Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Italiavivi


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Userpages may occasionally be used by editors as a place to vent frustration with process and policy, and to provide necessary criticism of the project. However, all are reminded to avoid disruptive advocacy or personal attacks even on one's "own" userpage. There are some good arguments for both points, which makes me loath to close this in any definitive manner. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Italiavivi
Section User:Italiavivi, nominated for removal per WP:ATTACK, WP:UP, WP:UP. A user space should not be a platform for personal attacks on policy, adminisrtators or endorse the disruption of Wikipedia processes. ...using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea" Wikipedia gives wide lattitude to the user space. However, when that very latitude becomes a mouth piece on how to exploit Wikipedia, it passes the point of reasonable. Content and advocay such as "How to make personal attacks on Wikipedia and get away with it" is clearly intended to WP:DISRUPT and deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Hu12 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- per my nom. This editors contributions demonstrates he also has no intention of abiding by site standards. --Hu12 11:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What on earth is a "personal attack against policy," Hu? A policy isn't a person. My user page is obviously not advocacy (though certainly observation), nor does it contain any personal attacks or content unrelated to Wikipedia. You may not like it, but I'm allowed to have it there. Hu, your retaliatory actions since our disagreement on an AfD is getting out of hand. If this is an attempt by you to completely drive me away from the project, it won't work.  Italiavivi 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the attack is not 'personal', it still appears that you are trying to disrupt the project by pointing out how to exploit Wikipedia. I have no problems with criticism itself; however, I do have a problem with it when presented in this format. Veinor (talk to me) 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to disrupt the project or point out how to exploit Wikipedia. The title is obviously satirical (and to take it otherwise requires a pretty steep assumption of bad faith against me). I am pointing out what I have seen and how I have been treated, and hope the project learns from what I've seen. Italiavivi 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Which part of the page is a "personal attack"? I am still undecided on the SOAP issue. I don't think soapboxing applies because this is talking about internal Wikipedia stuff. It is bad advice, it is misguided, but it is simply somebodies opinion on their experiences here. Veinor does bring up a valid point that it reads like an instruction manual for passive aggressive disruption. Undecided as to the deletion. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement "Jimbo Wales himself has accused uninformed individuals of "lying"" is one example. Per policy; "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views...", is in itself considered a personal attack.--Hu12 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The portion of WP:ATTACK you link is designed to protect editors' political/religious affiliations; it does not apply here, and stretching it to do so is egregious. Jimbo Wales himself has accused uninformed individuals of "lying," by the way. Italiavivi 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that statement is incorrect. The "political and religious" portions of what you refer to are separately and specifically listed elswere. Those separately listed items you mention include race, sexual preference, ethnicity, p/r exposure and p/r persecution. All of which do not apply in this case and is irrelevant to this discussion. However, What was cited from What is considered a personal attack?, is cleary intended to cover the broad area of social and business affiliations.
 * Jimbo Wales ↔ Wikipedia... aka, affiliation
 * Which is certainly relevant and does apply here.--Hu12 07:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You go right ahead and make that stretch, Hu. I'm not buying your novel interpretations of policy, and I doubt anyone else will either. Italiavivi 07:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Instead of nominating the whole page for deletion, did you by chance politely ask Italiavivi to remove or amend the content in question? (Yes, this is a rhetorical question, I have already seen that you did not ask him.) Perhaps you should. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this users page was brought up previously on the Administrators' noticeboard. However, Per WP:USER "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." Hence, MfD.--Hu12 08:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed the sub-section heading in question to read "How editors make" instead of "how to." Would this change satisfy your suggestion, Ali'i? Italiavivi 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If I had cared, I would have asked Italiavivi to remove my name. I don't mind people seeing my (correct) interpretation of policy, and how Italiavivi misunderstands it. LessHeard vanU 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because only Jimbo Wales is allowed to call other editors "liars" off the bat, eh LessHeard VanU? Ah well, this discussion is better suited for user space, not here. Thank you for being fair about the User page issue. Italiavivi 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is not allowed to call other editors "liars" per WP:CIVIL, but I and other editors are loathe to notify him (far less warn him - and don't even think about blocking!) about his violation(s). LessHeard vanU 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then Jimbo is allowed to call other editors liars, or at least get away with it on a regular basis. This is all my user page is saying, that policy is applied (sometimes misapplied) and enforced unevenly and unfairly. Jimbo is the most extreme example (and I acknowledge the nuances involved in the Jimbo example), but the others are all saying the same thing. (And agree or disagree with that assessment, the point of this discussion is whether I can have it on my user page, the answer to which seems pretty clear to me.) Italiavivi 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The more credibility you've built up, and the more good-faith editing you've contributed, the more likely you'll be cut some slack for occasional minor lapses in civility. If an editor has a record of ongoing incivility and edit-warring, then expecting to be treated as the equal of Jimmy Wales is... quixotic, to say the least. MastCell Talk 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said that the example with Jimbo was nuanced. There are plenty of other better examples on my User page; you need not focus on the most unusual of the batch. (And if you would like to discuss it in user space, I'd rather deal solely with Hu12 and his deletion request on this page.) Italiavivi 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the big difference. WP:CIVIL has limits; it's OK to call someone a liar when they have given you clear grounds for doing so.  When someone makes a misstatement of fact, you're required to AGF and suppose that they were merely mistaken; you need evidence of bad faith before calling them a liar.  But even before AGF comes checking your facts to make sure that you're not the one who's mistaken.  This step also includes re-reading what they wrote, to make sure that you understood what it was that they were claiming.  And when making either your polite correction or your indignant accusation, make sure that the facts you state are true!   If you have taken care of all these details, feel free to call someone a liar.  In your recent dispute with me, you did none of these things.  You 1) misrepresented what I had claimed in the first place; 2) immediately accused me of lying;  and 3) wrote a blatant falsehood (refuted here) yourself.  As I documented at User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson, what I wrote was not only not an innocent mistake, it was true.  And when you act like that, and then rather than apologising, or even just hiding your face for a few days and pretending the whole episode never happened, you continue to call me a liar, and have the gall to cite Jimbo in that cause, you need to be called on it.  -- Zsero 18:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Zsero, you are an edit warrior, chronic WP:CIVIL violator, and the blackest WP:POT I have ever seen. Even above you omit that the Thompsons' age difference was added by others before me. That you have never been blocked for your behavior (including 3RR violations) is an example of precisely why my user page exists. Pretty impressive chutzpah reading you of all people telling other editors they "need to be called" on their behavior, since you've never been called out or blocked for yours. Italiavivi 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's it. I am now done with AGF.  As I documented extensively, my statement that you called a lie was completely true.  You have 1) misconstrued it for the purpose of calling it untrue; 2) then called it a lie rather than assuming it to be a mistake; 3) in the process of doing so made a blatant falsehood (refuted here) which I have given you several opportunities to withdraw, and you have ignored.  I have given you the benefit of every reasonable doubt and several unreasonable ones, I have made every reasonable effort to construe your actions as merely misguided, but there comes a point when bad faith is evident even to the thickest-skinned, and I have reached that point with you.  Until now I have refrained from flinging the L-word around, even when pointing out your errors; I will not do so again. Zsero 04:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. This comes up every now and then; a disgruntled editor vents in their userspace. See User:Mnyakko (now deleted) and User Talk:Mnyakko, or User:Jinxmchue, for recent examples I've seen. I think it's lame and a bit childish, but grounds for deletion? Ideally, people will just vent, get it out of their system, and take it off their userpage so that other editors take them seriously again. MastCell Talk 15:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a virtual guide on how to break the rules and get away with it (aka: Vandalism). Futhermore, cutting up quotes can radically change their meaning, looking at the whole text from where the quotes came from could show a very different view of things. Lastly, every case is different. Should an Admin decide not to block a user, that is his choice which he will have his reasons for. Should User:Italiavivi have a problem with the admin's decision, he should contact that admin on his talkpage and explain his case to him. And not give blatant personal attacks. A clear violation of policy. ChrisDHDR 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My user page contains no personal attacks, please withdraw that inaccurate characterization. This is not a "guide," and if it were a "clear violation of policy" I'd think you'd have more people here agreeing with you. Also, if an admin consistently chooses not to block violators or one side of a dispute, there's nothing wrong with taking note of it elsewhere in User space. The last time I tried "contacting the admin on his user page," he ignored my comments for two days then accused me of "beating a dead horse" when I finally pressed him of handing down consistent blocks. Italiavivi 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you say that this admin always supports a certain person? You provided only one link, one isolated case. Also, as we can see from the link on your talkpage, your conduct was not perfect either. Think over this: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". As you can see the admin had his reasons, justified them, and that is his decision. I completly aggree with the admin's comments, the affair was over, why restart it? I don't think a similar problem arose in the near future after it, so what are you fretting all about??? ChrisDHDR 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Beg your pardon, I never said my conduct was "perfect," I said that the administrators who responded to situations I was involved in did not act in a consistent, fair, or even-handed manner. Two editors do the same thing, only Italiavivi gets warned, then the other offending party from the situation in question (like 3RR-violating Fred Thompson edit warrior User:Zsero above) follows me around posting diffs to the warnings I've received? I will not sit back and be quiet while such things are going on out in the open, no. Italiavivi 20:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have such a problem with User:Zsero, post a complaint at WP:RFC or WP:AIV. Not on your userpage. Looking at this case, you were both equally guilty. That's why he did not block you 2. Stop complaining and be thankful that you don't have a third entry on you Block Log. Chris DHDR 09:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Decidedly not. Chris, you clearly don't care about my grievances judging by your dismissive tone, and that's fine. Your lack of agreement with what's on my User page does not mean it should be deleted, though. Italiavivi 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not my lack of agreement, but the lack of agreement of a lot of people. I could easily make claims like yours, for instance, why have you attacked me furiously but have not laid even a hair on User:Radiant!'s comments below? You will probably gain nothing from your comments, only bad first impressions. In this sort of case, I advise you that the best thing is to move forward and forget the past.  Chris DHDR 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's trivial venting about real problems that do exist. I don't see any real harm here. The notion that it is a "guide" to misbehavior is absurd. If the advice really works, then he is doing Wikipedia a favor by exposing the problem. In that case, censoring his expose would be the real crime. On the other hand, if the advice is not apt, then no unsanctioned disruption will occur as a consequence.Verklempt 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although wildly exaggerated, it does outline some real problems with Wikipedia, in particular the inconsistent application of 3RR. I don't see that criticising Wikipedia is inherently disruptive, nor that quoting users' statements constitutes a personal attack against them. WaltonOne 13:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I may not agree with the user's assessment of some of the sitations, it is certainly within his right to have such content on his userpage. I can find absolutely no evidence of personal attacks on his page, and would call a nomination based on "attack page" rationale as unfounded or a mischaracterization.  I would also like it noted that this user is pointing out the actions of other editors, and does not appear to be "advocating disruptive behavior" (quite the opposite, he seems to be bringing attention to some of the deficiencies of the wiki system). /Blaxthos 16:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it cries out of an attack page which isn't needed here. Certainly a very pointy page which if there to simply document things and people that Italiavivi has a grievience with - wikipedia would be better for not having it.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an "attack page." I am beginning to wonder if there will ever be a time you don't oppose me somewhere Ryan, ever since our disagreement over Virginia Tech massacre where you called me "unprofessional" and "espousing sensationalism." (Full disclosure: User:Ryan Postlethwaite is one editor my "how Wikipedians make personal attacks and get away with it" section is based upon.) Italiavivi 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disapoint you, but I really don't make personal attacks! I can't remember the Virginia Tech massacre, but what I do remember is giving you a personal attack warning. I disagree that I oppose you every time I see you, I just don't think you understand that civility is key to our project here - without it my friend, it will fall into constant arguments. They key to this is, would your userpage as it currently stands benefit the project? No. If appears far more detremental at present, hence why it should be deleted.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My half a ¢ Blaxthos said ...and does not appear to be "advocating disruptive behavior". MastCell said ...Ideally, people will just vent, get it out of their system, and take it off their userpage so that other editors take them seriously again. I agree w/ both comments and i'd say that there is no need to delete this page as long as it is not disruptive but Italia could gently remove the content which can seem offensive to others. In brief, both offended people and Italia got at least something wrong in this case. Maybe i'd said it less offensively and say both parties here can be right, or at least they could be. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe User:Hu12 is offended at all. He's trying to Wikilawyer me off the project by tossing mini-conflict after mini-conflict (at here, AN, and AN/I). His novel interpretations of policy are the Judge Judy of Wikilawyering ("personal attacks on policy"), with the obvious intent of drawing out past conflicts and getting me blocked (he just tried today to get me blocked for the duration of this MfD because I was "disrupting" it). Italiavivi 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is misguided in my opinion, but it is directly related to the running of the community. It does not seem off topic, nor does it seem like an attack against any person. It is not against policy to challenge policy. If any of the people being quoted feel they are being taken out of context then that needs to be resolved, otherwise I don't see a valid reason for deleting it other than "I don't agree with it". Very little attempt has been made to discuss this with the user in question. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 03:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your pointing out that no one talked with me about this in advance. Hu12 popped an MfD tag on my userpage, no Talk message, that was it. The same people accusing me of incivility haven't been very civil to me, either, and I'm sick of being judged by a panel of WP:POTs. Italiavivi 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is definitely an attack on specific people, including me. He has not "taken out of context", he has simply mischaracterised others actions in order to make himself appear a victim.  And I now believe (as I just wrote above in this same edit) that this attack is made in bad faith, and that nothing will convince him to correct it of his own accord.  Note that I did not file this motion.  I wasn't going to make any complaints, but now that someone else has done so the least I can do as an injured party is to lend them my support.  Zsero 04:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Injured party?" Oh, you poor, poor victim! Pointing out that you violated 3RR and weren't blocked for it isn't a personal attack. The "preventative not punitive" rationale behind not enforcing against your 3RR violations and edit warring is both spurious and arbitrary; that's the entire point. Italiavivi 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I don't even see your name there. To have a personal attack you need a person and an attack, please point those out to me and I may reconsider. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 04:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need to name the person for it to be a personal attack. Anyone following up the diffs he posted to see what he's talking about will quickly find my name.  The bulk of the post is about his use of the term "liar", and nobody can possibly follow that without finding that I'm the person he called and is still calling a liar.  I think I have good grounds to take that personally, especially since most of the back-and-forth over his use of the term assumes incorrectly that his underlying charge was correct, i.e. that I did tell an untruth, and the only question is what to call me for it.  Zsero 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all I see is him pointing out that a 3RR claim against you was rejected. That does not warrant deletion. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Wrong issue.  Look at the whole kerfuffle over whether calling someone a liar is acceptable.  You can't look at those posts without seeing whom he called the liar.  The 3RR matter was an outgrowth of the other issue.  The claim was filed two days after the violation, not because he was really concerned about 3RR but because he'd finally found an excuse to "get" me (as I said earlier, I'm no longer Assuming Good Faith on his part).  Zsero 06:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Weak keep I don;'t think doing it this way is a good idea, but it is not against the rules. It is perfectly appropriate to argue for better manners or for policy change. (Incidentally, in a later posting on the enWP list, Jimbo apologized for the accusation of lying. Everyone makes mistakes. One can complain about ones blocks on one's user space--many people do, & its natural enough :). DGG (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment some people seem to be mistaking criticism for personal attacks here. 86.137.123.74 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Justice doesn't always prevail, on Wikipedia or in life, and contributors should be allowed to tell their side of the story in userspace, as long as they're reasonably civil. This doesn't cross the line. -- Groggy Dice T | C 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is the subject I am disparaging, Radiant? Please clarify. Italiavivi 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * keep Clearly a comment on policy (its subject) not editors. . .I've seen worse (much worse). R. Baley 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as where?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This seems to be material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute per Wikipedia:User page - Inappropriate content. Presenting personal attacks, lying, and violate procedures as acceptable in the project is content that is likely to cause the project to be perceived with low regard and to cause loss of reputation for the project by those reading the content. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 07:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where on my user page do I present the behavior I have observed as "acceptable," Jreferee? Please clarify. Italiavivi 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep although controversial it doesn't appear that the userpage is disruptive to editing on wikipedia- thank you Astuishin (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't agree with some of the stuff that page says, but it's not completely false and does bring up some good points. Wikipedia has it's flaws, and being faced with those flaws is one way we can drive improvement. When I first saw this page I was tempted to just blank it, but then I thought.. well, heck, the guy kind of has a point (again, I don't completely agree with him). Think of it like people reporting a security flaw to help the development of some software. Even if the improvement is simply clarifying that some of these things are not actually issues, the fact that someone feels this way is relevant. It's his two cents, and it's related to Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to be a personal attack on any particular editor. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some of the problems cited appear to be legitimate concerns, there is no problem with documenting said concerns within userspace. Burntsauce 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (or delete both pages). I don't necessarily agree with it, but unless it's interfering with the encyclopedia, we shouldn't WP:CENSOR. There are some inconsistency issues here, as with anywhere. It's impossible to make it perfect, but we could try our best to make positive changes. If it is deleted, however, so should Zsero's page concerning the same type of information. hmwith  talk  19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's that supposed to mean?  Zsero 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You page, User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson, is of the same nature as Italiavivi's. It would only be fair to do the same with both pages (but I think both should be kept, anyways). hmwith  talk  20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't at all the same. It's an exact, verifiable history of one specific edit over time.  It's perfectly civil in tone, and more important it's fact, not opinion.  That it puts Italiavivi in a bad light is not my fault; it's the facts that do that, not my words.  That makes it completely different from the page we're discussing here.  Zsero 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see Zsero's documenting edit history as particularly problematic, if so we need to nominate this also. I do however want to appeal to hmwith in the statement he she made "...unless it's interfering with the encyclopedia", in the case of this particular users page, it is infact interfering with the encyclopedia.--Hu12 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see much interference with the encyclopedia excluding the existence of this MfD. If I'm wrong, please delete it. Also, Hu12, I'm a she. =) hmwith  talk  22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * corrected;)--Hu12 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Groggy Dice . ♠  TomasBat   21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question for Italiavivi. If people are objecting to the stuff on your userpage, why don't you just delete yourself? What's the big deal? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 06:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess... because he doesn't want it deleted. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You had lucky parents Ned, because when they said "cause I say so", it must have worked. I was more trouble, I alway asked "why?" ;) &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I think it comes across as a bit petulant, but I don't see a reason to delete it. I don't think they're good instructions for gaming the system anyway.  Just because Italiavivi saw some people get away with certain behaviors around some admins doesn't mean it will work around every admin. Sxeptomaniac 23:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent mentioned by MastCell above. I'll add Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jefferson Anderson to the list of controversial userpages deleted per policy.  Italiavivi can find an alternative outlet to voice his displeasure, without directly insulting such an established editor as LessHeard VanU. Shalom Hello 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — Coupled with some evidence here of actual personal attacks by this editor, Italiavivi is clearly challenging (and taunting) Wikipedia by demonstrating how he can get away with such personal attacks. A clear violation of WP:POINT.--Endroit 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A violation of WP:POINT would involve him doing something, not documenting what others have done. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, his behavior has been very unacceptable around Wikipedia, and I'm not trying to defend his activities. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP:POINT violation is with respect to his actions after declaring "How to make personal attacks on Wikipedia and get away with it". After such a demonstration of WP:POINT (the personal attacks by Italiavivi against others), I don't see how these contents should be kept.--Endroit 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The motivation behind why he made this content isn't really what should dictate if it's kept or not. Judgement of the content should stand on it's own. However, if removing this information is seen as a part of improving his behavior, I might be inclined to support removal for that reason. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - there's a difference between attack pages and opinion pages; this falls under the latter. Wikipedia does not censor criticism, especially when it is based on sound (albeit cherry-picked) factual and verifiable observations. Obviously the page is not neutral, but WP:NPOV does not apply to user space. — xDanielx T/C 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry guys, but with those usernames on the userpage, this is an attack page. If he wants to criticise wikipedia he can, but not users. It's actually close to a G10.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ryan, but it's not, and enough people seem to disagree with you on the accusation as to place your impression of the page in the distinct minority. Who knew that attributing quotes (the only time any individual usernames appear on my page) was an "attack"? Italiavivi 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Jimmy Wales an attack page? It documents several objectionable actions taken by particular individuals, just as the page in question does. It even links to particular diffs, like this. Should we delete that page too? — xDanielx T/C 00:09, 8 September 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.