Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jbc01

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 RESULT: Matter is handled by Sladen--this is a SNOWY kind of close, where the right editorial decision was reached, with thanks to the nominator, the IP, and the executor of policy. Let us not be too critical of the nomination: the page deserved attention, though deletion is not deemed necessary. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbc01

WP:UP#NOT, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTBLOG Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user page contains sexually provocative images of nude women in bondage which is in violation of user page guidelines.

There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review.[Note 2] Context should be taken into account. Simple personal disclosures of a non-provocative nature on sexual matters (such as LGBT userboxes and relationship status) are unaffected. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the accounts would appear to be inactive, I have commented out[1] the gallery per WP:USERPAGE#Images that would bring the project into disrepute in the mean-time. —Sladen (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Sladen's solution is the best. I had the chance to look at a couple of the images and it appears that the user was the photographer, possibly of all of them. Though sexual, they are not pornographic. There is no blogging going on. The editor describes their editing interests and shows examples of their photography. Though I have no interest whatsover in this proclivity, packed movie theaters shows that millions do. Wikipedia is not censored. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCENSORED is about article space, not other spaces. If he's a photographer, he can take his images to Commons or some other appropriate space. Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY not a repository. Lightbreather (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is entirely about what the photos show (the images are on Commons, BTW). We have lots of photographers here who show off their work on their user pages and no one pays any attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - A group of photos taken by an editor, uploaded to Commons, included in articles, and shown on their userpage as an example of their contributions here, is very common. The only objection is that some folks dislike the photos. The photos are now gone so those who object should leave the rest of the user page alone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Userpage This is about violating the userpage guidelines. The pictures should have never been put there. Cullen look closer those pics are shared. We are talking about removing them from the talk page permanently. I found that four pages containing these images were all interlinked. Possibly a sock with back up pages. Who knows why they are there and it does not matter. The easiest thing is to delete the user page as it is abandoned and is sexually provocative. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the only arguments presented for delete are founded in very subjective interpretations of policy/guideline and unsubstantiated claims presented as indisputable fact. From what I have seen of Wikipedia philosophy, I think we would err on the side of keep rather than delete. This page went unknown for years until sniffed out by one individual and brought to ANI, and suddenly it's something that needs to be eradicated immediately for the good of the community. Not buying it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the real reason why Global User Page can't be used from home wiki such as from English Wikipedia, and all GUP must come from Meta-wiki, it was because nudity like this.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Keep I agree with Knowledgekid87, just remove the image, all will be well.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just remove the pictures if they are bothersome, no need to delete the whole page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have now done - and which the IP could have done, rather than going off on this campaign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs, I wasent here for the ANi drama but it seemed like a pretty quick fix to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you erased a promotional link which I had missed. The page looks like any other user page now. No reason to delete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are no pictures on the page. The IP's complaint is nothing but trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures but they are hidden, removing or hiding them would solve the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, in short, there is no need to delete the page. And the argument about "bringing disrepute to Wikipedia" is a bogus argument. Nor will the IP explain how he happened to find these antiques in the first place... leading some users at ANI to suspect he's a logged-out editor who probably has a history of this kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as pictures have been removed already, so there's no reason to disappear the userpage from existence. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid deletion rationale. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOWCLOSE, please...?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Image's have since been removed so no valid reason for deletion, Lets close this and move on...... –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by this criteria we would have to delete my userpage everytime a sock decides there going to spam naked pictures all over it as revenge for me reverting their vandalism. The pictures might be offensive to some individuals and they are entitled to be offended by them but wikipedia isnt censored if you dont like them the best option is to stay away from them. The pictures arent illegal despite what one of the IP's edit summaries state so I cant see a valid justification for deletion of the page. Amortias (T)(C) 19:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the problem are the images, then simply remove the images. But that alone is not a reason to delete the entire user page. There is policy or guideline that justifies deleting user pages of inactive editors. —Farix (t | c) 20:34, 25 February 2015 (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.