Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (2nd nomination)

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria

This is a sandbox version of a page that was deleted from article space in September as a blatant POV fork and political soapboxing attempt, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven of Transnistria. It is part of an intense political battle between two warring factions over the topic of Transnistria, which is currently at Arbcom. Since the deletion, MariusM (talk · contribs) has kept the page around as a userfied sandbox page. However, this page has no potential of ever becoming a useful article, it will always be soapboxing, POV, a fork, you name it. There is therefore no reason to tolerate it in userspace, where it is kept merely to circumvent the result of the AfD, in violation of WP:USER. There was a previous deletion proposal (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria), which was closed as "no consensus" due to concerted "voting" by a group of political allies of its author; however, no policy-based arguments were brought forward for keeping this. The same arguments for deletion brought forward in that debate still hold. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as were the majority of opinions during first discussion. Is not the same version as the deleted article, I added information on it latest in 16 april. Actually is not my priority, as I am involved in an arbitration case and I want to concentrate there. To be noted that during the first discussion the "deletionist" camp cheated, the deletion nominator (User:William Mauco) voting also through his sockpuppet User:Pernambuco, who claimed to have "a neutral look" [1]. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise participated in the first discussion about deletion, why he can not accept that not all his ideas are acceptable? Dismissing all people who shared the same opinion as me as "my political allies" is incorrect, those are real people, not sockpuppets. Mr. Sunrise, your actual efforts to appear like a "mediator" and "a neutral person" in debates regarding Transnistria will suffer if you dismiss opinions of other wikipedians only on the base that they are "my allies". To quote from previous discussion the opinion of an admin: "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". A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right for each wikipedian. I mention also that in my opinion the informations in the article are correct, not POV (see also refferences provided) and I intend to use some parts to propose edits in Wikipedia's articles (but, as I said, actually this article is not my main priority).--MariusM 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what the policy basis of this discussion is: From WP:USER:

• What can I not have on my userpage: Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia,
• Copies of other pages: While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host.

If any wikipedian in good standing thinks the material on that page has the potential of becoming legitimate building material for a new NPOV article in article space, let them speak up here. If there is one such person, I will eat my hat and post a photograph of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't consider yourself as the only person with knowledge about what neutrality means in Transnistria-related issues. We had Pernambuco for 6 months as the main "neutral" person at Talk:Transnistria and he was a sockpuppet. This sandbox is related with Wikipedia, I worked on it this month. Don't make commitments about your hat.--MariusM 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, last time, you managed to convince those who voted to keep the "article" (those who needed convincing anyway), that you're actively working on it. After over two months of inactivity, you made a few minor edits, one of which has actually managed to make it even worse, POV-wise.

Oh, and I don't think that those two "articles" by Node are a blatant attack against anyone but Node himself. :) --Illythr 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was in wikibreak 19 February - 27 March, then I was 1 week blocked and actually I have other priorities (arbcom case). Thanks for pointing at an edit which is showing exactly what Future Perfect of Sunrise asked - the relation with Wikipedia. Thanks for your continous attention for all my activities.--MariusM 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - As I have stated before, the "article", while devoid of any value to Wikipedia (as determined by its near-unanimous AFD), serves a good purpose to demonstrate MariusM's strong POV on the issue, and thus is worth staying as a POV indicator. --Illythr 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)