Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TAway

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. — Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^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.— Dædαlus ^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)

• 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 SoWhy 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.— Dædαlus ^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 SoWhy 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)