Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux

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 per consensus and that fact that the creator has voted for deletion. Salix (talk): 09:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux

User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The talk page of this article is serving as a place to attack an editor. The article itself was deleted and it was put here prior to deletion so it's saved from "wrong deletion". The existence of this sandbox (or article as it's being called by canvassers [1]) is merely to avoid deletion and to "help correct or bypass Wikipedia's appalling handling of both the science and the corruption, and demonstrate the real importance of Leroux as an expert climatologist in speaking up and refusing to be bullied into silence" [2]. It is not a userfied copy (it also violates the CC by SA). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I should say, like every discussion that has involved Leroux, I expect canvassing to occur, so can the closer please take that into account. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've amended last night's outburst on the my sandbox Leroux Talk page with apology. It seems to me that this action should take away the need for this RfD. If not, please explain what will. And please would you explain what you mean by canvassing. I am not that familiar with WP language. Thanks. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Jaunjaun/sandbox was yet another copy, and was deleted as 2012-10-11T22:54:59 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Jaunjaun/sandbox (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is not be used to attack an editor. There has been a frank discussion, in this obscure location, rather than in a more public and visible area. The discussions involve mutual personal relationships. Note that the editor in question has voluntarily inserted himself in to this user space. Few would be noticing this User space work if they hadn't been discussing it elsewhere. All parties not trying to get the Marcel Leroux article improved for restoration after the deletion review should just leave. Note, that IRWolfie- was trying to get this sandbox deleted before there was any discussion here, and that WMC was wondering with WilyD if the efforts to bring back this article should be "salted", whatever that means, it doesn't sound good --Africangenesis (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

[3]. This article sandbox is being advertised off-wiki as the new location for the article. It was copied and pasted from the article to here, to avoid a deletion result. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you have duplicated the talk page on your own userspace: [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you post the location off-wiki where this is being advertised as such? If this is true, I think it will be a pretty damning piece of evidence. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/11/tabloid-climatology-may-be-the-real-reason-for-the-marcel-leroux-william-connolley-wikipedia-dustup/ I think William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Any talk page attack edits can be oversighted in userspace. I really hate WP:PROF and reject the arbitrary standards used there, but this person, measured by those arbitrary standards, easily passes. This leads me to believe that the accusations of POV targeting for deletion have merit. I also agree that it's inappropriate for the user space article to replace the mainspace article, in terms of having external site links pointing to it. That problem is not one that needs to be addressed in the short run, however. If this user article turns into a long-term replacement for the mainspace article, then we can address that issue at some future point. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't frequently edit in this topic area. You can verify that by looking at my contributions. The only significant change I've made in the whole topic of climate change is to remove the over quote here List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Which was opposed by Connolley. I have no particular problem with a notable climate denial scientist having an article (but this is not such an example). I do have an issue with editors circumventing the consensus at the AfD to set the article up elsewhere before the discussion is even closed "just in case it gets deleted". That is clearly evading the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Userfication does not circumvent AfD consensus. If a userfied article lingers for months with no improvement, then we delete it here. We don't delete articles that were just userfied. Gigs (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Userfication is done at AfD, after the AfD has ended. This case is where an inactive user, who was most likely canvassed as he's active at the canvassed locations, copying and pasting the article into their own userspace prior to the end of the AfD so as to avoid an article which they believe should be kept from being deleted. Their disclaimer on the page said as much. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this and every copy of this godforsaken article...FFS, can it be made any clearer that we are dealing with nothing but POV-pushing disruption here? This page in Lucy Skywalker's sandbox is a copy of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Leroux. A clear single-purpose account Jaunjaun copied that sandbox article 4 minutes after his/her account creation. Now we have Africangenesis making a copy of Lucy Skywalker's sandbox talk page. Enough is enough, none of these people are actually working on or ever intend to work on improving this article to satisfy notability concerns. Note the blatant WP:POINTiness here; [" In protest I too have copied the Marcel Leroux page..." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jaunjaun/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=517234232]. The original article is currently being discussed at deletion review, and for the duration of the discussion it has been undeleted but courtesy blanked for people to view. There is no need for multiple copies lying around by editors who in all honestly likely are heading for blocks. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete every version of this article except for the DRV discussion copy. We cannot host an article in userspace if it is being touted as the true article. Binksternet (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as valid use of userspace. It has not been there 6 months withut work - thus it is not a "staledraft", and I do not see any overt violations of Wikipedia policies. Use of userspace to work on userfied material is one of the specific valid uses of userspace. Misuse of sandbox talk pages is not handled by removal of the sandbox, but by editing of that talk page. Collect (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete License breaking copy (This is missing the contribution history) of article masquerading as a draft. - MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• delete as a cut and paste copy, if the original remains deleted after the deletion review, i dont think this this will be able to satisfy the CCbySA terms, there will be no history page to link to. .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Other copies have been saved at User:SamuelTheGhost/Marcel Leroux and User:Fxmastermind/sandbox/french. These should all be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• delete - this isn't a draft being kept with the intent of being worked on. LSW is entirely open about its purpose: its there for her to keep to the relevant issues of honouring Leroux (see my comments above) rather than letting his memorial be destroyed [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This page has served its purpose, in ways very different from but far exceeding my original expectations. There are various false and misleading allegations here that I would rather not have to spend time dealing with - things my friends and those who know me well, know are not true. I don't like being in so much glaring spotlights, it is tiring. And yes, as Connolley hints but still manages to misrepresent me (again!, see my comments on the Leroux talk page), I would (now) rather see the original restored at Wikipedia (en) as it deserves, now that it has that possibility. I'm repeating here what I said there because it's relevant to my "vote":

Wikipedia is important and even though badly flawed I still appreciate its original tremendous vision, the best of its community, and its partial usefulness, whereby it is a very important first port of call for people to check out facts. Some of us want to patrol here, to note the worst abuses from our (climate skeptics') point of view - which of course we do not regard as a point of view so much as the issue of good science and its corruption and denial of corruption, in practice. Personally I was grateful for the opportunity this event afforded, to "meet" Prof Leroux at some depth and to appreciate both his science (the important Mobile Polar High concept that has clearly taken root in Climate Science), his general competence in producing what is still regarded as a classic textbook (Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate) and his outspoken defence of decent scientific practice that he (along with many other top scientists) saw being trashed in Climate Science from the nineties on.

--Lucy Skywalker (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• The editor is now in violation of the CC by SA as they have copied the article to [6] without attribution to the original authors. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I now suspect you of acting throughout in bad faith. First, you request deletion of my sandbox page without first discussing with me on the sandbox Leroux Talk page, as would seem the normal civil thing to do; now you accuse me here of CC by SA and "not attributing to the original authors" - something I don't understand (despite everything else I said there about acting in good faith myself) - while leaving no hint of an issue on my Talk page, despite my request of same. Please would you explain on that Talk page. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I explained exactly why it was in violation on the talk page, you removed it here: [7]. You are required to list the people who contributed to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example from conservapedia: [8]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks that half-answers me and I take back my direct suspicion. I've removed the link to my wiki too. But it still seems like you are asking the impossible. How can I credit authors whose names have gone into the Great Void? Please would you answer on my Talk page (now restored thanks to WMC, an action that did make sense to me) since it's surely not directly relevant here. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently undeleted, the history is available while it's under deletion review (no point me commenting on the sandbox talk page, it will be deleted shortly). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you ask that the page be copied to your userspace in the event of deletion from mainspace, any admin can make sure the contribution history is also moved. Most places which copy WP do not also copy the full conribution history - they simply credit Wikipedia as the source. Collect (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that she has copied the text outside of wikipedia. Crediting wikipedia seems fine, when the article isn't deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And the fact is that many such articles have been "copied outside of wikipedia" and all the license absolutely requires is crediting Wikipedia (see many printed versions of Wikipedia articles where this is the common practice - in fact I find zero printed versions giving the edit histories at all(. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, that's fine when the article exists and you directly link to it. See Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content: "To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)" IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such requirement - books do not get recalled when the Wikipedia article gets deleted, really. As I noted - look at the books, and note that they generally cite "Wikipedia" and do not make any attempt at "preserving edit history." Giving "Wikipedia" and the article name as it existed on Wikipedia fully and precisely complies with the copyright laws of the US. "Hyperlinks" in books do not exist. I suggest you read up on the topic - I have had to deal with on-line copyright issues since 1987 by contractual obligation. Collect (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you read Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content? It says: "To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors." In this particular case the authors are not available as the article has been deleted, in other cases the hyperlink suffices because at the time the page has not been deleted. The responsible thing to do would be to include the list of authors; Wikipedia doesn't hold the copyright on the contributions, the authors do. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Userspace is not a place to host deleted content simply because one disagrees with it being deleted. The copyvio argument is a red herring; if it is decided not to host the material here, then I am sure we could arrange for the article to be transwikied to another MediaWiki site elsewhere. (7b of our Terms of Use probably requires transwiki if option ii is taken up, but IANAL.) If we're going to delete userspace clones it should be on the grounds that they're being misused to circumvent the deletion process, rather than on trumped-up copyvio claims. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And since there were, indeed, edits on it, it was not simply "stored" -- at MfD, the rule of thumb appears to generally be six months before deleting such unworked-on stuff. Collect (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lucy has already acknowledged it was done to avoid deletion [9], and made no edits to improve the content. "I put the article here originally because I was very sure that this article had no right to be deleted." What are you arguing for here? Why is this discussion even still open? The user has requested deletion [10]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • For specific types of userspace draft (mostly content whose notability is undecided), we consider how long content has been stale when at MfD, but this is most certainly not some sort of blanket six-month amnesty on deletion of userspace copies. There has to be some degree of acceptance that the content could eventually belong in mainspace. The ongoing DRV presently suggests a strong consensus that the delete closure was correct on the grounds that the subject is not notable; a userspace draft is therefore pointless, as notability is not a function of article quality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • DRV does not affirm notability or lack thereof. It only questions whether the administrator made a reasonable closure based on the arguments presented. I, for example, think the closure was reasonable, while at the same time, I think the article does pretty clearly pass our generally lax acedemic notability standards (which I have fought to tighten on more than one occasion). Gigs (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
        • While DRV is not an appeal court, nor is it strictly a referendum on admin conduct. We do not want editors to continually haul pages on subjects established as being non-notable back to userspace to dust and polish them for six months before sticking them back in mainspace and hoping that the wind is blowing in the right direction this time. If a quite flagrantly canvassed AfD still results in deletion despite the existence of a reasonably prominent notability sub-guideline to support it, that would seem to suggest that the sub-guideline has rather less community support than might be imagined. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
          • That's cause for celebration at least. I notice that PROF did clean itself up a little bit a few months ago, but there are still articles being purely kept on h-index regardless of biographical coverage. Now if only the supporters of WP:ATH would come around, we'd finally have the worst SNGs back in line with verifiability and the GNG. Gigs (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep (see below) Keep - Marcel Leroux was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Leroux on 4 October 2012. Essentially, the article was userfied to User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux on 28 September 2012‎. WP:UP#COPIES gives user time, usually about three months, to get their userspace page to a point to where it can be included as an article in mainspace. Three months from 28 September 2012 is 28 December 2012, so try MfD around then. Lucy Skywalker need only rewrite the draft article as Work of Marcel Leroux, instead of Biography of Marcel Leroux, so that Work of Marcel Leroux can be included as an article in mainspace. As for the "talk page of this article is serving as a place to attack an editor," User talk:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux is not listed at MfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • UP#COPIES does not, never has, and hopefully never will allow for an automatic X-month reprieve for deleted articles, in particular contentious biographies deleted for lack of notability. Subjects do not become more notable because their articles are cleaned up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think UP#COPIES allows for an automatic deletion of user space drafts after 14 days as urged by those desiring to delete the user space draft in this MfD. Not being a topic that meets WP:GNG is not a basis to accelerate the time allowed by UP#COPIES. User namespace is useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia and individual editors should be given time allowed by UP#COPIES to get their userspace page to a point to where it can be included as an article in mainspace, particularly in this case where a simple refocusing of the topic from Marcel Leroux's life to Marcel Leroux's writings/works will help everyone focus. On a different note, in reply to this comment on my talk page, if Lucy Skywalker wants the sandbox deleted, she can use {{db-author}} or an admin can read her iVote![11] as invoking {{db-author}} if it does. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • P.S., I wasn't aware that Lucy Skywalker was the one who iVoted to delete above, but I just fixed that by moving Lucy Skywalker's signature to a position that indicated she is the one who iVoted delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • (Weak keep iVote above comment:) P.P.S - I changed to weak keep because I think policy still indicates keep, but if Lucy Skywalker doesn't want the user page, that should be given weight as well. We probably should get a consensus close on this page to make it easier to address any future recreations of the page in user space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2012 (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.