Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox

 __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  Delete. As is also noted for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the linked ANI report makes claims of vote stacking by opponents of deletion, but the consensus of the discussion favors deletion even without discounting any comments because of this. I did discount a number of comments concerning the fairness of blocks and possible future arbitration actions, on the grounds that they are not relevant to the deletion or non-deletion of this page. In the event an actual arbitration request is filed for which this page's content is relevant evidence, it is possible for the page to be temporarily restored at that time. --RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:PhanuelB/sandbox
Userspace being used to store a preferred version of an article. Not currently been worked on, nor is it likely to be, as this user is indefinitely blocked. pablo 11:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This version of the article includes stuff like an allegation that the police tried to influence public opinion about the accused, before the trial. We shouldn't leave this lying around for search engines to find. Bluewave (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy WP:BLP concerns living individuals by name. I think WP:BLP cannot be used to censor claims from reliable sources that some unnamed police (perhaps deceased now) tried to do something thought unfair by a Wikipedia editor. -Wikid77 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:STALEDRAFT. MER-C 08:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since this draft discusses living subjects, the WP:BLP policy should be adhered to. Given the indefinite block of the page creator, and the page's biased reporting of certain elements of the Murder of Meredith Kercher case, I agree that this should not be permitted to remain.  Super Mario  Man  13:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The author wants to keep the page for planned arbitration, and WP:BLP states to update pages before deleting. -Wikid77 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT, the user seems to be blocked and userspace isn't for storing a preferred version of an article. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not STALEDRAFT: the user wants to keep the page for planned arbitration. -Wikid77 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose This person should never have been blocked and was blocked due to unfair review. Wikipedia should unblock PhanuelB. WP:jaberryhill Jaberryhill has few or no edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Whether we agree or disagree with that, it is irrelevant. This is a discussion about whether the page should be deleted, not whether the user should be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose This editor was unfairly blocked and deserves to be reinstated. This page represents a lot of work and is a valuable resource. Kermugin (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Kermugin has few or no edits outside this topic.
 * Note The above two editors have not edited since 26 September and 25 September respectively, and their entire Wikipedia careers have involved POV-pushing similar to PhanuelB's on this article. Draw your own conclusions. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, draw your own conclusions. Perk10 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
 * Comment While I full sympathise with an editor who puts in a lot of work and sees it deleted, unfortunately it is not a reason for retaining material which should be deleted for other reasons. That it is "a valuable resource" needs justification: simply stating it without explaining how or why is not a justification for keeping it. On the plea "this editor was unfairly blocked", see my comment above. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete We can't host this per BLP and other policies, there are plenty of other places on the Internet to host conspiracy theories. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT, also contains WP:BLP violations (eg. against the prosecutor), multiple instances of WP:SYNTH. MLauba (Talk) 10:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose deletion - It was petty of you all to block him in the first place and he should be reinstated in the interest of hearing all sides of the kercher/knox/sollecito issue.. Deleting his sandbox is just more of the same pettiness.. Oppose - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjholme (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2010 Tjholme has no edits outside this topic.
 * Note. Another one - no edits since 17 September.  We're just waiting for User:PietroLegno, User:Perk10, User:NathanWard1234, User:HarvardMan2000, User:Faceforward and User:Charlie wilkes now. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose the deletion. This is a complicated and controversial case. What you have now is a summary of UK tabloid coverage, thrown together in a hurry, heavily reliant on Italian official sources, and edited to appeal to readers rather than present factual information. Charlie wilkes (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Charlie wilkes has few or no edits outside this topic.
 * LOL. One down, five to go. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Perk10 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * Oppose  PhanuelB should have never been banned in the first place. Would be willing to answer questions about why elsewhere. Perk10 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10 Perk10 has few or no edits outside this topic.
 * Which is completely fine. Thank you for noticing.  I am willing to discuss why elsewhere. Perk10 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * Only four to go. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. We are not here to discuss the fairness or otherwise of PhanuelB's ban. Can we please just discuss whether the page nominated for deletion should indeed be deleted. Bluewave (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The ban has direct bearing on why this page should not be deleted. Perk10 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
 * In other words, the reason this page shouldn't be deleted is related to the ban of PhanuelB. Stating why the page should remain involves the topic of the ban of PhanuelB.  I normally would agree that such a Sandbox should be considered for deletion -- unless the account itself should not have been deleted.  Perk10 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
 * This forum was not convened to consider the fairness of PhanuelB's ban and it is not empowered to consider that issue. The fact that PhanuelB has been banned is certainly relevant to the decision about whether to delete the page but any discussion about the fairness of the ban needs to be handled somewhere else. Bluewave (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UP. User space is not the place to store one's preferred version of an article. The fact that this also involved WP:BLP means that we should error on the side of caution to prevent the spread of potentially libelous claims. The fact that the editor has been blocked for disruption on this matter is just a sideshow. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

Because this page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (from author's userpage) -- "My block should never have occurred and all appeal options have not been exhausted. The allegations of BLP violations by MLauba and Black Kite are false. I do say bad things about Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini.  All assertions are fully sourced and echoed by virtually all reliable sources. Claims that Italian police released false information prior to trial are well established and stated by virtually all reliable sources.  See quotes of Judge Heavey and Peter Van Sant in Appendix 1 of PhanuelB's Response on my User talk page.   PhanuelB (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" [copied here by Wikid77 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)]
 * {| class=wikitable width=520


 * Note to closing admin: We just learned the page is a subject for planned arbitration (initated through emails), and if BLP concerns are real, then per policy WP:BLP (since 2009), the page should be corrected, first, while "deletion is a last resort". Uncorrected pages "go viral" when deleted (with several search-engines), so that is why pages should be edited while still in existence to allow search-engines to re-index and replace with corrected text, before deletion (see examples: WP:BLPMEND). For correcting, see:
 * User talk:PhanuelB - discuss updates.

I think BLP concerns could be exaggerated: people might disagree with the text, but that is not a BLP-vio. -Wikid77 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * }
 * Are you seriously telling us that a user's sandbox page has been referred for arbitration? If so, please provide the details. Bluewave (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC) PS How come Wikid77 gets to put his opinions in a nice official-looking box, but I only get a measly bullet point? Bluewave (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The page is a subject for planned arbitration, which the author User:PhanuelB has announced (this edit), and per policy WP:BLP, the page should be updated for any BLP concerns, first, before any attempted deletion. See:     &middot; User talk:PhanuelB - discuss updating that page. We should not delete a page which the author might have announced (for review) in private emails with "arbcom-L@lists.wikimedia.org" or related. Also, per WP:BLPMEND, the page should be fixed if there are BLP concerns, rather than leave known problems in the page, while "deletion is a last resort". Another caution: the policy WP:BLP applies to living individuals by name; I think WP:BLP cannot be used to censor claims from reliable sources that an unnamed someone, somewhere, tried to do something thought unfair by a Wikipedia editor. If a source stated, "Some police officers in the world are corrupt", then that text is NOT a violation of WP:BLP. -Wikid77 06:54 (revised 07:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC))
 * The edit you quote says, under a heading of "If returning to Wikipedia" that PhanuelB "may go to arbitration". I take that to refer to a possible request for arbitration on PhanuelB's ban. That is of course PhanuelB's right, but nowhere in the edit does it say that this page is to be the subject of arbitration. Bluewave (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As the nomination says, "Userspace being used to store a preferred version of an article". The whole purpose of the page appears to be to preserve a version of the article, avoiding normal consensus editing. This is part of a concerted campaign by a small group of single purpose accounts determined to push a particular point of view on this issue. (There is no doubt whatsoever about this being the purpose of most of these editors in editing Wikipedia. For example, PhanuelB, in his very first edit on Wikipedia, announced that he was coming as "a supporter of Amanda Knox's innocence", and while I cannot quote such direct declarations from any of the other accounts involved, in some cases their entire editing history, and in others the substantial majority of it, has been concerned only with promoting one view on one topic.) Using user space pages as a long-term way of evading consensus is clearly contrary to the user page guidelines. Moreover, this is particularly important when, as in this case, there is a consensus that the material in question contains BLP policy violations. Attempts to find procedural reasons for stopping deletion are also not very helpful. As Bluewave rightly points out, the only mention of arbitration is a suggestion that PhanuelB "may go to arbitration", apparently (in the context) over his ban, and I am bewildered as to how Wikid77 has read that as an indication that User:PhanuelB/sandbox "is a subject for planned arbitration". Finally, there is Wikid77's insistence that we should try to correct rather than delete. WP:BLPMEND, which Wikid77 quotes, is an "essay" written by Wikid77. In other words, it is Wikid77's personal opinion, and citing it via a Wikilink gives it no more authority or weight than if Wikid77 had just said that it was a personal opinion. The citation to WP:BLP is more relevant, but improving the material by removing alleged BLP violations is precisely what editors have been doing to the article. When this is happening to an article, to copy the disputed text to a user-space page and then use "improve rather than delete" as an argument for keeping the copy of the disputed text is not helpful. In addition, BLP violations are only one of the reasons mentioned for deletion, so even if we were to accept Wikid77's argument on this question, the other reasons for deletion would still stand. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2010 (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.