Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Augusto De Luca

User:Augusto De Luca
Page is considered unacceptable promotion for this photographer, see also User talk:Mdd — Mdd (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 03:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. See wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion and links from there. There is misleading information being circulated about these pages. This page is harmless at worst. The user is presently locked, with four other accounts, but, once the smoke clears, I predict the locks will be lifted, because they violated policy and precedents and just plain common sense. (Four other users with many edits, no history of problems, and no warning, have been globally locked, one with no cross-wiki edits at all, just one wiki. That's an abuse of the global lock tool to ban editors without discussion.). This is the first time that I've seen a single link on a user page to a photo by the user, hosted on Commons, to be considered "unacceptable promotion" or "spam." For a standard user page guideline, see w:Wikipedia:User pages. This page doesn't even come close to violating that guideline, and this is not linkspam, for sure. There is far more disruption being created globally from this global deletion effort than simply leaving the pages alone could possibly have caused. --Abd (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a chance that this user might eventually start editing here, then this harmless page (that only consists of a stunning picture, no spam links, etc.) should not be deleted. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is not possible for this user to edit with this account. This account is globally locked (i.e., it is not possible to log in to this account). --Glaisher (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically, his account can be unlocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete = cross-wiki-spammer per https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Augusto_De_Luca. Blocked locally on nine (9) other wiki sites before being finally globally locked. These include Wikimedia Commons, Polish Wikipedia, French Wikisource, Italian Wikiversity, Italian Wikibooks, Italian Wiktionary, Indonesian Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, and Russian Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the blocks were because "cross-wiki" users tagged the pages for deletion. I do not think anyone even attempted to contact Augusto before his account was locked. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PRS is pretty close. See for a detailed examination of the claim by Cirt. Summary: only four blocks of the nine cited preceded the global lock, and only two of those were simply local. Many deletion tags claimed "cross-wiki spam" and so would trigger some local blocks. Because of the sheer magnitude of the situation (I have put in about two full days of research so far, and I'm not near being done), those who review this casually and superficially -- which is what most of us only have time for -- will come up with many errors such as that made by Cirt, and then other users will see what Cirt wrote and draw false conclusions, few will actually investigate. Basically, I suggest keeping the eye on the local ball. Is this page harmful here? Does it violate local policy? --Abd (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. contacting the user: Perhaps one could use the new bulk mailing feature of MediaWiki to post inquiries on the talk pages of his 500+ userpages in the hope of getting his attention. However, that might be considered responding to spam with spam.  ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting hundreds of deletion tags might also be considered spamming, causing substantially more wasted time than leaving the pages alone would entail. This user did not enable email (and therefore would not get a Talk page warning). Long-term intentions are entirely unclear, a matter of speculation. No, given a conclusion that the user page creations were contrary to the welfare of the wikis, a global lock would be the efficient way to get his attention, and procedure for appealing that could be provided. (Is it?) Indeed, the global lock was too long coming. The edits were spread out over two days. The issue here is not the global lock, but the pages themselves. I have !voted Keep, but only on very general principles, and because I'm unusually informed on this case. It's up to the regular Wikiquote community how welcoming it wants to be to new users, who perhaps make a mistake as their first action. I am only an occasional user here. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — I do not see any harm in this page, nor as yet clearly see how this or any of the other pages created on any of the other wikis actually violate any ethically or legally binding rules which I am aware of, and to me recent efforts to erase or diminish the profile of this person amount to little more than a case of small minded pettiness, envy and jealousy. In saying this, I realize that some suspicions might even be legitimately aroused towards me, by the quite coincidental fact that I have on a few occasions indicated that I lived in the Campania region of Italy in my teens, just north of Napoli, and quite regularly went into Napoli itself. THUS, I will solemnly assert that I presently have no recall of having ever met this person, nor anyone to my knowledge even associated with him, and though I probably have happened upon a few of his impressive images before and thought them worth considering for placement on Wikiquote pages, probably hadn't taken enough note of them to actually get around to doing so, prior to this. I might make a slight effort to do so now, as I do find some of them impressive, and worthy of use. Just to be entirely safe in my professions of having had no personal involvement with this person, the only rather remote possibility of any verifiable direct or indirect contact, personally, which I can even imagine as clearly possible though extremely unlikely at this point, is that I happened to have rather incidentally known a couple women who did work at times as photographer's models when I lived in that region, but to my knowledge they never worked with this person, and I have not met these women nor conversed nor corresponded with them in any way since living in Italy, many years ago, though one of my brothers did happen to meet one of them a few years ago. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User pages exist "to facilitate communication among participants in the project". Unlike hosting sites such as Myspace or Facebook, "every registered user is able to create a user page about themself as a Wikiquotian, but they should not use it for posting non-Wikiquote related topics". This is an official policy, if that matters to anyone. The posting of [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Augusto_De_Luca some 550 user pages] at the same time, and nothing else, is not indicative of someone who is here to build a compendium of quotations, but to spread their name around. Contrary to an opinion given above, I think it is unethical to use Wikimedia's hosting servers for that purpose. As for not being illegal, the purpose of this site, and Wikimedia projects generally, is just a little bit narrower than hosting anything and everything that may lawfully be posted on the intrestnet. My first inclination, before the page was brought here, was to replace its contents with a banner like this one indicating that the acccount is globally locked. Since it has been brought here, I endorse Deletion instead. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, user pages exist for that purpose. However, users start somewhere. Many users do create a user page as their first action. What should be on that page? Ningauble has selectively quoted from the policy page. What I see there, immediately, is this:
 * What can I have on my user page?
 * Whatever you like, within some reasonable boundaries.
 * A good start is to add a little information about yourself ... a photograph, your real name....
 * This page included the real name, apparently, as the user name, and a photograph hosted on Commons. I see this kind of page as actually invited. So someone does what we invite, we whack it because someone thinks there is a "promotional purpose"? So what if there is? Promotion, per se, is not prohibited. See w:Wikipedia:User pages for more detail. Much more than this single photo could be posted under that policy, which didn't stop what I've called "steward R" from deleting the page there.. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone doing a bit of research would find that our most active steward beginning with an "R" is User:Rschen7754 whom Abd elliptically refers to, for no reason I can think of. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The name is unnecessary, because this is not an RfC on a steward. I'm studying the affair on wikiversity:User:Abd/Augusto De Luca and while Wikiversity is sometimes used for cross-wiki studies, we are developing ethical guidelines for that. Until and unless the names of the actors becomes necessary, I will use that code. The only reason any identifying code is used is to understand the number and character of those involved, and scope of their actions. I.e., global sysop, steward, local admin, global antispammer, or simple local user. Anyone can look at the links and see the editor names in the diffs and delete logs, etc. R is active in this affair, for sure, but the most intrusive actions were not R's, but V's, for that steward locked five accounts, four being relatively long-term users, with relatively large numbers of edits, no warnings, effectively global bans without discussion, only an unsubstantiated claim of "paid editing." If this were Wikipedia, the alleged paid editors would not be blocked on what evidence exists here. They might be questioned or warned. Mostly R did not delete, but tagged. --Abd (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "R" may have been playing a little fast and loose with w:Wikipedia:Global rights policy at that project, but has at least mitigated the need to recapitulate this sort of discussion some 550 times. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 is a Wikipedia administrator in addition to being a steward. So he would not have been restrained by steward policy,
 * The most efficient way of avoiding all this fuss would have been to leave the pages alone. As it is, now,speedy deletion tags may be removed by anyone who disagrees with the deletion, and that's happening in many places by many users. Anywhere, someone may say, "We can't let the Evil Spammers win," nominate the page for deletion, and there we go. Perhaps we are discussing this now, so that others don't have to later. If a true consensus emerges here, it may propagate. Otherwise disagreement may propagate. --Abd (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another strawman argument. An equally efficient way of avoiding the fuss would have been to have let the PROD expire and let the Wikiquote community alone, going about its business, without having to worry about debating such a practice. There's quite a few here who might have intervened "from the outside", perhaps not aware of current local policies and practices, but their opinions are important and have been duly noted. On the other hand, the attitude of the Wikiversity community might be no different in this respect, but might also be more hostile to opinions "from the outside". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument if nobody thinks that way. So why do we care about these pages, enough to go to the trouble of trying to delete them? I removed a proposed deletion tag, so far, from one page, this one. I requested undeletion on Wikiversity, where we definitely want to welcome possible users, even if the possibility is remote. It doesn't cost anything. We can still push a block button.
 * (The removal was accepted here, with, then, this process, totally proper, and I commend the administrator who opened this process, assuming he favors deletion, which I think he does.) (The undeletion request on Wikiversity was granted, also what I expected, and proper.) And anyone could do this. I saw one case, so far, where a local user removed the speedy deletion tag, and then a steward went ahead and deleted the page anyway. I just happened to see that because I'd looked at the page, and still had a browser window on file history open when, the next time I looked, the file was gone. There may be others like that, which I will just see as deleted files. It's a big world, 557 wikis. All kinds of things happen.
 * In any case, I was certainly not saying that the page should have been left alone. A local administrator recognized that the deletion might be controversial, and so used process appropriate for that. I was making a global argument. I don't know the numbers yet, but the global deletion effort has required, probably, the attention of hundreds of administrators. For what purpose is this labor being applied? The deletion reason often mentions "cross-wiki spam." In order to make sense of that, the administrator has to do a lot more than just look at the page. It's a lot easier, per page, for the global anti-spammer to place a repetitive deletion tag on hundreds of pages, than it is for an administrator to actually decide the matter for each page. If I saw a user on a wiki where I'm active, placing speedy deletion tags, for pages that don't need to be deleted, I'd certainly challenge that, and ask the user to stop. It wastes administrator time, if it's not needed. Come to think of it, I've done that, with present company.... --Abd (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Ok. Since he is a local administrator at that wiki, there is not much point in bringing up this "steward R" business then.) I welcome discussion about the issue of Wikiquote userpages of persons whose sole activity is userspace content unrelated to building the project, so that we won't have to keep doing it over and over. It has been raised several times, but cases have often been decided on narrower grounds or have failed to reach consensus. (Hence the pertinence of aggravating circumstances such as the of the volume of cross-wiki activity in this case.) Why do I care about these pages enough of try to delete them? Because I care about what Wikiquote is, which is not Facebook. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not engaged in selective quotation out of context. I quoted the opening sentence which establishes context for all that follows. Subsequent suggestions and rough guidance on that page, such as "What can I have on my user page?", are predicated on being a participant in the project. Yes, users start somewhere, but this was not a small start: it was a massive campaign. I place exactly zero credence in the hypothesis that he ever intended to participate in the actual work of all of the abovementioned 500+ projects or of this project in particular. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a straw man argument, as if specific intention to edit all wikis (it's 557) is necessary. It is not impossible that the user decided, "I want to make myself available to the global WMF community, so I'll create a user page on each wiki." Another user, unaware of how the global antispammers work -- few users are aware of this -- says, "What a great idea!" Maybe even says, "Let me help you."
 * New users are often unaware of policies, and this is worse than a policy problem, because there is no policy that prohibits what the user did. It collides with antispam practice, not policy. If the user looks for policy, the page creation appears to be, as far as policy is concerned, allowable on every single wiki. So why not on all of them? Ningauble may be correct about intention -- or not --, but the action supported -- global lock and user page deletion -- will guarantee that the user does not participate. --Abd (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (It's not 557. A handful of the 557 SUL accounts never posted anything. I was being honest about the imprecision because I did not bother to count them.) Not a straw man at all. What is necessary to be a Wikiquote participant is to actually participate in building the project. All this activity does not even evince an intent to do so, and the sheer volume of non-contributory cross-wiki activity suggests a different agenda. There are many things that are not impossible in which I place no credence. Ignorance of policies has never been a reason not to delete a page. It may have some bearing on whether it was appropriate to lock the account, but that is not the question in this deletion debate. You keep saying that policy does not support deletion. Notwithstanding your accusation of selective quotation from the opening sentence of what is admittedly a rather vague and rambling informal guideline, the official policy page which I also quoted is pretty clear. Note the key phrases [emphasis added] "about themself [sic] as a Wikiquotian" and "posting non-Wikiquote related topics". ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, do we know that this user is Augusto De Luca (a living person)? If not, is this an appropriate username? (I.e., isn't impersonation a concern?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This does seem a legitimate concern, as it could well be someone else seeking either to do Augusto De Luca a favor, or cause him some kind of mild embarrassment. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally, when a user creates an account with their real name, and if the edits don't appear to be defaming the real person, we do not assert the possibility of fraud. This user did nothing that would ordinarily raise Kalki's concern, except the mass creation. If someone was sophisticated and knew that mass page creation would arouse the antispammers, it's theoretically possible they could do this. So I agree that we should not assume that the account is the real person. (If this was not the real person, I expect the real person will eventually show up and let us know that.) This is, however, not the issue here, again. The global response raises many interesting questions, with policy implications, that are irrelevant here -- or should be. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really feel like going through the circus again like what happened on the English Wikiversity, but here goes:
 * Delete and along with Ningauble's concerns and the sockpuppetry case I've expressed my sentiments on en.wikiversity:
 * "I'll be honest with you here, initially I too had questioned the global lock on Augusto De Luca because I believed it was harmless to let userpages alone, even if it was spread out over multiple wikis. However, after some private discussion, I became concerned that the intent of the operator behind the account (self-promotional behavior, slightly allowed in regards to advertising adminship on other wikis) and the method of operation (unauthorized script for fast editing on multiple wikis, clearly disallowed by global bot policy) was not in the spirit of the Wikimedia project. I've never made mention of 'others being played for fools', simply what I felt a necessary comment about the modus operandi of such spammers. And the SEO concern was completely relevant; a few strings of text is enough for SEO. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)"
 * --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded to this on Wikiversity. Summary:
 * Certain kinds of self-promotion are allowed. See WQ and WP policy pages.
 * Only incorrect evidence has been shown, so far, that editing was by bot.
 * Actual edits appear to be not more than about one per minute, allowed by global bot policy for "unauthorized bots." Real bots, running normally, may hit 12 edits per minute.
 * SEO is not contrary to policy. Certain kinds of SEO activity are. This wasn't that kind.
 * None of this is actually relevant to keep/delete. Global antispammers are accustomed to true spam deletion, because promotional intention is behind spam, but not all promotional intention is spam, and not all is prohibited. We do not actually know the intention here, we are guessing, but we don't need to know. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think taking into account activities on other wikis is quite relevant to the discussion here, because, as Ningauble states, according to User page policy this is a user whose intention is hardly to contribute to Wikiquote. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That policy doesn't say that, it does not require an intention to contribute more extensively to Wikiquote, specifically, in order for a user page to be allowed, and certainly the policy page doesn't establish that lack of intention for the specific user.
 * It is unreasonable to assume that this user read the policy pages on all the wikis, but if he, or someone he was consulting with, did, and so far, I have found nothing that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the page was even discouraged, much less prohibited, anywhere. New users rarely read policy pages. That's one reason why we warn them, sometimes we warn them many times before taking stronger action. --Abd (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A user is surely entitled to have one photo on his user page. If it is unwarrantable self-promotion, the photo should be deleted from Commons.--Abramsky (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Abramsky, I would like to explore your idea that anyone is entitled to use Wikiquote's userpages in this way. It contradicts my understanding of the letter and the spirit of the fundamental WQ:NOT policy that I quoted above. If you think this use is consistent with the policy, I would like to know what you understand the language of the policy to mean. Alternatively, if you think the policy should be repealed then I would like to understand why. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I must confess I cannot understand any "keep". This sockpuppet is now "dead". It's locked, that means it cannot be used even for logging-in. I can understand SEO-attacks cannot be perceived but frankly I cannot understand how an userpage for SEO-purposes can be useful for a disable user-account. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The account is not "dead," it's locked, by Vituzzu. He could unlock it, and so could any steward. I have successfully requested unlock before, there are some stewards who will follow policy. I am accumulating evidence so that I know what actually happened here, because the antispam crew have been treating us like mushrooms. When I have a clear understanding, more than what I have -- which is enough to point out a series of errors -- I will then decide whether or not to raise the issue at meta. What I'm seeing so far is a series of Single Purpose Accounts. There are more than the five mentioned by Vituzzu. They are all Italian, it appears to me that they are likely artists, and they very well may know each other. And it looks like they thought that what they were doing was allowed. They made no effort to hide it. They had worked on the articles for about two years, without incident, until the Spammish Inquisition hit. There was one warning only, to the daughter of the photographer, and she stopped adding links to her father's work. She then edited a little more, general purpose editing -- she wasn't exactly an SPA --, and then stopped. And 2.5 years later, Vituzzu locked her account. For what offense, what danger to the wikis? That's just fact and a question.
 * Will Vituzzu point to a policy that prohibits SEO? SEO is "promotion," which is a Bad Thing to spam fighters, since that is also the purpose of spam. However, there is permitted promotion, and many spam fighters have no clue about the difference. That's why Vituzzu thinks that if it's SEO, it must be Bad and to be Punished. --76.28.31.199 04:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vituzzu already said "It's locked, that means it cannot be used even for logging-in"; I don't see what the point is to repeat whatever he said to 'correct' his description when it is adequate to describe the account. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Promotion is allowed if it is within the spirit of Wikimedia or its core mission and values. That typically includes GLAM events, participation in various fundraisers, administrator help with translation troubles, activity on various other wikis including self-adminship, and Wikipedian in Residence events. This did not qualify under any of those "promotions". I know how to distinguish what kind of "promotion" is or is not acceptable. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I for one have voted "Keep" because I know from my own experience that many people throw around highly prejudicial and loaded terms like "sockpuppet" and "sockpuppeter" far too casually or far too deliberately in ways which they know will be perceived in ways in which they actually do not and actually cannot properly apply. I am a person who has all my life recognized much of the absurdity and stupidity with which people use words and terms to needlessly and detrimentally constrain others, and have a very profound impulse to oppose such impulses, even when there is no benefit to myself personally, nor even likely to be much immediate effect in my efforts. I myself created accounts others have thought "excessive" — and with very little idea of what worthy or desirable purposes anyone might go about creating such, assumed they must be mischievous and innately detrimental, which some might validly be considered, or even deliberately malicious, and I can assert that they never have been that. I vote keep so that there are reminders to people that there are often hasty actions which do not make a great deal of sense, and there are permanent consequences to such, beyond those of indulging in the power to immediately suppress something one does not find likable or tasteful for some reasons. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, because this editor has contributed nothing to this project other than creating his own user page. I would have no problem with an editor having the most elaborate and self-aggrandizing user page imaginable if, in the course of setting that up, they pitched in a few dozen edits towards adding and maintaining quotes in project space. BD2412 T 14:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your edit here, after making my comments agreeing to delete at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Fcd900. There I specified that this was ONLY because:
 * this user has apparently been attempting to delete personal contributions including the images used from Wikimedia Commons since 9 September 2013 and deletion here seems in accord with the user's desires. In general, I do not think so brief and non-commercial a personal exposition warrants deletion. Many users from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects only put token appearances on this site or other projects than those they primarily work on, and that certainly should not be any cause to warrant a deletion of their user pages.
 * I believe the same rationale applies here, because this user has quite generously made significant contributions of his worthy and acclaimed artworks to his pages at the Wikimedia Commons — and I do intend to use some of his images here beyond the Augusto De Luca page — as has already been done by someone else with an addition of an image to the page for Dog last year. While I personally would prefer brighter and more humorous images of dogs on that page, and might eventually add some, many of his images I believe can be useful elsewhere in the future, and the retention of so minimal a user page is something I believe should not be discouraged or denigrated. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
 * This user actually has not uploaded any images at Commons,[//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&user=Augusto_De_Luca&ilshowall=1] unless he was using different account names. The images were posted on Flicker and released with a Creative Commons licensing, whence they were copied to Commons by others. This editor has contributed nothing to any Wikimedia project other than as seen here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is correct that this user wasn't the uploader of the images, but assuming this actually is an account of Augusto De Luca, as I am currently doing, he has exhibited a spirit of generosity in releasing this work with the Creative Commons licenses, whereby they can be used on the Wikimedia projects — and many others. That is sufficient for me to tend to be generous in turn with how they might be used, especially on user pages. In general, am far more concerned with promoting such attitudes of generosity and tolerance as has been exhibited by this artist, than deferring to what I consider overly zealous efforts to eliminate anything that might not be "purely mandated" by expectations or demands as narrow and rigorously constrictive interpretations of some advisories and guidelines tend to excite in some people. Such people would not even have a richly active places such as the Wikimedia projects to experimentally work what I consider corruptive and constraining aspects of their personal wills at all, were it not for the generosity of others, such as Ward Cunningham, Jimmy Wales, many avid workers, editors, and artists such as De Luca and many others have long exhibited. I regularly seek to remind people that most of what is good and best is born in a spirit of tolerance and generosity, not intolerant constraints. I again see no reason to delete this page, nor for it to have been blocked, from what little I know of the matters, and the reasons thus far presented here. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies Kalki for forgetting lots of fantastic high principles which aren't by far related to the topic. In short that's a "dead" account which won't, anyway, longer "need" any userpage. Leaving this page or not has no actual influence over [insert here a random unrelated feeling/principle/philosophical topic] but will simply try fooling Google's pagerank. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems an irresolvable problem the motive why people have voted for and elected this steward. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a personal attack. I tend to ignore outbursts but you repeated it enough times to force me notify it to local AN. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any problems DanielTom may have with the Steward election process are definitely not going to be resolved here, and are entirely off-topic for deciding whether to delete this page. If this is meant to rebut Vituzzu's comment(s) by insinuating a presumption of unsuitability for the role of Steward then it is purely ad hominem by definition. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The account that created this user page was locked, by a steward, possibly against policy. It is relevant, because we don't know if this user would go on editing, had he not been locked. His user page would have been considered perfectly acceptable, and not up for votes, had he previously edited and contributed to WQ. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Within the last few minutes I just checked in here, but might be leaving again soon, and will simply note a quote of Aung San Suu Kyi in her acceptance message for the 1990 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought (July 1991): "It is man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power." So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An amazing quote, Kalki, but is not related by far to the topic. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You stated what I believe I correctly took to be a sarcastic "apology" for forgetting "lots of fantastic high principles which aren't by far related to the topic." I believe quite sincerely that you are ignorant and confused, for high principles are related to many topics — as is the habitual need to disregard and belittle assertions and reminders of them, amidst people overly eager to constrain other's options to provide or receive various forms of information, in what amounts to needless and even highly counter-productive and often detrimentally destructive ways. I have been observing such things at various levels of social and anti-social interactions for years, and I do not intend to be quite so silent about them in coming years, as I have long been, because I have long recognized that MANY people prefer to get along without being reminded of "inconvenient" principles that have ultimate relevance to most human interactions, at ALL levels. Blessings ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still out of topic, with a nice addendum of personal attacks. I wonder when did I become 	punching bag .--Vituzzu (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that YOU were either doing a little trolling or might have sincerely mistook me a passive and inert "punching bag" when you started off today's discussions with a clearly sarcastic insult to my remarks that "I regularly seek to remind people that most of what is good and best is born in a spirit of tolerance and generosity, not intolerant constraints." You implied that such assertions of such nearly universal principles as simply "out of topic." Even so, I responded with a rather civil citation of high principles, as I certainly do NOT seek to make or tolerate any attacks on persons or their proper rights to state their opinions — I do make honest statements of vigorous repudiation of many apparent attitudes of the right to assume COMMANDING and DEMANDING roles in regard to others. YOU seem quite eager to presumptuously assert your supposed AUTHORITY on what other people can consider in or out of a "TOPIC" as you seek to define  ABSOLUTELY in accord with your own inclinations, without any question or dissent. This is a page to state our positions and some of our reasons for them — and our reasons can be out of range of such narrow and limited perceptions as many might prefer to constrain things to. When the ultimate principles of Humanity, such as Honesty and Liberty become the punching bags of those who are so oblivious towards them as to treat them as objects of ridicule, there is usually a VITAL NEED for contention about such issues. So far as I have observed, MOST of your addendum today seems to be to engage in slyly but rather shallowly DISGUISED attempts at personal attacks and personal intimidation, and it is no "original observation on my part" those MOST inclined to make various forms of disguised and camouflaged personal attacks on individuals rights and options to state their views and opinions will do so in ways to make them seem "not personal" at all — but only what they believe or wish others to believe are "official enforcement" of necessary policies. I prefer to stick with a trust in ultimate principles of Liberty and the basic HUMAN RIGHT to assert genuine opinions and beliefs in a factual manner, rather than trusting such people to exercise any policies, especially those which have often become so corrupted as to be crafted in such ways as permit them to interpret any passionate opposition to their personal stances or those of their particular cliques as "personal attacks." In recent years there certainly does seem to be a high incidence of trolling and intimidation coming from people who have let their official status and powers go to their head as to what others can or cannot say and do. I honestly find that quite deplorable and disgusting, though the projects as a whole are dominated by well intentioned and generally well directed principles, and people who understand and serve them well.  ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
 * New off-topics+personal attacks. Poke me when back to the topic, which is a simple RfD. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not making personal attacks — I am defying what I believe to be personal insults and attempts at personal intimidation. I will take time now to go on to other things, as you have clearly already wasted a great deal of my time. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You did many personal attacks actually. If it was a "burst" (triggered by...?) try re-reading yourself within a few hours, you'll find lots of slanderous words against me. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is one point of contention where the attitude I embrace is clearly different from that of many — I do not consider indications of honest opinions about people's actions or apparent attitudes to be deplorable attacks on people: I consider dishonesty about ANY matters to be disregard or attacks upon of the rights of general Humanity, and attempts to intimidate or absolutely forbid any individuals from stating their honest opinions as actual attacks upon not only their proper rights in any genuinely just human society, but also upon the ultimate principles and rights of Humanity as a whole. I find deplorable the confusions that many promote by seizing upon unflattering or even deliberately derisive forms of honesty as "intolerable attacks", often even as they go about actively seeking to constrain the options of others to act, or even speak or even THINK differently than they find pleasant and accommodating of their presumptions. I certainly know that this is NOT a universally popular or even familiar stance, but it is one I honestly hold to, and believe honorable. I certainly have NOT threatened you or your rights to speak your mind, or continue activities here, in any explicit OR implicit ways — you have repeatedly referred to ways that you could conceivably attack mine by simply finding others who would be eager to agree that my honest lack of deference and respect for your attitudes and assertions are "personal attacks." Then you could have me blocked temporarily or even worse as something a sufficient number of people might desire to see occur. Here I must actually be going, because there are things I must do elsewhere soon. I truly do wish to clarify you have every right to disagree with me on any and all things, which you believe you must, and I respect your right to do so — and I hope that you can learn to respect my right to disagree with you, and state what I can of my honest reasons for doing so. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC) + tweak
 * Regarding Kalki's point about retaining the page under discussion, and disregarding subsequent meta-discussion of the discussion above: There are lots of generous spirits in this world, and they are very welcome to participate in building a compendium of quotations, an encyclopedia, & etc. Still, and without making assumptions about whether a commercial art photographer using free licensing may be motivated by generosity or by more venal or mercantile considerations, the page in question does not contribute in any way, directly or indirectly, to building a compendium of quotations, an encyclopedia, & etc. It is just using our pages to host completely unrelated content. If Kalki disagrees, as Abramsky apparently also does, with the policy that Wikiquote is not a personal website, then perhaps an amendment might be proposed on the policy discussion page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Page content out of the wiki project scope.--Bramfab (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue would be what is allowed on user pages. The user has a single link to WMF content on his user page, nothing else. The content is not spam, but is a photo taken by the user. Is that allowed? Does Wikiquote have a policy on user page content? Wikipedia does. It would allow this. --Abd (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete If I am not mistaken, so far there is not a word from the person, who created the userpage. If there would be some kind of letter of intent, that the person might want to contribute here, then I would be quite clear that this userpage should be kept. We cannot keep speculating here about the good intent. Now since I started this VfD I am not going to close this, but I do add my vote, and ask another administrator to close this VfD. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The user was promptly globally locked, and, the next day, so were most of the editors who created the Wikipedia articles, unilaterally, by steward Vituzzu. (Total, so far, six locks, almost all of which were inactive.) Until and unless that lock is lifted -- it has not yet been appealed -- the user cannot contribute here or anywhere in the WMF wikis, the user cannot enable or use talk page or email, etc., because login is barred. --Abd (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The relevant policy, User page should be followed. It invites user pages like this ("a photograph", "your real name"), and there are many others like it. It is correct that we do not know the intentions of the user. The arguments of "spam" depend on an inference of intention. I agree that this should be closed, and I hope that the close follows policy. --Abd (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to justify my claim that people are entitled to have a photo on their user pages. The policy states "Wikiquote is not Myspace or Facebook. Every registered user is able to create a user page about themself as a Wikiquotian, but they should not use it for posting non-Wikiquote related topics, such as résumés, personal files, etc. Please see Wikiquote:User page for more information on userpages."  It seems to me a very harsh interpretation to rule out having just one photo.--Abramsky (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Really seems part of a cross wiki self-promotion campaign to me. I am not sure if the vote is closed at this point, but if it is still open that is my opinion. Thenub314 (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is a cross-wiki problem, the photo should be deleted from Commons.--Abramsky (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The scope of Commons is to be a database of images, so its scope is quite different from the scope of wikiquote, here this page is simply promotional.--Bramfab (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)