Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TAway


 * 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 - read Jehochman's unblock note. This only extends to the current revision (here). Likely, any violations should be discussed with him. --Xavexgoem (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TAway
Inappropriate use of userspace, to keep an article which is about to be deleted per an AFD, and article that had been deleted by two past AFDs, and recreated three times now. Not only that, this user is using the page to attack other editors. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My user page states my opinion of a recent ArbCom decision. I am working on an article using only mainstream sources -- and how do you know it is "about to be deleted," anyhow? TAway (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your userpage states that Sysopping that particular user was a mistake, which is attacking said user.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sysopping anyone with <70% support is a mistake. Trying to construe that as an attack? Feel free, carry on. TAway (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling another admin's judgement a colossal failure is another. As the AFD, I'm pretty sure you can read.  Recent news coverage does not make a person notable.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A bureaucrat's colossal failure in judgment, actually. TAway (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact your commenting on contributors instead of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on process, actually. TAway (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like you did here? It's harassment, plain and simple.  You were told to stop, so now you're continuing on on your own page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion was apparently unwelcome there, so I moved it. And? TAway (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're using your page to continue to harass another editor, which is an inappropriate use of the userspace, and is in fact, not allowed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel that way, but my opinion contains links to all relevant points and decisions. Have fun with this! TAway (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I ask what your opinion, posted on your user page, is supposed to accomplish? Are we allowed to call other users big, bad poopy-heads now? I know that's coming across as flippant, but I am not seeing your endgame here.. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Having a copy of an article in userspace is definitely allowed and the nominator's reasoning is based on his predictions of an ongoing AFD's outcome. Criticism of another user's decisions is not an attack (an attack would require criticizing the user directly rather than their actions). Here the editor echoes criticism that has existed with many members of the community that the judgment of a crat in an RFA was incorrect, which is perfectly valid. There is no unacceptable use of userspace in this case. Regards  So Why  07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's using that material to recreate the article now, even though it was voted to be speedy deleted, and was.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  08:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion was not done when you nominated this page, thus the fact that an admin (incorrectly imho) deleted the page afterwards does not make the nomination correct. Otherwise one could always nominate based on what they hope will happen in the future. Regards  So Why  08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As it stands, even if we assume that this is simply a draft article being worked on in userspace, the draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia. In naming and discussing a living person, it relies on questionable sources for negative material and focuses unduly on that negative material, and the only assertion of notability apart from the subject's trivial mentions in the media appears to be from the single recent event mentioned. No article that would be a violation of WP:BLP in the main namespace can be permitted in the userspace, and I would even think that it should be blanked (with history visible to people here) while it is debated. Dominic·t 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox News, TIME, The Register, and a government website are not "questionable sources." And the material isn't "negative," it's what really did happen. TAway (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's clearly wrong. That something happened does mean it isn't negative in the way we use the term for BLPs. A biography can be overly negative, and still true (for example, a biography that said only "Bill Clinton was an impeached politician."). The FOX and TIME mentions are red herrings, since they are trivial, passing mentions, and don't contribute to the assertion of notability. The Register is certainly something that is questionable here when sourcing negative claims due to its tone; it also doesn't indicate wide media coverage. Dominic·t 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Every editor has the right to have a user page. However, the extremely negative content and BLP violations on the current user page, which reads like an attack page, actually would suggest that this editor should lose his privileges as a wikipedia editor if he fails to remove the current content fairly soon. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The material has now been removed by Jehochman and TAway blocked for 24 hours. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked them because they indicated, or seemed to indicate, that the content will not be reappearing on Wikipedia, except through successful use of the WP:DRV process. Jehochman Talk 09:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a subject of the negative content (which TAway profusely refuses to admit is about me, but claims is instead about the RFA and RFAR processes), I do not feel that the MFD tag should have been removed from the user page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the tag. TAway looks like they may have operated a previous or another account at Wikipedia.  They posted a featured article nomination within their first few edits.  Do you have an idea who this might be? Jehochman Talk 11:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing, the account holder has some fairly strong opinions for someone with less than 150 edits and six months of activity. Clearly they have a prior editing history here, but as it stands now, it's pretty inscrutable.  R. Baley (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification please -- I thought the policy didn't prevent people who once edited under an ID they no longer used, from starting a new ID. I thought our policy merely proscribed using more than one wiki-id at a time.  Last September I encountered an apparently new contributor whose first three edits were naked vandalism to an article I worked on, and whose fourth edit was a baseless personal attack on User:Geo Swan.  Their first three edits were repeats of vandalism by an IP address, and a single purpose account.  I considered requesting a checkuser, and having them sanctioned for sockpuppetry.  But, after looking into it, I thought if it was actually the same individual, then they weren't violating the policy on sockpuppetry, because they hadn't used the old accounts for months.  Personally, I think it is good-faith to offer an explanation on one's user page if one's wiki-id is not one's first.  I've suggested this to apparently new contributors who start participating in the kind of wiki activity untypical of new contributors.  No one has chosen to follow my suggestion.  -- So, it User:TAway once contributed under another ID, one they abandoned, then they aren't violating policy, are they?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting up a new account may be acceptable, but not if they use it to attack former adversaries. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank As PA. I would have allowed the article as Sandbox, but there is no reason to support use of a page as anything near an attack. Second choice is Delete Collect (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that might be away out, Collect. Move to sandbox DGG (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, attack userpage. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove objectionable material. The fact that Ryulong's RfA was closed as successful despite a lower-than-usual percentage of support, and that he was involved in controversies that culminated in his desysopping, can appropriately be mentioned in the context of something like a WP:BN or WT:RfA discussion about what the required passing threshold for RfA should be or the like. But advertising it on one's userpage is disruptive, and when I also consider that TAway posted the same message on Ryulong's talkpage on the day the ArbCom decision closed under the heading "petulance much?", I conclude that his real agenda here appears to be petty harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no point in waiting. Per WP:NPA, I have removed the personal attack from that page. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete That page is, apparently, being used as a vehicle to disparage both Ryulong and that British politician guy. The editor may think in good faith this is important content. However, Wikipedia is not a place to keep deleted content because you find it yourself important, it's about writing an encyclopedia, and there was already a discussion three discussions on how this article was not going to be into it (for now). The sentence "[admin X] never had the right to be a sysop in the first place. It was a colossal failure in judgment on [Bureaucrat Y]'s part (...)" fails WP:NPA, among other things because it's not a reasoned argument of how wikipedia processes might have failed there, but it's unsupported personal accusations directed at specific persons.


 * About article: it was already deleted at AFD... three frigging times It was kept in the first AfD, then deleted in a second one, and deleted again in the third one. In the latest AfD, the sources made available in this user page were already available, so it's not a case of working in a new draft because new sources have appeared that can address the AfD's arguments for deletion if written correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I looked at the three afd on David Boothroyd. They weren't all closed as "delete".  The first afd closed as "keep".  Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the correction. I saw that it had been deleted three times, and I assumed incorrectly that it was one deletion per each AfD. My bad. The first two deletion are from the 2nd and 3rd AfD, and the last deletion was a speedy.


 * Btw, I suggest TAway to send the article to WP:DRV if he thinks that the closing of the AfD was faulty. If he thinks that he can improve the article beyond its state during the 3rd AfD then he should explain how. This is starting to look like AfD 4. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, the article is already at DRV DRV.... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some clarification please -- Normally when a good faith contributor requests userification of deleted material, because they are going to try to find better sources, or otherwise address whatever triggered the deletion, those requests are usually granted. If the material unfairly attacks the subject it wouldn't be userified.  But my recollection of the policies is that it is not material that shows the subject in a negative light that is proscribed.  My recollection is that the policy requires material that could be considered to show the subject in a negative light has to be well-sourced.  So, the main reference here is "The Register".  I used to read, and enjoy, The Register long before I discovered the wikipedia.  This is the first time I have read anyone suggest it is not a WP:RS.  Am I missing something?  Am I missing some passage where the material that references The Register strays from a neutral paraphrase?  Now if the nominator's real concern is the section on User:Ryulong then wouldn't another option be to remove that section from TAway's talk page?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The userpage previously contained material from an article that had been deleted at last week that TAway had recreated and it had been put up for AFD, again. This was a biography of a living person, and the subject of the article did not want the article to be on Wikipedia. If the community (and/or administration) does not want the article on Wikipedia, TAway should not be allowed to keep a copy in his userspace.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 12:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Userpages are not for attacking other editors. If content violates WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NPA, it can be removed, which I have done. I am not sure why this MfD discussion is continuing as the matter appears to be moot. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm letting it go on in case the user does add it back in at the end of this AFD or something, so we can have a clear idea of what consensus is if he or she does.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  18:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I looked at the David Boothroyd article I didn't see a one-event. I saw at least two events.  There was the sockpuppetry thing, and there was a controversial position he took as a city councilor on gay rights.  So I don't see why the article keeps being characterized as a lapse from BLP1E.  With regard to requests from the principals of the articles.  I have participated in a number of afds where the subject of the article had gone on record as wishing to have the article deleted.  People who had participated in lots of previous similar situations were very clear about the precedent in these cases.  My understanding was we respected the wishes of the subject -- if and only if the subject's notability was right on the border of being sufficiently notable to merit an article.  My understanding was that when the subject of the article was clearly notable, had been covered in lots of WP:RS we ignored their requests -- or demands -- and cover them anyway.  Various people here have characterized the David Boothroyd article as "negative in tone", and stated that WP:BLP proscribes articles that are in a negative tone.  That is not my recollection of what BLP says.  My recollection is that it merely says we need to be more careful that negative material has to be properly sourced.  Well, if it is clearly established that he practiced sockpuppetry I question whether the material is lapsing from BLP.  If that it is the case longstanding tradition allows TAway to work on improving the article in User space.  The short paragraph about the other contributor is another matter.  But that has been addressed, hasn't it?  Geo Swan (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one correction: Boothroid is not the person who took the gay flag decision, so I wouldn't count that as an event. His opinion was quoted as a member of the council who was against the decision: "David Boothroyd, a member of the Westminster Council, said the decision by the local planning committee to begin enforcing rules already on the books was 'wrong in planning law, bigoted in practice and gives Westminster Council an appalling reputation for insulting the gay community.' He and others said that the gay bars ought to be exempt from the borough-wide ban on flags because they are cultural institutions and not businesses." --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2009 (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.