Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was no consensus. Take a break, and discuss it another time if you'd like. — P ilotguy (ptt) 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria
Breach of WP:USER. Now-deleted Heaven of Transnistria was nominated by User:Francis Tyers for deletion and deleted by User:Mailer diablo successfully after it passed a deletion review. The author of the page then created it again on Wikipedia, this time in userspace, and refuses to delete it. He links to it from his main page. When it gets deleted, he immediately restores it. He has been warned of the WP:USER infraction. Delete as per the results of the article's deletion review. A check of the page's history log reveals that the user has no intention of working on it, editing it, or improving it. He has not made a single edit to it (beyond restoring it) ever since it was created nearly a month ago. He has merely placed a copy in order to circumvent the AFD and he has no intention of improving it or/and other encyclopaedic purposes. Delete. Mauco 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not nice from you, Mauco. I created a sandbox in which I will try to improve my edits, before proposing to mainspace. Don't try to silence your opponents, Wikipedia is not Transnistria. You bullied User:Dl.goe "watch your step", you asked veteran User:EvilAlex to be blocked , I see is one of your patterns, if you disagree with an editor you want him blocked. For issues with me, please follow WP:DR procedures. BTW, we have an open mediation where you are not active , it seems you don't like transparent procedures of WP:DR, you just like to pick admins at your choice and request punitive actions against people with whom you have disputes.--MariusM 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.-- Hús  ö  nd  19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is a sanbox, and is in accordance with Wikipedia policies about sandboxes. The nomination for deletion was done in bad faith by an editor with whom I had many content disputes (check his block log).--MariusM 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where is the Wikipedia policy on sandboxes? The article has been posted back on Wikipedia after it was deleted following an AFD. See WP:USER and WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not. There has not been a single edit to it for nearly a month, since it was posted. It is hard to assume any good faith under such circumstances. - Mauco 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP for obvious reason:
 * Everything in userspace, except stuff posted in the User page and in the User talk page is sandbox. I have all my started but slowly moving projects in the same state: in my subpages I gather bibliography, info, cut-and-paste citations from sourses so I can use them later. There I practice to see how it comes out, not everyone wikifies so well from first try. I don't want everyone to read my rubbish as encyclopedic article. When my stuff reaches a good state, I put it up in the article, and people copy edit it. I surely will object if someone erases MY stuff before I decide what to do with it. Just to give an example:
 * 1. I started in October gathering info about Maramures, and I put it gradually in my project subpages (there are two for that subject)
 * 2. I started an article Northern Maramures and some of the stuff went there
 * 3. various small stuff went to other articles
 * 4. I still have a lot of stuff for the newcoming article History of Maramures, which I don't have yet time to get done
 * 5. I had to gather bibliography and images, and wikify them properly, before puting in the articles proper.
 * 6. I worked (in my userspace) with 2 other users on creating some templates . We had long discussions there on how to organize, and where else can we get sourses: We don't want to create stupid articles that we will later nominate for deletion, so we gave it a thought there. In which talk pages we were supposed to do this? The creation of those pages we were discussing!
 * I, of course, don't link any encyclopedic article to my user page. But apart from that, noone but me should decide about creation/delition of subpages in my user space.

So I guess it would be only fair to let this user do what he wants with his material in his userspace. The simple fact that someone considers that such a thing is not allowed is an atentate to common sense. It's like someone saying that I need written permission from the mayor to cross the streets. xxxx the mayor! :Dc76 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dc76. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP EvilAlex 15:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Sandbox" is when you prepare a draft of what has the potential of being a useful article, to be then moved to mainspace. Userspace is not for keeping political rants around that pose as articles, when they have already been rejected from article space. This page has no potential to be anything but a highly POV fork of Transnistria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN  18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Terence Ong 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to me that some place should be safe to do one's work (sandbox) where it does not get attacked by the opposition quoting all sorts of "rules" why it's a violation, etc., etc.. Just catching up on what people have been up to, have been building new PC for past couple of weeks. Personally, given Mauco is the first editor here, it's a bit of Wikistalking IMHO, as I've seen Mauco follow MariusM around berating him in various user talk pages as well. (And no, I have better uses of my time than providing 14 citations.) I would certainly use a sandbox to save content I've created for reference/etc. if it were "rejected" by others whom I believed were pushing their (highly biased and not supported by the international community at large) POV. "Rejection" in Transnistria is a badge of shame or a badge of courage, all depending on which side you're on. (My personal opinion is that MariusM is "in the right" and has been "rejected" by people trying to paint the Transnistrian PMR authorities as a legitimate government.)  &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. While the biting wit could use some grammatical polishing, I regard the article in question as a fair representation of the situation. "Mauco disagrees" is not Wikipolicy for auto-deletion the last I checked.  &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikistalking? Peters, you're assuming bad faith of Mauco again. Look closely: The "article" was listed in the "Tansnistria" category and Mauco's first edit was to decat it . Besides, it's linked from Marius' userpage (that's how I found it).
 * It's not only Mauco, Peters - if you check the article's deletion review, you'll see that the voting there was nearly unanimous, with the exception of Marius, EvilAlex and several sockpuppets. And that's despite the considerable "vote stacking" done by Marius and EvilAlex . --Illythr 12:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it, I have seen many of these people on the Transnistria page, I sometimes hang out there, and both of them edit war but this page can not be a 'Sandbox' page, why, because he kept it for a month and he never edited anything on it, and from what I can see, it was just an article that was deleted. I am neutral, and I do not take sides, but if he wants free userspace then why does he go here, he can go to Myspace and get a free user account there....... 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that would be who? Unfortunately both MariusM and Mauco are blocked so you can't fault MariusM for not editing. Immaterial, and the article makes valid points which I see no reason why he can't keep in a sandbox. It's not like he's got 19,354 of these. Best reason not to keep anywhere else is no one else uses Wiki markup syntax and Wiki links don't work and can't be tested. Why are people even debating what someone does in their sandbox??? I looked through the original debate on the original delete. Again, MariusM has it held against him that English is not his first language. And the original nominator said it was blatantly POV? It's the nomination for deletion that's POV. It's not linked to in any article or article talk page, so let's all go do something more constructive.  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still listed in the Transnistria cat... --Illythr 12:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - while I don't agree with the contents of the article, NPOV doesn't apply to user spaces, and for that reason I believe the article shouldn't be deleted. It is a place where the user can gather his or her thoughts, and the content in the article, or at least parts of it, may be useful for insertion into other Wikipedia articles. There are a lot of other user-namespace articles that are POV or that would never be in the article namespace (see User:Node ue/Antarctic language, User:Node ue/Sentient stove), but these have not been deleted so far. The Heaven of Transnistria article has been deleted from the article namespace, fair enough, but I think deleting it from a user's space, after he has put in quite a large amount of effort, is going a bit too far. And I fail to see how this user-namespace page is a "circumvention of AfD" - the article is not linked from any main-namespace article, and hence it is not accessible to users (unless those that specifically go to his page and click on the link, but, once again, that is not covered by Wikipedia guidelines such as NPOV). Thanks, [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - see comments below. --Illythr 12:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Illythr

 * The article breaches so many Wikipedia guidelines (NPOV, OR, SOAP, WP:V...) that had it been a biography article, it'd be deleted immediately and probably get Marius blocked for libel as well.
 * Even in userspace, its presence breaches point 6 of the "What can I not have on my user page?" section of WP:USER (can it get any more polemical?) and the last paragraph thereof ("Do not put your [...] subpages, [...], into categories used by Wikipedia articles.").
 * Marius had not done a single edit to it since creating it on 27 December 2006 (except for reverting Mauco). I guess he may not have had time to work on it, but if there really was anything to scavenge from that page, Marius had already put it into the Media in Transnistria article.

Having said the above, I will not vote to delete it, because I think that it provides valuable information on Marius' POV towards how Transnistria should be represented on Wikipedia as well as the ultimate goal of his edits to related articles. A reference to that page will be enough to refute Marius' claims of objectivity or neutrality on the issue, should he make any. Had every wiki user outlined their vision of Wikipedia as clearly as Marius, solving POV conflicts would've been so much easier! Perhaps, Mauco should also create a "Hell of Transnistria" (or smth) article in his userspace as well. It would be only fair... :-)

Thus, I only ask that, if the page is to be kept, it needs to be (first and foremost) decategorized and have some kind of disclaimer placed on top of it, stating that it is NOT a Wikipedia article, but a part of userspace because not everyone is familiar with Wikipedia enough to make a difference.

Having said all of the above (again!) and political correctness aside, I have to say that Marius does have a point there - Transnistrian propaganda sucks. :-) --Illythr 12:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to archive and close

 * Ronline summed it up quite well. May we have a moderator type archive this issue (keep) as settled, then?  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for a few more days. Currently, deletion is a matter of only 3 more votes. --Illythr 12:57, 28 January 2007 (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.