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 delete the main page and two of the subpages, while keep for User:Prester John/slideshow. There is clear consensus here from uninvolved, established Wikipedians presenting legitimate and logical arguments that this userspace isn't compatiable with both Wikipedia as an encyclopedia-building project and also with the userspace guidelines.

I have deleted the page and replaced it with a redirect. I implore any administrators concerned by possible repetition of content to watch it, and as an administrator I would suggest using a protected redirect if the situation occurs again. However, as always, such a decision would be made by the discretion of the administrator and/or consensus. Daniel 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prester John[edit]

Right wing soapboxing, blatantly anti-middle-east/muslim. This page is virtually an attack page. Contains sections devoted to disparagement. I'm white, non-muslim and very politically incorrect and even I find it offensive. This is not a user page that is appropriate to the neutrality of Wikipedia and does not put the project in a good light. WebHamster 11:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not matter which wing, or center, the soapboxing is. The issue is soapboxing and the disparagement, regardless which point of view it is pushing. Hu 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if necessary. There is a great deal of material which is useful, and also a lot that violates WP:USERPAGE for being polemical, for containing excessive personal opinions unrelated to Wikipedia, and for including material that could be construed as an attack on other editors. I'd prefer it if the user would remove the offending material himself; if not, please notice that, in order to remove the material that is inappropriate, User:Prester John/userboxlist and User:Prester John/slideshow will also have to be deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I find the content highly offensive, I do not think it is virtually an attack page. --Law Lord 12:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It certainly attacks socialism, and Muslims (by calling for their segregation). Prester John, as I noted before, has alternate motives. He is a troll. I have evidence for this assertion. In his sandbox [1], he has a user box "This user is Satan." If you click on "Satan" it links to [2]. It states "One technique for managing conflict in groups is to set up one person in your faction to be a LightningRod, which is like a more intense, ongoing ScapeGoat. Their purpose is to attract all the hate and bile and frustration which arises, and to shrug it off. In the process, careful thinkers are not slandered, leaders are not distracted, topics aren't changed, and all that." Prester John implies that he is this Lightning Rod (what you and me would call a troll). We ought to see through this crap.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, make him remove the "Seperation of mosque and state box" and the picture They're offensive, though I doubt he realises it--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the quotes identifying Islam as supporting pedophilia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read far enough to find those and I doubt very many will. --Law Lord 12:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you have the right to !vote as you choose, I am personally appalled that you did not read the whole page before weighing in on this discussion, and also by your assumption that nothing needs to be deleted that goes past the end of your personal attention span. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that few people can take the content of the page seriously. --Law Lord 13:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't does not mean others won't. --WebHamster 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, I think I speak for everyone when I say that making parallels between pedophilia and Islam is laughable and you give such a statement way too much credit in asking for its removal. --Law Lord 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your claiming to "speak for everyone", especially when I feel I've made it clear that I disagree. You do not speak for me, nor for those Muslim editors who might not find it quite as funny to be accused of pedophilia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a cartoon can make the world's muslims go apeshit, it's not too much to expect this article (and its suppositions) could do similar to WP's muslims. --WebHamster 13:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, as the cartoon case of my country showed, we do not care about the feelings of muslims when it comes to freedom of speech. Nor would any other free person living in a free and civilized nation. --Law Lord 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's beyond the purview of this discussion but speech has never been free, anywhere. There's always a price to be paid. Regardless, WP is not a venue for free speech, it's not a venue for soapboxing. If Prester John wishes to do so them he should get himself a website. --WebHamster 14:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find that his propaganda goes beyond what can be allowed on the user page. Hence my vote. --Law Lord 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to count how many people take it seriously. The author is serious and it is bigotted PoV which has no place on Wikipedia. Hu 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Law Lord 13:09, 13:27 and WebHamster 14:06. The editor, real or satirical, is a model example of unproductive, offensive, and disruptive POV pushing - a warning to all on this matter. If this page did not exist, it would be necessary to create it. I've learned a lot from Prester John's userpage; I think of it as a large truck, emblazoned with obnoxious bumper stickers, performing an illegal right turn through a busy intersection. cygnis insignis 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is nonsense, Cygnis. There is no need to create bigotted hatred and PoV pushing in Wikipedia. If you insist on creating it on your user page, then we'll delete it there too. Hu 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and FisherQueen. Wikipedia is a place to write an "Encylopedia". People are of course free to have their own websites and write whatever they like there. --Aminz 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prester John is a soapboxer. Using a quote by Hitler to attack socialism may insult socialist. That's what the page does; it attacks views. It attacks views that he does not like. WP:USER states: "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it" How many of you think that Prester John is not being a "dick about it?" What is the point of this user box "This user is not and never will be a Muslim?" It is clearly meant to offend. He uses his user page to promote the segregation of Muslims. This is a prime example of soapboxing ""Non-Muslim Bypass:" If only the rest of the world would follow the example set in Mecca." When he is not attacking a view, he is promoting one (usually a controversial one).--Agha Nader 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP: Wikipedia is not a political soapbox, nor is it a vehicle for hate-mongering. Hu 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything on this page has been lifted from other parts of wikipedia. Is it so confronting to see it all at once. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False: The very first comment on your page, "Non-Muslim Bypass: If only the rest of the world would follow the example set in Mecca", is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. It is your bigotry that is confronting. Go confront people on a PoV site, not Wikipedia. Hu 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The picture is legit. I will remove the caption then. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still False: Your second comment (your first after you remove your first PoV comment) is the chauvinistic ultra-nationalistic PoV "it is going to be done OUR way", which is not found anywhere on Wikipedia. Hu 21:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that there is no consensus here. --Law Lord 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon to make such a judgement, "Law Lord". Not much more than ten hours. Give it five days, if needed. Hu 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all too soon. Already now it is clear that editors are divided on the issue. Or do you not understand what consensus means, Hu? --Law Lord 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what consensus is, without your condescension, thank you. One of the important things to realize about consensus is that it might not gel at first, but given a little time, a consensus can develop. Hu 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we read anything into your rush? MfDs run for 5 days, why are you so keen to close after 10 hours? --WebHamster 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Lord, I would argue that there is a clear consensus that this material must go. The only disagreement seems to center on method: whether it is done by forced removal, selective deletion or full deletion. Also, please be aware that this is a discussion, not a numerical vote and the closing admin will weigh people's comments. If people are basically saying, "keep (or delete) because I say so" without addressing policy and guidelines, then they can expect the closing admin to weigh their comments appropriately. Sarah 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - user pages are not supposed to be used for hate-mongering or other distasteful purposes. Prester John should realise that deletion may in fact be beneficial for his cause as the page is bound to alienate the large majority of Wikipedians who find this kind of advocacy unacceptable. ITAQALLAH 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the quote The Great Seal of the United States. Note how the Eagle holds an olive branch and 13 arrows. This symbolises how the USA will give a choice between War or Peace. YOU do get to pick, but always remember, that whichever way you choose, it is going to be done OUR way is offensive, is not NPOV, is using wikipedia as a soapbox. I suggest this guy gets a blog, and he can rant as much as he likes. I would suggest that instead of removing some content, or deleting the user page, perhaps deleting his account and blocking him from wikipedia would be the best solution.Sennen goroshi 06:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FisherQueen and Sennen goroshi; too many polemical statements makes this violate WP:USERPAGE (it shouldn't have any). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I was leaning toward just arguing to blank the offending content, but there's simply too much. If recreated, that content should not be restored. --Core desat 10:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen. Please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. —Viriditas | Talk 10:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't find it to be hate-mongering or distasteful; this is just a valuable contributor voicing a few opinions on his own user page. The political commentary is not particularly "extensive" (see language used at WP:USERPAGE#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F) and is therefore acceptable. Sarsaparilla 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo said "Libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." Prester most certainly attacks Muslims. He has called for their segregation. He attacks socialism. He quotes someone as saying "Five years ago, Middle Eastern extremists were killing Israelis and Americans. Today they are killing each other. Why is it that some people persist in claiming that Israel's and America's Middle East policy is a failure?" Moreover "Polemical statements" are not allowed WP:UP#NOT. Prester ought to be banned, he is a troll. He has been warned but he hasn't learned anything. I have evidence which I will provide in the future, that his intention is to disrupt.--Agha Nader 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what Jimbo said; he doesn't unilaterally set policy anymore. I choose to regard Prester's stuff as over-the-top satire, have a good laugh, and move on. The only reason it's disruptive is that some people can't take a joke around here. Sarsaparilla 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply confused by this. 'Satire' would indicate that this is offensive intentionally, but that this user's real beliefs are the opposite, and that comes through clearly to the perceptive reader. In this case, it's pretty clear that this user does indeed believe what he has written. It is therefore not satire, nor is it intended to provoke laughter, as far as I can tell. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Who cares what Jimbo said?" Um, for starters I care. The community of editors cared enough to quote him on WP:UP#NOT! The problem is that people like you come to these MfD's without even reading WP:UP#NOT. --Agha Nader 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and dismissed it as non-binding obiter dictum. Sarsaparilla 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as racist and insulting. Or at least remove the parts about Muslims. The page is soapboxing, much more appropriate for a blog or something. Redrocket boy 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Totally inappropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia. —Animum § 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Conditional Keep Delete if he does not remove the racist material in his own page. However, some of the contents of his userpage contains userboxes unrelated to this MfD and Wikipedia maintainence links, so keep if he manages to eliminate the racist material in his page. PrestonH 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And the material that isn't pertinent to wikipedia? —Animum § 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He can have unrelated contents, but not in an excessive way that disrupts in any form (including excessive discussion not related to Wikipedia). The racist must be removed as it is offensive toward certain users. PrestonH 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find most of his views extremely revolting, as many others do as well. However, since his page does not violate WP:What may I not have on my user page? people really need to chill and move on. --Law Lord 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that another article you only read part of before commenting?

Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
Polemical statements

Sounds like there's two violations right there. --WebHamster 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. --Law Lord 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks would they be? --WebHamster 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the user will not remove the blatant bias from his page. Regardless of the outcome of the main user page, however, I am recommending that all the userboxes that this user has created be put up for discussion as well, particularly User:Prester John/Userbox/Gore and State, User:Prester_John/Userbox/A_Convenient_Lie, and User:Prester_John/Userbox/Mosque and state. GlassCobra 20:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Polemic unencyclopedic garbage. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapboxing, doesn't improve wikipedia.P4k —Preceding comment was added at 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, this is the wrong venue to resolve this dispute. Versions of the userpage exist that do not contain the offending content, and some of the content that is offending is on subpages that are not included in this MfD. Obviously the users here confused and do not understand how to deal with the situation. Deleting the page history will also hide some of his disruptive behavior from others. I've already started an WP:ANI thread about this, and if he continues he'll just get blocked. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely inappropriate material. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia.-gadfium 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep, but remove some content. This is a complex question. On the one hand, this page is not "racist" or anything approaching it. Nor should it reasonably be "offensive" to anyone IMO; he doesn't explicitly say "Islam supports paedophilia", he quotes the statements of the Ayatollah Khomeini and invites the reader to make of that what they will. Nor should "this user believes in the separation of mosque and state" be any more offensive than the equivalent "church and state" userbox; allowing anti-Christian but not anti-Muslim statements is an example of the political correctness that has become over-prevalent in our society. However, with this in mind, I would have to agree that the page is highly polemical, and is likely to create unnecessary divisions within the community; we're not here to debate politics, but to create a neutral and sourced encyclopedia. I therefore propose the removal of the contentious content (specifically the quotes and userboxes relating to Islam), without deleting the entire page. The remainder of the page is a legitimate use of userspace and may be retained. Walton^One 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePrester John's username is in itself offensive. The character Prester John (article) is about a mythological Christian crusader who fought against Muslims. This in itself is an entirely inappropriate username. User:Prester John has placed on his Wiki userpage Hitler quotes, swastikas, comments calling for separation of Muslim & state, and comments calling for aparthied for Muslims the world over. This is hate material, which will offend all people of decency. How can a call for Muslim apartheid be viewed any other way? What is hate material doing on Wikipedia? Then he edits Wiki articles about the Muslim faith in a similar vein.Lester 11:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have taken the liberty of editing three userspaces to comply with WP:USERPAGE. If this user leaves them in that form, I'd support keeping the rest of his userpage. If he chooses to revert them, then my previous nonvote stands. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment (sort of a delete, I guess): I agree that Prester's soapboxing is inappropriate and it needs to go. However, I think we can fix it without outright page deletion, but I do support that if it is necessary. I would rather see Prester fix it himself in the next couple of days, and then nominate the page(s) for selective deletion. If Prester is resistive to this, then it is probably easiest to simply delete the lot and start from scratch per WP:UP, inappropriate content. Please Prester, remove all the inflammatory content yourself and then notify an admin (I will do it if you let me know) and ask them to please selectively delete your page history. Once this is resolved, please don't restore inflammatory material or we will have to prevent you from editing the page yourself. Sarah 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Addit: I support the edits made by FisherQueen and ask Prester not to restore that material. Sarah 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective deletion of the page history is going a bit far, in my opinion. Sarsaparilla 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how selective deletion would be going too far. Selective deletion would allow Prester to keep the bulk of his pages, with only the offending elements removed. Also, with regard to FisherQueen's comment below, I appreciate you eventually self-reverted, but I would ask please, don't start an edit war on someone else's userpage. For that matter, please do not edit other people's userpages. FisherQueen made those edits as an admin, trying to apply policy and guidelines. Sarah 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just don't see the need to delete stuff from the history. Isn't that usually reserved for copyvios and other extreme cases? If, for instance, he gets taken to arbitration and someone wants to use those page versions as evidence, non-admins wouldn't be able to view them. Sarsaparilla 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We often selectively delete material from page histories if the revisions violate policy and it is considered necessary. See, we could just leave it in the history but Prester has shown that he is likely to restore it if it is left there. If he went to arbitration, say, and someone needed to refer to a deleted revision, they would just ask an admin or arbiter to restore the page as evidence for the course of the arbitration. This is not uncommon. We also sometimes do this deletion discussions so that non-admins can see the deleted material, and then delete it after the discussion. Sarah 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, although User:Prester John did not restore the inflammatory material, User:Sarsaparilla did restore it. I encourage Prester John to remove the material himself; I won't edit-war over someone else's userpage. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a place to push or advertise personal politics. If people keep that up, they can leave. • Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly agree with immediately above comment. Much as I hate to curtail freedom of expression, I am not convinced this is not deliberately provocative soapboxing and I have little faith that PresterJohn will realise that consensus is largely against him here and do what needs to be done for the benefit of the community as a whole, and ultimately himself, if he is to maintain any respect as an editor. It would be unacceptable even as a satire because nobody could believe it had that purpose. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I completely disagree with Prester John's views. But, ultimately, I think it is Prester John who has to realize what he is doing and remove this - not us. The transformation (to conform to wiki standards) is something that has to come from within, it can't be imposed. I suggest Prester John be adopted by a responsible editor who can guide him. This will be much better in the long run.Vice regent 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I second that! --Law Lord 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may well do. However, what matters here is policy and guideline. Some people arguing for keeping seem to be under the mistaken impression that people on Wikipedia have some sort of right to free speech. Wikipedia is a privately owned website and we don't have anything remotely along the lines of "free speech". What we have are policies and guidelines that people who want to edit here are required to follow. We have on the one hand, admins and experienced editors all agreeing this material is not appropriate under userpage guidelines and policy and on the other hand, we have the author and a rather curious band of mostly newish accounts and folk with low edit history. I'm not sure what is going on or how y'all knew to come here. You're certainly welcome to comment but you need to explain your argument and ground your position in policy/guidelines. It would help if you could read the relevant part of the userpage guidelines and respond particularly to: "Examples of unrelated content include:...Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc...Other non-encyclopedic related material...Polemical statements..." Then down further, it states: "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself...Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Please also read policies: Wikipedia is not soapbox, Wikipedia is not MySpace and Wikipedia is not a battleground: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear." Under policy and guidelines it seems quite clear that the polemic material must stay out. Sarah 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer You have misunderstood both the rules of Wikipedia as well as the spirit. User pages says something about the user. Then all is well. You people really need to pull yourselves together. --Law Lord 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Lord, your edit summary Sarah does not know a thing about Wikipedia [3] and comment are not appropriate. --Aminz 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was an attempt at humour that I regret, I am unable to delete, since you and/or others have failed to share it that. --Law Lord 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And how long would such an arrangement last? Ten minutes? Twenty? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long will deletion of his userpage last? Ten minutes? Twenty? -- Ned Scott 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that long. I doubt if there are any correct answers here; ultimately, PJ may come to realise that to work with other editors here will require a measure of mututal respect, which seems not to be generally forthcoming at present. If such realisation occurs, he will perhaps tone down the expression of his views here, whilst expressing them more forthrightly in a different forum which might find them conducive to cooperative collaboration. But I detect that consensus says otherwise and it's his choice whether to follow that consensus. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NotePrester John, in his disrespect for the will of the community, has moved offensive material to his subpages. He is basically trying to hide it until the MfD is over. Nothing less than a ban will alleviate Wikipedia from his trolling. --Agha Nader 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Indef) Ban~~ as a troll, unsure about duration of ban (and I'm not an admin anyway). There is clear evidence of trolling and he has resisted "the will of the community" (see above). Potentially offensive username but not to many people, except when one behaves in this manner. --Thin boy 00 @165, i.e. 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to any user who says MfD is inappropriate for banning, please read WP:IAR. Don't worry, it's one sentence. --Thin boy 00 @167, i.e. 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think a ban, block, or anything of that sort is necessary. Prester John should realize that Wikipedia is nothing more than an encyclopedia; and that his userpage does not really belong to him but rather to Wikipedia. I'd say we simply remove those stuff from his userpage and delete the subpages he has now created and moved the material to. It might not be also a bad idea if Prester John removes his comment on Ned Scott's talk page accusing him of vandalism. That's it. --Aminz 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I agree with you that it would be nice for him to simply back off and become a constructive editor, but I also feel that this MfD is an illustration of the problem: the page should have been CSD'd under G10, considering what it looked like then. However I will admit that I should have looked at that page before commenting. It's a bad habit, especially for controversial things like this. --Thin boy 00 @199, i.e. 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Remove all remaining related content from userspace, strong warning, but no action against him. --Thin boy 00 @201, i.e. 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not right. If you think there are some userboxes which have any problems, target them separately. This is akin to wanting to delete an article which you think has some bad references. Nothing wrong with this page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bits on Islam and Mosques are implicitly sectarian; soapboxing; etc. Fin©™ 09:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't actually realise how sectarian the page was before it was changed (Muslim Bypass, selective quotes, etc). Reinforces my Delete vote. Fin©™ 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this trash. Userspace is not your personal soapbox. --krimpet ⟲ 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but do some serious rewriting. About 5/6ths of the page are political opinions, and while stating your political standing is perfectly acceptable, it's the serious repetition of the same statement and variations of it that worry me (for example, "this user will never be a Muslim", "this user is an infidel", "this user is strongly against Marxism," "this user believes it is better to be dead than red"). I'd Suggest to Prester John to remove some of the userboxes and make a simple sentence about what his political and religious beliefs are. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lester above. That page has nothing to do with building the encyclopaedia - in fact it hinders it. —Moondyne 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep unless this is a universal policy move that will be applied to all editors, if not then removal of extremist material only is all thats required. as its not policy based and will be ignored by the closing admin instead I leave only a comment below Gnan garra 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm having trouble figuring this out PJ can be pro war anti muslem etc and we must delete because Wikipedia isnt a soap box, Its not a venue for free speech, great but before casting your stone look over your shoulder Fighting for peace is akin to fucking for virginity. images of flags being burnt. Do I agree with whats on his user page? no. Do I like it? not really. It is not sinful to adopt a POV in one way or the other; it is sinful to apply double standards once you've fixed your position. I sincerly hope all editors clean there house first before pulling down anothers. Gnan garra 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or permanently remove parts of the page history that include the offending material. This user has demonstrated a sincere disinterest in being a productive contributor to Wikipedia. He was just banned for a streak of disruptive editing and vandalism, which he committed retaliation for this MfD. He doesn't understand the difference between gross misuse of userspace (accusing a religious/political leader of pedophilia) and things like politically-oriented userboxes (or other more-or-less community-accepted practices). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including subpages. The user is abusing his userpage for blatant soapboxing, and his recent actions have convinced me that he is more interested in that than constructive contributions. Charon X/talk 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - This has been a long-simmering problem with this user over and this particular problem, and hs actions make it quite clear that he will not do it himself. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which users should be allowed to to denigrate others in the name of their beliefs, ideologies or positions. And this should go for liberal, islamist, jewish, etc... ones as well. Don't want to single out conservatism. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - Although portions of Prester John's userpage violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UP, WP:DEL explicitly states that pages which can be cleaned up should be cleaned up rather than outright deleted. As such, I suggest the sections which violate those policies (specifically the quotes and userboxes--the current version isn't bad, but I think the links to Islam-related article resources are useful) be removed or deleted themselves in favor of leaving the extremely helpful information which can be found elsewhere on the page. Although a number of people have pointed out that the user could then just undo the changes, this would be going against consensus and there are a number of methods for dealing with that. On a related note, I would also like to add that the user's page is the only thing being discussed here--not their edits or behavior. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Matt57 above. While I find much of the content on this page offensive, deleting it isn't the solution; deleting it implies that the user should not have a user page at all. The solution must deal with the user who has created it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's his userpage; leave it alone. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn the Witch I say Shot info (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WebHamster and FisherQueen. Jeffpw (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break for summary of complications[edit]

User:Prester John's user page is built using input from two subpages, User:Prester John/userboxlist and User:Prester John/slideshow, in addition to his main userpage. Rightly or wrongly, I removed material from all three pages which I believed to be in violation of WP:USERPAGE. He has since restored some, but not all, of the material I removed. You may need to consider the historical versions of all three of these pages in order to fully comprehend earlier comments. We can choose to delete the userpage and subpages completely, or to enforce the removal of polemic material, or to allow him to keep his userpage in its old form.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting User:Prester John/quotes of course. --WebHamster 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even noticed that one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 4 December 2007 (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.