Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EtienneDolet/Evidence

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: move without redirect. Salient points were made about the need to preserve evidence for future cases, and Tiptoetheutheminefield is right in saying that we don't usually delete subpages of ANI or ArbCom cases. However, it is also true that we shouldn't have laundry lists of perceived wrongs hanging around in userspace per WP:POLEMIC. Therefore, I have moved the page without a redirect to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive197/EtienneDolet evidence. That way, the evidence is preserved and linked to only in context, so it can be referred to in future discussions if needed, but is not so public and easy to find. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet/Evidence


Please delete per WP:POLEMIC--Etienne, you can always stick a WP:G7 tag on this. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it should be kept because it has been cited (and linked to) in a past ANI case as evidence, and nobody is suggesting it contains sanctionably inaccurate claims. If at the time, rather than placing it in a separate page, ED had just pasted the content into the ANI case, nobody would now be suggesting that this content should be deleted. However, I think a lesson is that ANI case evidence should not be presented in this way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Blank at least. Assuming the troubles are dealt with.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Things are rarely completely "dealt with". Administrators constantly bring up past cases as reasons to criticize or sanction editors and new ANI cases often refer back to old ones. So any editor perusing past ANI cases needs to be able to view all evidence presented in those past cases. My position is not specific to this page, it would be the same for any proposed deletion of any page that has been presented or cited as case evidence and which does not contain material which breaks Wikipedia rules. Would blanking still allow the content to be viewable through the page's edit history? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bring it to a head at some WP:DR forum within a week or take it offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Drmies - Regardless of where its been used it doesn't belong here pure and simple, If you want to submit evidence than either do so or keep it off-wiki, As the page has been here since August 2016 it's obviously not going to be used for anything, Better off deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Asserting that something should be a particular way because it is "pure and simple" it should be is a rather empty argument to present. The page was uses, it was submitted as evidence, it is currently linked to in a past ANI discussion. Saying it's "not going to be used for anything" could be said about every closed case or dead discussion that now exists essentially as an archival record of what happened - that is not a reason to delete things. You don't delete archival material regardless of personal opinions about its importance or usefulness. This is the wider principle at stake here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason.  It is pretty simple.  Establish the very good reason or take it away.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you advocate the deletion of ANI cases related to individuals once they are closed? No such policy or practice exists and would require a major policy change decided elsewhere (not something a miscellany for deletion discussion can do). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Archived ANI threads are stored in an appropriate context, archived alongside hundreds of other silly short term grievances. A stand alone userpage is quite different. It can but pulled up completely out of context. If the page was central to an ArbCom case, I recommend moving it without redirect to a subpage of the case, and leaving its long term fate to the discretion of the Arbs and their clerks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd failed to spot that so my apologies but still regardless of whether it's being used/linked or not it still doesn't belong here, I would have no issues with anyone updating the Arb page saying it's been deleted but in short if kept it would mean this would have to be kept pretty much forever and that could set a precedent for those who too want to keep their evidence - I guess you could say it'd be a loophole for some, Anyway many evidences in userspaces have been deleted and I don't see why that shouldn't be the case here regardless of it being used/linked or not. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * delete, or merge, and redirect, per SmokeyJoe (not good to keep out of context a stand alone page about a editor's behaviour as seen by another editor) - Nabla (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2017 (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.