Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chmod007/Copy of User talk:33451/2004 Archive




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep, with blanking of the page permitted. @harej 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Chmod007/Copy of User talk:33451/2004 Archive
User:33451 was an early Wikipedia vandal, troll, and sockpuppeteer, as shown at this RfC and elsewhere. He has not edited since September 2004. During that same month, User:Chmod007 became an administrator after a successful RfA in which 33451 was the only opposer, on the grounds that Chmod007 "accused [him] several times of trolling and sockpuppetry, without any grounds for such accusations." There was, of course, plenty of evidence backing up those assertions, documented by administrators such as User:Theresa knott and User:Michael Snow. Anyway, 33451 moved the contents of his talk page to a hidden archive and refused to allow Chmod007 to link to the archive page, apparently afraid the contents would be used to soil his reputation and trigger a RfAr. Even though linking to the archive page was obviously acceptable then (and still would be now), Chmod007 copied the contents over to this page in his own userspace and included a list of sockpuppets. At the risk of digging up ancient drama, I think there are three significant questions here. First, is it acceptable to copy someone's talk page archives into your userspace, particularly if they have objections? Second, is the answer to the first question the same when the user is a vandal, sockpuppeteer, or troll? And third, is the evidence against 33451 collected on this page in violation of WP:UP #10, given the absence of a pending WP:DR process? My take: No, probably not, and yes – so I'm nominating this for deletion. --A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My take on it is no, don't know, and probably no. However seeing as it was 5 years ago I think we can reasonably delete this page per WP:DENY. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blank as a sufficient response to WP:DENY concerns, possibly tag as historical, if anyone can be imagined to care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1). Yes, assuming a worthwhile purpose, objections notwithstanding.  (2). Yes, but probably speaks to the question of purpose.  (3). It is not clear that this is an evidence page.  It looks like a talk page, for discussion and resolution of issues in real time, which is proper, and it is proper to keep the records.
 * SmokeyJoe, you're correct that it looks like a talk page, but it was not "for discussion and resolution of issues in real time." All the communication you see on the page originally occurred at User talk:33451 and was copy-pasted from User talk:33451/2004 Archive. The only thing that happened on this page since the cut-and-paste was a collection of evidence that 33451 had socked. I think this qualifies as an evidence page.
 * I also don't think blanking is the right course of action. Why do you think copy-pasting someone's talk page archives into your userspace is acceptable? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the copy of an entire talk page violates WP:UP#NOT/10. I don't think that it is a collection of information on specific editors.
 * I think that copying and editing anything and everything released under our copyright is acceptable by default. Users do not own their userspace, including their talk pages.  If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that copying the talk page was a violation of WP:UP, I said that the sockpuppetry evidence that was subsequently added violated that guideline. I agree that copying over these archives was not in violation of copyright or anything. And of course users don't own their userspace. But in general this seems like one of the many bad ideas not listed at WP:NOT for obvious reasons. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a page such as this is worthy of the attention of MfD until one of the following happens: (1) You discuss it with the custodian (ie User:Chmod007), and the discuss leads to an impass; or (2) You blank the page, are reverted, and subsequent discussion with the reverter is not fruitful. Bad ideas should be resolved between editors.  Bad idea pages should be blanked, or tagged for speedy deletion under db-u1 or db-g7.  Someone else's bad idea page should not be advertised at MfD before exhausting the above steps.  The posting of WP:DENY rationales is a self-conflicting action.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Good points. #1 is not feasible due to Chmod007's apparent retirement. #2 I certainly could have tried. I agree with your final point in general, but I think WP:DENY may be used as a rationale for deletion at MfD in unusual circumstances. Whether this is among them is a different question entirely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I actually do not see a reason for deletion enunciated above. I see several questions which are outside the purview of MfD, however.   Looking at the material, it appears that all links to people making posts are retained, making it a proper copy in that sense.   I am unsure that "attack" is a problem, as the editor in question was apparently barred from WP, making any issue in that sense a tad moot.   Is there a major point in favor of deletion that I am missing here?  Much of the added material was by Theresa Knott, which muddies the question posed a bit.  Collect (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Outside the purview of MfD? Perhaps, but since they're being presented with regards to deletion of a page in userspace, I think they are legitimately posed. If you would like me to start a discussion at WT:UP about this, I will. I think the major point here is that copy-pasting someone's entire user talk archives into your userspace is simply not an idea that makes much sense, and that maintaining a collection of sockpuppetry allegations (proven or not) as evidence against a user (even if that editor hasn't been on Wikipedia in years) is simply contrary to WP:UP, not to mention WP:DENY. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As there is no separate noticeboard for userpages -- likely it would have to be raised at AN to get any eyes on the overall issue of copying material from other pages in general into userspace, and copying to material from user talk pages in particular. It is, to my knowledge, a common practice.  I doubt that userpages are more protected from copying than other pages, and the requirement that the date and name of editors involved does not appear to be an issue in the current instance.   I regard MfD as presenting weight of arguments for and against deletion based on policy and guidelines, with the onus being on the proponent of deletion to furnish valid reasons.   If the material was solely that of the user whose space it is now in, you might have a valid point about attack information which could not be used in WP DR or processes otherwise.  The material, however, does not fall into that category.  The other issue running in at that point is whether references on userpages and usertalk pages to WP process pages (including SPI, EW etc.) are proper in the first place, whether or not they are quoted extensively.  In short, several questions for which MfD with its very limited number of participants is not well-suited to answer. Collect (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree that it's a common practice, per se. Copying over excerpts, possibly, but entire talk page archives? I don't know that I've ever seen that previously.
 * I find it interesting that we have similar ideas about MfD (the onus being on those favoring deletion) and yet so often come to different conclusions. Perhaps we weigh certain arguments differently. In any case, perhaps you are right that MfD is not the best forum for some of the questions posed here. I will start a discussion at WT:UP about the idea of talk-archive-copycat pages like this, probably advertising it at WP:AN. In the meantime, I don't think there's any sort of consensus in this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator's points would be better raised at the village pump, and a deletion discussion would best be postponed until that time (if it comes) when discussion at the VP says that keeping this kind of thing is against policy. At this point, I don't see a problem with it — if Chmod007 wants/wanted to keep this information around, I don't see how it's hurting the encyclopedia.  Yes, Chmod007 is now inactive, but we don't delete userspace subpages because the user is gone.  Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (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.