Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SamuelTheGhost/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 all. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:SamuelTheGhost/Marcel Leroux

Recreation of another users draft deleted through MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux, this was a recreation of article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Leroux with an endorsed DR Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 11. User has not made any edits to the draft, which indicates its an attempt to recreate a deleted page rather than a work in progress. The second page is a sandbox of a single purpose account Jaunjaun (talk · contribs) who only edits are creation of sandbox. The content of this has been blanked by an admin. Third is copied from French wikipedia and translated.--Salix (talk): 10:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These unattributed COPYPASTEs were made simply to undermine the MfD on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux, which itself was made to undermine the original AfD on Marcel Leroux. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These were not copied to userspace to work on, but rather as protests of the deletion of the original. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Can we also add User:Fxmastermind/sandbox/french (ripped from fr.wiki) ? Tarc (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I chanced upon this page and decided to take a copy in order to give myself time to think about it, since I guessed, correctly, that it might soon be deleted. Now some clever editors have explained what I did:

Salix knows that "its an attempt to recreate a deleted page"
IRWolfie- assures us that it was "made simply to undermine the MfD"
Tarc tells us that it's one of "protests of the deletion of the original"

It's almost flattering to have one's motives thus explained, however ignorantly. Such omniscience is the privilege of youth. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in detail why you have made a duplicate of an article that was put up for MfD and deleted, which had been deleted at AfD, where deletion has been endorsed at DRV. i.e Why did you duplicate another editors sandbox? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps first you should explain in detail what right you have to cross-question me thus. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own these user pages. They belong to wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And wikipedia beongs to you?? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Her motives might have been good or bad—I don't particularly care—but SamuelTheGhost should not have made a userspace copy to circumvent the deletion process. If anybody wanted to save the text on their own computer and rework it there that was always a possibility. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including the French page. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate notification [1]? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we could let that slide. Seems to me that Lucy may very well say to delete these as well since she self-nominated her copy for deletion. I think her thoughts on this this issue may prove to enhance the conversation, rather than being straight vote-canvassing. Thanks for pointing it out for the closing admin though. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for kind words Gigs. I'm not canvassing, never have done. I have to let each sandbox owner speak for themselves. I'm trying to stay out of the firepit here. I've copied the article to Climate Wiki which is the platform I set up because I was unhappy about the Wikipedia environment regarding climate science. I'm commenting here now because SamuelTheGhost kindly left me a message which it then appeared to IRWolfie that STG should not have left, and I am concerned if STG is not even allowed to leave me a friendly note. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelTheGhost, if you just want a copy to save while you think about it, considering the discord that this article has caused, I suggest just saving a copy in notepad for now, and nominating this one for speedy deletion. If, on the other hand, you intend to improve the article in a way that might make it more suitable for reintroduction into mainspace (sometime in the very near future), I could see offering you more leeway in keeping this here. Gigs (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the user doesn't want to be accused of making userspace copies of pages to circumvent their deletion, then perhaps he should try not making userspace copies of pages to circumvent their deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I need to explain. The wikipedia encyclopedia is contained in its articles. They are subject to strict conditions such as NPOV, RS etc, including notability. Aside from the articles there are talk pages and user pages. The conditions on these are much less strict. In general anything is allowed there unless offensive in some way. Thus the page User:Thumperward contains unsourced material about an utterly un-notable individual called Chris Cunningham, but this is permitted. In the case we are discussing, Marcel Leroux was deemed un-notable, so his page was removed from article space. Since the material on him was not offensive (though one might suppose from their reaction here that some editors found it so), there is no breach of wikipedia policy in putting it as a user sub-page, where notability is not required. Thus the word "accuse" is misplaced, since the copy was legitimate, and the "circumvent" inaccurate, since the deletion was of the public copy while the subpage is effectively private.

It is legitimate to remove userspace material which is excessively long, or which seems to have been abandoned by its creator. In this case the subpage is short and has only been there since 9 October 2012. I can find no good reason for the haste with which this issue has been pursued. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What actually is clear is that you and a handful of others aren't really here to actually contribute to an encyclopedia, but rather are here to promote your own personal point of view regarding fringe science and scientists. Deleted articles can be copied to user-space if there is a legitimate reason to do so, such as a desire to work on the article to address why it was deleted in the first place. You and your friends are clearly not here to do that. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wholly unfounded personal attack makes it clear that Tarc has run out of rational arguments on this subject, but more importantly it completely demolishes any assumption of his good faith in taking part in this MfD. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken part in this MfD to ensure that the project rids itself of undesirable fringe advocacy. User:Jaunjaun explicitly stated "The irony is most people would never have known of Marcel Leroux had it not been for an attempt at censorship on Wikipedia. In protest I too have copied the Marcel Leroux page to my sandbox." That is a clear admission of a disruptive editor. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing whatever about Jaunjaun. He/she does not speak for me nor I for him/her. In your remarks above you twice used the word "you" in a context which clearly applied primarily to me. If you revise your remarks to remove any reference to me, I will be able to withdraw my response to them. And if not, not. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have both acknowledged that your intention is not for any of the allowed reasons. Some basic information about yourself is allowed on a userpage, but if you write a blog it will be deleted, and if you try to use your userpages as a permanent article host for deleted articles WP:UP#COPIES, then it will also be deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged no such thing. The reference to permanent article hosts is clearly irrelevant when the MfD was raised less than two weeks after the article was copied. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only slight problem is that my user page contains biographical detail on me because that is the primary purpose of the [[user:]] namespace (to identify users). Unless you are, in fact, Marcel Leroux, you have no such excuse for hosting biographical detail on him in your own userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I iVoted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Leroux to keep because I felt that WP:STALEDRAFT gives editors three or so months to ready content in a userspace draft for article space. Howevever, the result of that discussion was delete per consensus. WP:STALEDRAFT still gives User:SamuelTheGhost and the other user space content hosters time to ready content in a userspace draft for article space. However, given that there is an MfD consensus delete on the topic, the "short-term hosting of reasonable content under development" becomes shorter than three months. When there is an MfD consensus delete on a userspace draft topic, a reasonable amount of time to ready the material for article space would be about seven days (the length of an MfD). This MfD was listed 21 October 2012, so whatever material is added to article space by 28 October 2012 can be kept and the rest should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before nominating a page for deletion the following steps are recommended:

"Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~ to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; ..."

In fact this step was omitted entirely, and the nomination, together with the two rapidly following supporting comments, was characterised by an attitude which was aggressive, insulting, and devoid of any assumption of good faith.

"User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion."

I have edited wikipedia for over five years, with over 13,800 edits, and have created dozens of new articles, none of which has ever been nominated for deletion. I have recently created half a dozen new biographies of scientists, but let it be observed that I have never touched any article on climate change.

"Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time ..."

The copy we are discussing had lingered in my userspace for less that two weeks.

In his personal attack on me, above, Tarc voices the paranoia about fringe science which seems to underlie this behaviour. In my view a bigger problem in wikipedia is the culture of bullying which this MfD exemplifies. This is not how wikipedia should be operating. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.