Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/User namespace

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by FCYTravis for Nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:WikiPoliceman/WPPD

Inappropriate attempt by a new user to make others think he has some sort of official capacity. Disrupting Wikipedia with a role account. Zoe 19:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per nominator, impersonating a police officer is a felony, even in cyberspace --Outlander 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Someone might think this is actual Wikipedia policy or enforcement - Tεxτurε 19:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• While I completely agree with the arguments here, has anyone simply asked the user to change the page? That'd be a lot easier, methinks. JDoorjam 20:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing the page content wouldn't change the user name, which in itself could be misused --Outlander 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a harmless user page. No one with any intelligence is going to take him seriously. Gateman1997 20:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've issued an infinite block on the user per the Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames policy - "names that serve to confuse readers." Clearly, this is a trollish/WP:POINT-violating username. FCYTravis 20:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Page appears to have been deleted. -- Visviva 12:56, 19 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bala and User talk:Bala

Delete as blatant link spam in user space. User pages should have a link to the project and not be used as a hosting service. According to this help desk request the user has no other useful edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree. We are liberal with what goes onto userpages, but it should not be advertising/spam. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious spam. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same Elfguy 12:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same --Andy Janata 13:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sjakkalle.—Encephalon | ^ζ  13:52:00, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

• Comments only: I am not sure, but this user page is unusual (?)--Bhadani 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linkspam. I've wrapped the whole thing in nowiki tags to neuter the hyperlinks. I will of course restore the page to its original condition if the article is kept. (*scoff*) Incidentally, could this be speedyable as consisting solely of external links? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  Answering my own question, no it can't be speedied under our current criteria. Articles consisting only of external links can go, user pages still have to come here. Perhaps that should be changed.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Normally I'd vote to keep. If someone wants to spam their own userpage that's their business. However this user hasn't been on Wikipedia in over a year and has never contributed after the day they created this userpage. So Delete. Gateman1997 21:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is a user space page too far. -Splash 21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, why is the user talk page also up for deletion? It appears to be fine, only contining a welcome message?Gateman1997 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The User Talk page was originally a list of links as well. Someone removed the links and replaced them with a Welcome template shortly after the VfD started. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Ah then why don't we remove the talk page from VfD as it has no business being up there now.Gateman1997 23:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • It doesn't really do any harm deleting it; someone can re-add the welcome template if they're so inclined. This prevents reversion back to the advertising, and adds weight to the community disapproval for such tactics. I don't imagine that the user in question cares much about the page either way—he hasn't edited under that name since April 2004, and his only edits were to create the spam user pages and add a spam link to Google (search engine). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Googlebombing and linkspam. Groupthink, doubletalk, toomuch1984 — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Googlebomb. --Apyule 02:11, 17 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 21:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheGamer

non-notable information on some internet user (originally on TheGamer, and moved to an non-existing Wikipedia user at User:TheGamer) secfan 17:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Userpage where no actual user account exists. Delete. Uncle G 22:41:45, 2005-08-06 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Germen/Prejudices about islam

THIS IS A PAGE IN USER-SPACE

Totally inappropriate use of user space - Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Serious POV issues, etc.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Let them do what they want in their subspaces. Seems a bit like bad faith to VfD someones page... I hope you at least told them first. Redwolf24 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep POV and other normal deletion criteria are completely irrelevant in user space. -Soltak 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I personally don't have an issue with this user's decision to post this content, but Wikipedia:User_page makes it obvious that this is not what user pages are for. The Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia and Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material clauses in the What should I avoid? section apply here. - Thatdog 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Objection, it IS related to Wikipedia, it's an archive of one of his posts to talk:islamophobia. Xaa 22:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I was not aware of the source of this page. I am changing my vote to Keep per Xaa. - Thatdog 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Germen is entitled to his POV in his userspace. David | Talk 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Insisting someone be NPOV in their own user space? Ummm... I don't think that's possible. While I acknowledge that wikipedia policy does allow user pages to be VfD'ed, I do not think that action is necessary or appropriate in this case. This is an archive of a reply that Germen had posted to the talk:Islamophobia page, I see no reason why he should not be allowed to archive his comments on one of his sub-pages. Xaa 22:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not obviously inappropriate. Gazpacho 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, does not meet the criteria required for deletion. Hall Monitor 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, user space has enough latitude to allow something like this (in fact, I can see an article emergin in future, or contributions to other articles). And -Ril-, just leave user space alone, VfDing it will not achieve much. -Splash 01:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This is a stupid VfD. Nandesuka 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ObsidianOrder 11:58, 11 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. – malathion ^talk 06:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Witkacy/Black Book

Inappropriate use of user space. Accusing people of racism is a personal attack, violating wikipedia's no personal attacks (ever) policy. If they are guilty this should be brought up at RFC, not in a hate-list.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: As one of the people being abused by this page, I have requested clarification[1]. I have not, as yet, received any, whatsoever, despite the fact that it says on the page itself that improving communication is the purpose of the page. In fact, rather than respond to my request for clarification, the request was simply deleted[2], whereafter an antisemitic troll inserted a comment intended as an attack against me and a couple other users listed on the page[3]—and that comment is permitted to remain. Not only is the name of the page intentionally offensive, but it categorically does not serve the purpose it purports to, and is instead, exactly what -Ril- characterizes it as. (:blush: now I've agreed w/ -Ril- on 2 VfD's in the past hour...what is going on here??? :-p) Tomer ^TALK 23:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a 100% personal attack page --Noitall 23:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User Witkacy is notorious for aggressively pushing nationalist POVs on many articles and attacking people who do not agree with him as "racists" - as if Poles were a "race apart". I have just commented on this strategy here. While I think the motivation behind this page is outrageous, I vote keep for a simple reason: This page helps uninitiated users understand Witkacy's personality and judge his edits accordingly. --Thorsten1 23:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though I acknowledge WP's considerable leniency with regard to user space, maintaining a list of nasty accusations is beyond reasonable limits. The accusations don't even add up to much anyway... example: "Nohat accused his opponents of being nationalists, which can be treated as offensive remark" So saying someone else is a nationalist makes one a racist? What the heck? Not to mention the fact that this could be considered libel, as labelling someone a racist is a very serious accusation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a publicly posted "blacklist", which is actually illegal where I live - and that doesn't even touch the potential for libel vis-a-vis the accusations of racism. Xaa 00:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a lot of latitude in user space, and WP:NOT censored, but this is too far. -Splash 01:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per this policy, which states that WP:NPA applies to user pages and subpages. HKT ^talk 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Suspending my vote, for now. While, subpages of this nature are liable for deletion, I find myself appreciating the position of Thorsten1 and Nohat. Also, I feel sort of funny voting on a page partially about myself. We'll see.... HKT ^talk 02:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, users quoted there said what they said in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NPA rules; judge for yourself: User:TShilo12 [4], User:IZAK [5], User:HKT [6], User:Thorsten1 [7]. For those who don't like the name of User:Witkacy/Black Book section, please see the name of User:Klonimus/AINB anti-idiotarian notice board. --Ttyre 02:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ttyre, Klonimus' subpage doesn't target individuals for insult, so I don't understand how it can violate WP:NPA. I'm also curious about where you discovered that responding in kind to incivility or personal attacks is acceptable according to Wikipedia's policies. You don't seem to have gotten that from Wikipedia's policy pages, which state the opposite. P.S. How did my remarks about history violate WP:NPA or WP:Civility? Did I insult any users? Did I accuse any nationalities of possessing intrinsic negative qualities? Did I use profanities? I don't recall doing any of those, yet you charged me with having "(probably) bigoted opinions" (a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility in its own right). Please tell me how I violated policy, because I look forward to improving. HKT ^talk 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ttyre seems to have succumbed to the two wrongs make a right (fallacy), when in fact, as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right. Nohat 04:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC).
    • How about applying Newton's action-reaction principle here? I would like to see similar protest to the original "wrong" or action (editors' abusive/offensive language) as to Witkacy's reaction. --Ttyre 11:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Physical principles don't apply to social interactions. Nohat 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Nohat, Google "action/reaction"+psychology to see how this concept, originally applied to physics, has been utilized to describe human interactions. --Ttyre 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ttyre, you seem to be referring to the tit-for-tat approach. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, you can't VfD comments on an article's talk page. In fact, it's much easier to deal with comments on an article's talk page if they constitute a personal attack. I believe current policy is that anyone can delete a personal attack from there, as long as it is actually a personal attack. HKT ^talk 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• This content is mean-spirited and negative, and that is made all the more obvious by Witkacy's claims to the contrary. That it constitutes personal attacks is beyond obvious. He's a problem user and the value of his edits are strongly overshadowed by his strong bias and clear difficulty in dealing with other users civilly. However, I believe that the content of userspace should be legislated as little as possible, and people should be free to put pretty much whatever they want as long as it's not illegal and isn't physically abusive of Wikipedia servers. As I explained on this page when it was in Wikipedia project space, "Anyone who wants to hate me is welcome to do so in their own private user space". I meant this when I said it. Per Thorsten1, allowing Witkacy to maintain this page will serve as a strong warning to those who deal with him exactly what kind of a troublemaker he is. When one's character is rotten, no one is better at character assassination than one's self. While this content is offensive and in poor taste, removing it will only hide the problem rather than solve it. We don't really fix his attitude problem by removing this page: the bad attitude will persist, and will inevitably resurface in a different form if this page gets deleted. So, while I admire and appreciate the sentiment behind trying to remove this page, I just don't see that there is any point. I take solace in the hope that universal condemnation of the sort being demonstrated so far on this page will help Witkacy realize that he's doing something wrong. It's too bad that when it comes to rotten character, I have little optimism for any chance of rehabilitation. So, with a sad heart, I vote Keep. Nohat 02:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Witkacy has already copied this content on to his user talk page. Deleting this page will not actually remove this content from Wikipedia. The fact that he has ignored a request [8] from Jimbo Wales himself, the founder of this project, to cease his campaign of hate, speaks volumes about the quality of his character. Nohat 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You ignoring the fact that a lot of Polish users supported the idea of a black book ... Your personal attacks against me are doing nothing to help your arguement--Witkacy 09:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT. Note that this is not the only place where User:Witkacy keeps track of this stuff. It is also half of the page at User talk:Witkacy/notesik. Note also that when User:-Ril- asked Witkacy for clarification of the /notesik content[9] on Witkacy's talk page, Witkacy reacted by deleting the question and replacing most of the contents of User talk:Witkacy with the contents of this VfD'd page[10] (yes, there are several diffs in there, it took him a while to "get it right"). Tomer ^TALK 01:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is an attack page. If there are problems with racist comments being made about Polish people, there are ways to deal with it. Making a tattletale page is not the right way. MicahMN | Talk 05:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - attack page. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per, well, everyone else gkhan 08:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain but will comment. The project is dead (there were no edits for almost a month after it was moved to userspace). Or was dead, since some people offended by it last time found out it was still archived around and caused a stirr, raising the dead and stirring emotions again. All things considered, I think this is a big fuss about nothing, or more precisely, about some users making several offending remarks about Poles, failing to apologise, and other users treating minor incivility as a terrible crime. Personally, I despise racial incivilities and generalisation, and overzealous political correctness, and all of that can be see here. I consider that wasting our time through such discussions is a much bigger crime. PS. I like Jimbo's suggestion of transforming this into some kind of educational page, but I don't have any time to do this myself, and I doubt anybody involved is open to such constructive idea. EOT for me, and if never hear about this project again it will be too soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Witkacy has added several new users to his hate list. If you want this all to go away, you should encourage him to stop adding people to the list; don't blame the victims for "raising the dead and stirring emotions again". Nohat 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: In Nohats opinion, anyone who makes racist comments is a victim :)--Witkacy 09:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, only people listed on your hate page are victims. But I gather from the smiley that the comment was supposed to be an attempt at humor. I doubt anyone is laughing. Nohat 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep--Witkacy 09:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • this voting should be deleted (it's an "anti-Witkacy campaign") - see [11], the consensus was Userfy--Witkacy 10:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I respectfully disagree. <edit> Please see here for my full comments, I have moved them to keep from cluttering up the voting page. Xaa 19:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC) </edit> Xaa 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Voting summary: Oppose/Keep: 6; Userfy: 10; Delete: 20 Nohat 17:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)--Witkacy 18:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy conservare, this is ridiculous. Witkacy ought to put whatever (s)he wants in his/her user space. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • See my comments to Gateman1997's vote below. HKT ^talk 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Given that Jimbo has twice now suggested that the Black Book concept is not a good idea ([12],[13]) and that many editors have expressed a similar opinion, to retain this page would seem to violate WP:NPA and a deliberate act of disruption. We left this page userfied and dormant the first time around; Witkacy's revival of it seems to indicate that it needs to be deleted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a userspace. They can use it for whatever they want. Deletion would set a bad precedent.Gateman1997 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In this case, the relevance of precedent is very small, given that there's already a clear policy that allows deletion of user pages and subpages dedicated to personal attacks. No matter what the consensus is here, the next guy may have his userspace placed on VfD. Voting keep based on the invalidity of the VfD contravenes Wikipedia policy. HKT ^talk 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm against censorship in User namespace.  Grue  20:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • <edit> comment moved to talk page. </edit> =) Xaa 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Xaa do you already read the introduction? " This page is intended as an archive of anti-Polish behaviour on various WP pages. Many Wikipedians assume bad faith solely because the wikipedians they oppose are Polish. It is commonly accepted that Poles are nationalists, anti-Semites or simply morons. Such views are promoted by numerous people here, whether conscient or not. In the past this behaviour has led to the creation of meta:How to deal with Poles. Since it's persists, the Polish community joined in the Polish Wikipedians' notice board project has decided to take steps necessary to defend their good name and fight such views by asking all those who promote them to support their statements with facts, diffs and links. We established this page in order to be able to communicate with the offending users without having to resort to WP:RfC, WP:ArbCom or any other serious steps in dispute resolution. This page is intended as a tool and an archive of such anti-Polish bias. It is by no means an attack page directed at any single user or a group. It is not a personal attack. It should not be treated as such - it is simply a collection of quotes from various talk/discussion pages. We are not responsible for the creation of those quotes, we simply archive them here. We are all friends here after all and in our oppinion it is always better to try to reach aggreement before we start the quarrels on who is guilty and why. If you find your name here, feel free to explain the reasons for your statement, demand our apology for erroneus interpretation of your statements - or apologise yourself.--Witkacy 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • <edit> Comment moved to talk page. </edit> =) Xaa 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Witkacy, give me a break, this is utter nonsense. This is just like saying "The following is not intended as a personal attack: You bl**dy m***erf****er!" Apart from that, Witkacy just accused me of being anti-Polish or something for posting to my user page in English, and, for no apparent reason, of being volksdeutsch, which seems to be the strongest insult in his book... [14] I'm trying hard to treat him seriously, but keeps getting harder all the time. --Thorsten1 22:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

(1) This stuff is cut and pasted (or just moved) from the "Polish Wikipedians' Black Book" page. It was not written by User:Witkacy, whom it obviously pleases to maintain this crap. That said, the assertion that many Wikipedians assume bad faith because the WPans they oppose are Polish is (a) an assumption of bad faith itself and (b) an oblique threat (watch out or we'll list you here!) against all Wikipedians who might dare to disagree with Polish Wikipedians who happened to think this "project" was a good idea. By using mealymouthed weasel wording ("many Wikipedians", "it is commonly accepted", "numerous people", etc. ad nauseum), the proponents of this "project" attempted to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing by purposely offending other Wikipedians.

(2) Half of what's listed on the page presently is only "anti-Polish" if bad faith is presumed...in other words, the supposition that everyone is anti-Polish is the "given", and anything Witkacy doesn't like is "proof".

(3)The "How to deal with Poles" in meta was written by a Pole!!!

(4)I have demanded an apology for Witkacy's (and others', apparently) misinterpretation of my statement, as the page recommends, but my demand was deleted, and thus far no rationale has been forthcoming. It is increasingly obvious that I'm listed there because of the fact that Witkacy is on a crusade against me for nominating Anti-Polonism for deletion. (That article, incidentally, is an even bigger mess of original research and POV-pushing than it was when I nominated it...but of more interest here, perhaps, is the fact that Witkacy was so quick to remove my VfD tag (and did so so frequently), that it messed up my {{subst|s for 15 minutes. Nominating this page for VfD itself is just more in the same vein. See Thorsten1's comments above, accompanying his "keep" vote. Tomer ^TALK 22:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: And the nonsense continues[15][16]. Tomer ^TALK 20:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't happen to think this is personal attack. It is misguided, and Witkacy should immediately request its deletion himself. But it is not anyone else's place to delete it for him, as it, to my mind, violates no policy. [[smoddy]] 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a wide latitude in User: pages, but this appears to be an attack page. I'm torn, because it is evidence of problematic behaviour, but ultimately I think it should go, ideally at the hand of the creator. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless the authors of those quotes apologise or at least show their similar comments offending other nations, proving by the same that general abusiveness is simply their unique style of conduct and somewhat weird sense of humour. On the other hand, I think that their comments on that page shouldn’t be removed and also that their quotes should be deleted as soon as they apologise. But of course it’s up to Witkacy as it is his user page. I understand that it’s not a nice feeling to see one’s name on that page but, though none of those remarks was targeted at me, I felt offended all the same. I don’t understand why some editors can see no way for answering arguments of others without offending the others’ nation. I think that arguments in Wiki space should be focused on well sourced examples while personal disagreements should be solved in Users’ space. --SylwiaS 23:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User pages are not sacrosanct or rule-free, and thiis paranoid kangaroo-court of a page needs to go. --Calton | Talk 00:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course! Space Cadet 00:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 69.209.223.68 01:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SylwiaS, above, but Modify into something better and less confrontational per Jimbo Wales (you have to admit, keeping a Black Book for any purpose other than courtship is kind of Stalinist - speaking of practicioners of Anti-polonism). --Jpbrenna 04:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as far as VfD goes. VfD is not the forum for resolving personal attacks. If this really violates NPA, any user is free to request comment, mediation or arbitration; any admin is free to speedily delete it. VfD is not the place to resolve issues of this kind. -- Visviva 06:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's user space and does not seem a personal attack, just documents the behaviour that happened. It does not violate the policy regarding user space. And Modify as per Jpbrenna, probably rename to something less inflammatory as well. Also agree with SylviaS. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it's user space, and because it doesn't seem (to me) to be egregious. We're very strict about what's allowed in articles, we're less strict about what goes on talk pages, and we're least strict about user space. If he has violated the "no personal attacks" policy, then someone should start an rfc or request mediation, but even if he is guilty of personal attacks, the page should be kept as historical record. And if they don't count as personal attacks (and I think they don't) then we shouldn't delete them anyway. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dirty laundry and paranoia. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of pages is hurting the project of writing an encyclopedia. Eugene van der Pijll 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a user page, and put quite behind the curtain, so to speak. Documentation of personal attacks and racist remarks isn't a personal attack.--Molobo 01:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How is what I said, as listed there, either a personal attack or a racist remark? Tomer ^TALK 04:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a page of sheer nonsense. Trying to turn the Poles into false "martyrs" is a huge joke. How many tens of millions of Africans and Asians have died as true victims of racism and slavery, yet there are no major articles about them? There is not any unique "victimization" of non-Jewish people of Polish descent. This whole subject is a clear smoke-screen meant to cover-up and deflect from Poland's record of Anti-Semitism. IZAK 08:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Are you sure you have voted in the right VfD? Guessing from your comment, you are thinking about Anti-Polonism, History of the Jews in Poland, or Polish Anti-Semitism articles. This VfD is about censorship of the users' personal space in WP and a right to archive other users' remarks, like yours, which some editors, including me, consider to be in violation of WP:NPA and/or WP:Civility rules. --Ttyre 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey bud I know where I am, the other articles you mention have now resulted in some dude creating a phony "Black Book" -- what a joke --and it should be voted out!!! So gimme a break and don't be a cry-baby. IZAK 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Denying Polish WWII suffering puts you in the same category as the Holocaust deniers and similar revisionists. -Ttyre 03:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

All nations under Nazi occupation suffered, some more some less, there was nothing unique about the Poles' experience during WW II. Only the Jews, in all countries in Europe were targeted for genocide by the Nazis (and many people, like the Poles helped them do the job), to pretend that the Poles are now like "latter-day Jews" is just plain dumb. Who are you fooling except yourself? IZAK 08:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, you know I usually agree with you, but let's try to keep things in perspective. It is true that the Poles were not slated for wholesale extermination as the Jews were. But it is also true that the Poles, as a whole, suffered more under Nazi occupation than any other non-Jewish nation (with the possible exception of Russians). Life in the non-Jewish part of wartime Warsaw may have looked like fun from the perspective the Warsaw Ghetto; but from about any other perspective, it rather looked like hell. Roughly 6 million Polish citizens died during the war, about half of which were industrially exterminated as Jews. However, we should not assume that the other, non-Jewish half somehow amused itself to death. They were not put to do death as systematically and efficiently as their Jewish neighbours. But that's about the "worst" that can be said of them.

Also, it strikes me as an unfair simplification to say that "the Poles helped them do the job". Most Poles simply did nothing. While this may be nothing to be particularly proud of, it is not a basis for saying they "helped the Nazis do the job", either. It should also be taken into account that most death camps were located on Polish territory, and in no other Nazi occupied or allied country was assisting Jews punished more severely than in it was Poland. Thus, to say that the Poles behaved particularly badly towards the Jews, in a way that could only be explained by some special anti-Semitic instinct, we would need to know how the French, Hungarians, Romanians, Russians, Spaniards etc. would have reacted if the death camps had been erected on their soil and if similar sanctions had been imposed against attempts to save Jewish lives. As long as we do not know this, the Poles deserve the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone else.

None of this really belongs in this VfD, but I felt that your remarks should not be left unchallenged, as otherwise they could easily become grist on Witkacy's mill. --Thorsten1 11:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete We are in the early days of Wikipedia still, and we are still establishing case law, as it were. One one hand, the concept of a user page deserves some protection, this is a user's space to do with as they will. On the other hand, accusation without possible appeal or discussion in a public forum is damaging to our main goal - writing an encyclopedia. A list of anti-Semitic users, a list of stupid users, and a list of right-wing users would all be equally troubling, and disrupive for Wikipedia, since it destroys good faith and creates factions. Its one thing if somebody can appeal a label of "racist" or "personal attacker," quite another if they are branded without due process. We have thresholds and policies for behavior, and I think this sort of vigilantism sets a bad precedent, as does imposing punishments, like demanding apologies, in order to be removed. The community should concentrate on working, and punish policy offenders through official channels, rather than fighting slights, real or not, outside those processes. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Personal attacks on other wikipedians belong in meta: if at all. 204.80.61.10 20:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's the user's space, and he has not changed the text of any quoted individuals. Shem^(talk) 05:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I don't agree with the content of the page, but it's a user subpage. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This particular user sees Wiki as a vehicle for advancing a certain view, which means purging Wiki of all historical facts, regardless of whether sourced or not or stated in NPOV framework, that in his opinion might somehow reflect badly on Poles or Poland. I would argue for keeping the page for the same reason that a holocaust denier should be allowed to keep a "black book" on declared anti-German users: it allows other users to see that the creator of the black book has an agenda and his Wiki behaviour might not governed by a respect for generally accepted historical principles. If others are more likely to be suspicious of the Wiki edits engaged in by black book creators, the black books will ultimately serve to limit the influence of the propagandists by helping to identify them.Bdell555 10:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Which user, exactly, are you referring to as "this particular user"? Tomer ^TALK 12:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or Delete these also: User:TShilo12/RFC, User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor and any other similar namespace pages. TheUnforgiven 14:13, 12 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.