar content.--Kirby♥time 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is an example of Matt57 using his subpage for the exact same purpose: here.--Kirby♥time 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Leave it unless it's somehow inappropriate. Frise 01:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Alright, this is going to be a keep even though I disagree and am not sure what the policies mean because they conflict in a number of places ("Dont edit a user's page if they dont want it to be edited", but then "content is there with the consent of the community" and "dont own any page"). If someone would like to close this debate, please go ahead.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree there seems to be a gulf between policy and practice. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I mentioned above, you have to look at the quote in terms of it's context. There is no conflict in policy. "content is only permitted with the consent of the community" is not a policy for censorship but rather is in the section talking about removal of "inappropriate content". You can't apply that as a general rule in order to delete pages that are appropriate but with which you may not agree with. Please leave ALM to work on the page unhindered unless anything in there is "inappropriate". → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 08:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I find inappropriate is the refusal to allow open discussion on the talk page. The contents of the essay are appropriate to Wikipedia, but I don't know how the consent of the community can even be determined if even talk page discussion about the essay is blanked. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment By confining his article talk page comments to pointing to the essay, while refusing to allow open discussion on either the talk page to the subpage or his user talk page by arbitrarily deleting other editors' posts, ALM scientist forecloses the possibility of normal dialogue. Now he has changed his signature such that editors expecting to click through to his user talk are transported to this essay contra WP:SIG and WP:CANVASS. All the points he raised have been addresed ad nauseum; spamming them everywhere he posts is unproductive and uncollegial. What really needs to be deleted isn't this page, but the pattern of behavior which turns what is otherwise just an opinion into un-wikilike and unacceptable soapboxing.Proabivouac 08:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep this page is only temporary there. I suggest ALM puts a notice at the top of the page letting visitors know that this is not a regular wikipedia page about a subject. --Aminz 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had put the notice that its a user page but ALM removed it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Amarkov's argument above. I also endorse Aminz's suggestion concerning the notice at the top of the page. Stammer 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete violation of WP:USER--Sefringle 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete violation of WP:OWN -- how can the essay originator enjoy the hypocrisy invoking the userspace argument to select to delete/revert the informed and good faith contributions of some, while inviting the editorial contributions of others. See this diff: POV vandal 07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * this user has been indefinitely blocked, and is a likely sockpuppet of .  ITAQALLAH   16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete We cannot avoid the way this user subpage is being used, as a substitute for normal discussion and a POV fork of Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, and Talk:Muhammad/images (everything he said minus responses thereto.)Proabivouac 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added tempate-userpage on the top of it. I hope that will be appreciated. --- A. L. M.   09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems perfect now. --Aminz 09:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up User:ALM scientist/bk has been created as a backup in case the page under discussion is deleted. Placeholder account 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do need it even after deletion for filing arbitration case. You could delete that too. I now have backup locally too. --- A. L. M. 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No you don't need it. Any admin (such as me) would recover reasonable lost content from a permanent deletion for a user (assuming there were no child protaction issues).I do it for people all the time (and when I speedy or close AfD's on something substantial I generally give people back a copy of their content without being asked anyway). --BozMo talk 08:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * great. Thanks --- A. L. M. 09:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The creation of a backup page seems to me rather questionable.Proabivouac 09:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we assume good faith then I don't see what can be termed questionable - unless your belief is that ALM intends to reinstate the page if it is deleted?. He's made it clear what the backup was for and thanks to BozMo, I think ALM (as do I) now understand that even if the page is deleted, the contents can be retrieved by an admin. Please cut the guy some slack in his userspace unless it's violating any policies. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 10:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep with the provision that good faith talk page comments by the community are allowed and not deleted. Otherwise, delete. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, personally I think people should expect reasonable ownership of their user space. I do agree with Viriditas about the talk page. gren グレン 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection in people using the talk page. However, HighInBC was starting there a voting. Problem with the voting is that I know majority wish to have pictures. I do not wish to have voting and destruction of article at my user-space. Otherwise everyone is always welcome to post on talk page. Even I have talk with HighInBC on the talk page and have address his issues. See yourself. --- A. L. M. 10:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The closing admin needs to recognize there are two separate issues here. In and of itself, this page is an acceptable userspace page; many other "Keep"s are nothing more than acknowledgements of this.  However, the removal of others' comments on its Talk page is a blatant violation of the user space page guideline.  Other editors are entitled to full access and contribution to its Talk page and the page in question itself (since it is not the userpage proper, just in the user space).  The keeping of this page should be absolutely conditional on both such access in the future and reversion of deleted good faith content from its talk page (unless perhaps its original contributer agrees to keep it deleted).  Otherwise, it should obviously be deleted in the spirit of it is being "owned".  I think it appropriate to not impose one or the other on User:ALM_scientist, but rather allow them the choice of either access/reversion or deletion.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. ALM's got a right to write an essay about his beliefs on how Wikipedia should handle the debate. If he is deleting other editor's comments from the talk page, by all means, warn him and then block him for that behavior, but don't use MFD to delete his comments (in essay form) either. --Alecmconroy 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR protects him in his userspace. The only recourse left was MfD, there is a gap in the policy where people apparently can own pages on Wikipedia, and deny community input. That gap is the wording at 3RR that says "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere" are exempt. So he can remove comments from the talk page all he wants, no block. But WP:USER says that content is only there at the consent of the community, therefore if he will not let people discuss the page openly then MfD is the only way to go. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Retracted. In the future, I should read a discussion more closely before offering an opinion! :).     I still think that there should be a way to discourage just the comment deletion behavior, but if there's a "loophole" in current policy and this is how we have to handle it, so be it.  Deleting peoples talk page comments is not cool. --Alecmconroy 01:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The history of his ALM's user talk space illustrates exactly why the proposal that one may remove anything one likes from one's talk space is hopelessly flawed.Proabivouac 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to change this. Over to WP:USER...? - Merzbow 06:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The policy(s) loopholes should be fixed, to either let a user own their page or not own their page. It should be able to deal with a case like this clearly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I realise this page is "highly problematic" but deleting it doesn't solve anything. It's on topic and "nice" that ALM is making it publicly available - at least he's open in his crusade.  In the end, this is probably a good thing.  Frankly, the constant debate on whether Muhammad should reflect a neutral point of view or a muslim point of view could use some "official-like" rulings. WilyD 04:41, 10 May 2007 (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.