Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jay Myers (Hurricane Jay)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Delete (and User:Tropicaljay & Category:User Egyp-5), but not right now (until the end of June). I e-mailed the user with a message and a recommendation to Wikia with instructions, and hope Fluffernutter or Scott will be able to try and continue reaching out to the editor. What's one more month to give him time to re-establish on Wikia? :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, time has come. The user has been gone from the Wikipedia accounts since before this discussion ended, and me and others have offered to setup a Wikia for Jay, to no avail. Numerous assurances have been made that the deleted content would be provided upon request. Deleting pages in the userspaces of User:Tropicaljay & User:Jay Myers (Hurricane Jay), explicitely except userboxes in case other users use them (in which case they might need to be substituted beforehand). :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  03:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jay Myers (Hurricane Jay)


Vanity page which is the exclusive focus of the editor's contributions over his two-and-a-half-year-long membership. It's difficult to find parts of the user page guidelines that this isn't violating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, providing the contents to Mr. Myers if he would like to take advantage of a webhost somewhere. I'd have less interest in removal of this userpage if Mr. Myers edited anywhere other than this page, but I didn't see anything in his edits that supported that. Syrthiss (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host. Editors are allowed to have user pages, and limited biographical content is allowed, but they are supposed to be mainly for content relating to encyclopedia editing and we only tolerate extensive amounts of biographical content if the user makes substantial contributions to the encyclopedia. This user doesn't edit the encyclopedia at all. They have a total of 2 edits to any pages other than user pages and user talk pages: to sign a joke petition and create a category for one of their userboxes. Hut 8.5 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look at his blog, I think it will be obvious that this editor is an individual with special needs. Please be nice while commenting on or dealing with this matter. —  Scott  •  talk  12:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHERAPY Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That essay is garbage, so it's very hard to understand what you're trying to say here with your one-word hyperlink response. —  Scott  •  talk  16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's an essay, not a policy. AutomaticStrikeout ?  21:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Such willful ignorance from you only leads me to believe you actually want to keep it. I'll spell it out clearly.  Your foisting the "special needs" flag only demonstrates that the content in question is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  We should be treating this editor just like any other whose made this many edits.  Wikipedia is not therapy.  We're not supposed to be the coping outlet for editors who have altered needs. Hasteur (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Facepalm3.svg I'm done talking to you. —  Scott  •  talk  16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't require we be insensitive when it requires the same amount of effort and will result in the same outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "We should be treating this editor just like any other whose made this many edits." Indeed. If, however, you truly believe that the way we treat an editor should depend on his number of edits, and that others are wrong to try to show a bit of tact and compassion, then I despair. Nobody has seriously argued for the page to be kept, merely that we show a little respect for a user behind a keyboard. You don't have to help, or agree - so what is your real gripe? Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I agree wholeheartedly that we should deal gently with this matter.... I don't know that hosting a userpage for what amounts to a non-editor is the best path forward, long term. The harm here is minimal, and we should consider how this would read as a precedent (either way, keep or delete). This is a tricky one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a bit stymied as the actual harm. It is annoying to the eye, but that isn't a reason to delete by itself.  I've always thought that we should give tremendous latitude to editors regarding their user page as long as it doesn't clearly violate one of our polices, such as being a resume, spam, hate speech, etc. And it is about him and lots of Wikipedia related things, even if it has excessive userboxen. Like Ultraexactzz, I'm not sure what the right path is, or if deleting is really required.  The idea that this could set is a precedent worries me. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We give latitude to editors. This person doesn't qualify. They are simply using Wikipedia as a webhost. They aren't editing. Over 3000 edits, and 5 aren't to their user space? How is this an editor? --Onorem♠Dil 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have different "ranks" for editors, including those of us with the admin bit. Anyone with a registered account is an editor and member of the community unless they are banned.  This editor hasn't been particularly prolific but that doesn't mean he has less "rights" (for what little that means in this context).  If he goes and !votes at RfA today, his vote counts the same as mine.  We can't use the count of his edits as a reason to delete his page, period.  That would violate WP:5P, for starters. Other reasons, fine, but not his contrib count. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTHERE. Userpages are for facilitating encyclopedia building, and when you (1) never really edit mainspace and (2) make your userpage so huge that it takes a long time to load, you're plainly not here to build an encyclopedia.  This page violates the userpage standards of what may not be on userpages because it's unrelated to Wikipedia.  As was noted above, we should freely email him the contents if he request it.  Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DELETE It's been my understanding that the userboxes are supposed to demonstrate the very high points regarding a user. Do we really need 5 userboxes describing times on devices near the user?  Do we need 20 boxes describing the user's opinion of various songs?  Do we need the user's stats for various online games? Hint: No Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Print it out, frame it, and put it in a museum - good stuff. ‑Scottywong | spout _  14:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete If he wants a website made of wiki syntax he can get a webhost and a private MediaWiki installation . — Soap — 14:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - user pages are for support of building an encyclopedia. although there is great latitude in user pages, there is no evidence that there is any attempt to build an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I love it. I have no useful comment to make. I thought his proud declaration of his heterosexuality in the form of six userboxes was a bit OTT, but then I got down to the 100 or so NationStates userboxes. You can't buy entertainment like this. If only we could channel his efforts into editing the encyclopedia... —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite a lot of the user pages he has on his page: he created them. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Leave it to Fluffernutter (per Dennis), ultimately as not a web host. If the editor does indeed have medical issues, it would probably be better off for that editor to be doing the kinds of things the editor is doing somewhere else in an environment that is supportive of those issues, with appropriate professionals looking after it.  Here, at the very best, an editor with such issues will be ignored, and I can think of a lot of antagonizing or abusive responses the editor could be subjected to unchecked until someone noticed it and thought enough about it to bring it to the community's attention.  WP:NOTTHERAPY will protect the editor it is applied to as much as it protects Wikipedia, if not more so.  The bad precedent that would be set by saying this sort of thing is acceptable for Wikipedia to host would be enabling an environment unsupportive of the kinds of help the affected individuals would really need. The greatest kindness we could do would be to gently get this editor to move somewhere else.   15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete entire userspace Those concerned about precedent need not be worried, a while back we regularly deleted a ton of "social networking" userpages by users who were focused on editing those pages rather than the encyclopedia. Some of them even went on to be productive editors after we deleted their personal pages.  It is unfortunate whenever we throw away something that someone clearly put a lot of work into, but this is an exceptional case of an editor that seems to have no focus on normal editing or participating in the encyclopedia development process. Gigs (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and all  the sub pages at  User:Jay_Myers_(Hurricane_Jay)/. Two  and a half years and over 3,000 edits on  a user page and nothing  else is not  someone who  is here to  contribute to  the encyclopedia. It's not  as if it's the work  of a misguided minor either. No  worries about  setting  a precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (are we starting to feel snowfall?) - A 83,826 byte user page with 421 templates is ridiculous. Especially since the user has done nothing but build the page.  WP:NOTHERE applies.  I would also be OK with deleting the entire userspace.  Full disclosure: I was made aware of this discussion via AN, but the opinions stated are my own. ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 16:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all this user was advised about his user page activity in January 2012diff since then he has made about 1800-1900 edits to his user page alone, including edits within 24 hours of being advise about what user pages are for. The message about his user page sat there from Jan 2012 until Nov 2012 without any response and was then removed, looking at prior discussions on his talk page the advice appears to occurred because the user claimed to be able speak Haitian Creole and was asked for help to which he never responded. If this was any active editor claiming language skills they dont appear to have or are unwilling to help with we'd at the very least insist the language templates would be removed Gnangarra 17:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Its not exactly harming anyone. John lilburne (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * you did notice that the user claims to know a number of languages, that the purpose of babel language boxes is to enable editors to find editors who can assist with language barriers and that he came to attenion of other editors when someone was looking for help. Gnangarra 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness. Well make him kiss the gunner's daughter and then hang him from the yardarm we can't have that sort of thing. John lilburne (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sends entirely the wrong message. Editors are allowed a certain amount of personal gimcrackery on their user pages to encourage them to participate in improving the encyclopedia. Already there are way too many editors who spend all their time on debate and palaver, we certainly don't need to bring in editors who are only here to foul around with their user pages.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather awe inspiring per others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep Leave it to Fluffernutter - I have the right to have a miniature city. I would not have known that if this page did not exist. &rarr;  Stani Stani  19:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikia--Hurricane Jay is more than welcome to set up a free wiki on wikia.com solely for his lifelogging escapades; perhaps one of the !voters here could assist him? This seems like the best (and gentlest, per Scott) approach.  Theopolisme ( talk )  20:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, probably not  a bad idea. Perhaps Jay  had never thought  of that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only a good idea if such a wiki is in existence. Should Jay create it before the end of this MFD, I would say transwikiïng is the best solution.  Should he not, deletion would be the best course of action, because this is definitely a problem as mentioned before.  We can always undelete-and-transwiki it later if he were to create it later.  Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Theopolisme.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy AutomaticStrikeout ?  21:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you userfy a userpage? Hut 8.5 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? :) -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a joke. In all seriousness, Keep because it's not harming anything. AutomaticStrikeout ?  21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it does harm the project in a small way, as it provides a precedent for others who may wish to use us as a webhost, and not do their part in improving the encyclopedia. I !voted "Delete", but I think Theopolisme's idea is a good one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to a Wikia per Theopolisme - an elegant solution to a thorny question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Theopolisme has the best plan. Whatever we do, please do it with a little tact. Yes, this does not add to the encyclopedia, and nor has this user. However, just kicking over his toys without engaging with him could seem, well, Wikipedia-like in its failure to respect the person behind the keyboard. Well done to Fluffernutter for making such an attempt at his talk page. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki. If it is to stay, it needs to be truncated to conform to the relevant section of the userspace policy; i.e., autobiographical information should be limited and relevant to the user's life and activity as a Wikipedia user. As it stands, the number of userboxes (some of which seem to conflict with one another, or make statements that are difficult to believe) is excessive.  Super Mario  Man  02:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also delete Category:User Egyp-5 as a facetious category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above, and let him transwiki the page if he wants to. We've done similar deletions in the past. Graham 87 06:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as Theopolisme suggests. A great solution to this delicate matter. —  Scott  •  talk  08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore This has been going on for three years and no one noticed -- it's disrupting the encyclopedia how? Had this been flagged in the first six months or so it'd be fine to delete. Kudos to for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jay_Myers_%28Hurricane_Jay%29&diff=prev&oldid=554932264 showing some humanity] -- let's at least give the editor a long grace period to reply before scorching three years of harmless effort. The scope of not therapy is disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference. As there is no disruption, it isn't applicable. NE Ent 10:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The implication is that those giving their opinion to delete are unfeeling? I would have expected better of you, as I usually find you a voice of reason. I didn't say 'delete with fire and salt the earth'. Without considering any material external to Wikipedia, I am saying that in general we do not make a habit of providing free webhosting for pages. I can also assure you that if Jay had been editing articles with any kind of regularity (even infrequently) I would have commented 'keep'. You want us to give him more time, and maybe should have brought it for discussion in the first 6 months...but that disregards the humanity of editors who may have noticed the page early on and ignored it thinking that once Jay was comfortable editing his userpage he might move on to edit articles. I do a lot of things here that make me feel shitty (nominating memorial articles on people's deceased non-notable grandfathers, for example), but I do it because they are the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. If you wish Wikipedia to provide webhosting for people who don't seem to have an interest in improving the encyclopedia (and who also apparently don't lack for webhosting and blogs) you should probably start a RFC on changing our scope. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want wikipedia to be a webhost. I just want it to not to worry about this particular user. NE Ent 15:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, and all the array of "User:Jay Myers (Hurricane Jay)/" sub-pages. By all means help the user to transfer them to Wikia or somewhere else where he can pursue his hobby, but per WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST this is not what Wikipedia's resources should be used for. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and User:Tropicaljay and leave the user a friendly, clear note offering to help him port the content elsewhere if he wants it in the future. Going by his recent blog entries, it appears that Jay has noticed the messages on his talk page and has chosen not to reply here. He appears to feel that we've already decided to delete "his" content and that he's been wronged by mentions of "sanctions" here. I suspect he's not going to engage in dialogue with us on this one; given that, the best we can do is be willing to help him access the content once it's deleted if he decides he wants it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a comment on Jay's blog. I don't know if he's monitoring comments there, so will repeat it here in case he's reading this page.

15 May 2013 at 10:42 am

Hi Jay, I hope you see this message.

I’m one of the Wikipedia admins. Your page hasn’t been deleted so far, but there is general agreement that Wikipedia is not quite the right place for it – another admin, called Fluffernutter, who I know to be a very nice person, has left you a message on your talk page explaining why. Most people seem to agree that the best thing to do would be for us to help you find a new place for it, by setting up your own wiki at wikia.com, where you could update it to your heart’s content without having to worry about the long Wikipedia rulebook.

Even if someone does delete your page, I, personally, will be happy to retrieve the contents to give to you to use on a new wiki.

Please do talk to me if you have any questions. I understand that Wikipedia can be difficult and confusing, and I would like to do my best to help you.

- Scott

My page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_Martin

My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott_Martin


 * —  Scott  •  talk  15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to vote Leave it to Fluffernutter as she's already started off properly with her explanation to the editor and I think she has a good bead on how to deal with the situation in a way that is within policy and yet sensitive to the individual. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 14:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd second that. Fluff should be our emissary. I'm starting to like Jay; if nothing else I feel I know him after my trip through his page and blogs. I think it's sad that our perceived threat of sanctions looks likely to result in tit-for-tat trade sanctions. I vote for detente, but it's hard when the parties don't come to the table.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I support the fluffernutter approach. Part of me wants to say Keep, but I reluctantly concede it would send the wrong message. However, given the size, I hope we all realize there is no rush, so than Transwiki option should be reviewed, even it is takes a few months. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this, plus the Tropicaljay userpage and all subpages, and move all to Wikia as specified above, where he can enjoy himself freely. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and the Tropicaljay pages per Fluffernutter's approach. Sensitivity is needed but keeping this stuff sends all the wrong messages and sets a very bad precedent. I imagine he is also User:Hurricane J (registered in 2006 and that page his sole edit under that name). Voceditenore (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's the case, there's no similarity at all beyond the user name. —  Scott  •  talk  14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find them quite similar in terms of the tendency to loose associative thinking. But it might be just a coincidence. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, funny - I enjoyed that too - especially "We want our costumers to feel like they’re at home". A great philosophy which will no doubt warm the cockles of dressmakers' hearts everywhere. I see what you mean, but, frankly, who cares, apart from the momentary giggle value? Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can this be closed now? I can't  do  it  because I've voted, but  I  think  the consensus is clear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It appears that Jay doesn't want to talk to anyone directly here. However, he posted this on his blog yesterday:
 * Wikipedia :: my fun on that site was ruined by a complainer. there always has to be a complainer. even if the result is keep, I’m still not editing my userpage there anymore.
 * Jay, if you're reading this and want the contents of your page after it's removed, you only have to ask. —  Scott  •  talk  09:09, 22 May 2013 (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.