Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Petri Krohn/Evidence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete per user's page blanking. Thanks/wangi 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbank (talk • contribs)

• Delete. The page is a list of "evidence" which at most should be kept somewhere at user's hard drive. The presented "evidence" does not represent consensus of the community. As a public page it constitutes an attack page with the sole intent to compromise the users mentioned on the page. --Novelbank 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wtf, send this crap to mediation. First Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians now this. -N 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pages about user's conduct are helpfull. Those can be used in future dispute resolutions.--MariusM 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "future"? What exactly prevents Petri Krohn from starting dispute resolution now? Bi 06:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though the attacky intent is clear, it does not merit deletion by Wikipedia deletion policy. As for 'public page' -- it's an userspace page. Consensus requirements are considerably more lenient on such pages, otherwise the alternative history of User:Petri Krohn/Restoration of Estonian independence would have been deleted long ago. Digwuren 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you can put that page up for deletion if you wish. As far as I can see, no MfDs have been filed against it yet. Bi 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess it's not that evil to share your opinions and world views on your user page. This is exactly what this page does in my opnion. Suva 05:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is "evil" to present your opinions as "evidence". There's a big fat difference between opinions and evidence. Opinions are not facts. Bi 06:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What user N said. Send complaints about other users' conduct to the proper notice board pages, or to mediation, whichever comes first. If Petri Krohn has enough time to compile a list of "evidence", I mean interpretations of evidence, then he certainly has enough time to send the "evidence" to the proper places. Bi 06:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but advise Petri to file the information in the correct places if he feels it's needed.  hmwith  talk 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A useful page. I remember that, before launching a RfC about me, Halibutt had kept the "evidence" in his user space for a month, overtly threatening to move it to admin space, if I make "wrong moves". And Piotrus was busily compiling evidence against his opponents for two months preceding the current arbitration; he maintains a special page in Polish wikipedia for that. In short, the practice is wide-spread and I can't see what policy it contradicts. Until the page is deleted, I advise Petri to export its content to Finnish Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it contradicts WP:ICA. Also, a practice being common doesn't make it right. Bi 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you specify what is incivil in preparing an arbitration case in one's own user space? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing suggests that Petri Krohn is preparing an arbitration case. If he is, then given the amount of evidence (or "evidence") he's gathered, he could have filed a case long ago, instead of sitting on the evidence for 3 weeks. (Ryulong's page, in contrast, was created today.) Same goes for Halibutt, actually — if he was in the right, why did he have to wait for you to make "wrong moves"? In both cases, I'd say that someone wants to suggest there's "evidence" of wrongdoing, but also wants to prevent people from testing whether this "evidence" holds water by opening them up to dispute resolution. In short, the pages are attack pages. Bi 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this junk isn't contributing to the Wikipedia community. Crunch13 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a draft for an Arbcom case or an RfC it might be temporarily hold on Wiki but it was there for to long. Hallibut's handling of the evidence against Ghirla was a wrong practice, we should not make it a precedent Alex Bakharev 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Alex Bakharev, it's existed far too long. It has now become a general attack page primarily directed mostly at ethnic Estonian editors. Some may see this page an attempt to vilify ethnic Estonians, and thus the page may be presented as evidence for a potential Arbcom case against Petri Krohn in the future. Martintg 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have blanked the page. Would you still insist that the edit history be removed? This page was never intended to be public or even accessable. I am however constantly WP:STALKed, so this page came to the attention of stalkers, who went on to publish the link on talk pages. -- Petri Krohn 03:01, 18 June 2007 (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.