Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (3rd nomination)

 __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. ✗ plicit  07:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

In additioon to being a WP:POVFORK (as outlined in the last nom), the user who wrote this essay was indeffed for pushing the same fringe views this essay promotes. The previous nomination was closed as no consensus, but in light of the current sanctions on the user, I think it is appropriate to nominate it again. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC) — DontKnowWhyIBother (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Further clarification: the user was banned as an Arbitration Enforcement action here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1164777963 DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I argued for deletion in the previous nomination. As I said then, although I'm generally inclined to allow a lot of leeway for essays in user space, I regard this essay as going against the WP:NOTWEBHOST policy. It takes positions that Wikipedia is things that it, objectively, is not, and argues for things that are contrary to existing consensus. Now, with the editor who wrote it indeffed, there really is no remaining rationale for keeping it in user space for that editor's future use, and there is no realistic expectation that other editors will have any reason to make use of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to why there might be a justification for this new deletion discussion, after the previous one, it's that the user has been site-banned and is clearly not coming back, which changes the situation with respect to whether they would have had a use for the page in future editing. Thus, it doesn't help to argue about process, and the consensus here should be based on the merits, as of this time. Also, content issues about what an individual editor might think about the virus controversies are not relevant. We have a consensus about the content, and this isn't an argument to win a trophy for those who dislike the current consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are people going to keep nominating this every 2 weeks until they can find an admin who closes as "delete"? WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:GAME, WP:SNOW. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if I remember, the user was indeffed for reporting an abusive MfD commenter as abusive. Then, people who don't share the user's opinions, who shared the opinions of the abusive MfD commenter, decided to sanction the user instead for believing in the Covid Chinese lab leak theory. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is extremely disingenuous. He was banned as an WP:AE action, and I would suggest you strike your bad-faith accusation. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) — DontKnowWhyIBother (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * - this is a link to the discussion that ended in the user's ban (dated 11 July 2023). I will read through it again, and if my recollection is wrong I'll be happy to strike. But my memory of it right now is that it started with him reporting an abusive editor, and ended with people quoting WP:BOOMERANG as a reason to ban him. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was an AE action. Unilateral sure but being an AE action rather than a cban, this means it must be a decision solely made by an uninvolved admin. So "" didn't decide anything. In other words, unless you're accusing User:Courcelles of taking AE action while involved and based on their personal opinions, your statement is clearly wrong. I strongly suggest you do not go down the path of accusing Courcelles of taking AE action while involved based on their personal opinion, that's a serious personal attack unless you can provide good evidence this is the case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You calling me abusive? jps (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with this caveat: there is evidence that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell knew very well in advance that the virus would be released in the United States. Mitch McConnell strongly pushed the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was previously a partner in a law firm called Kirkland & Ellis, which is one of the leading firms representing big pharma vaccine manufacturers.
 * Kavanaugh's rulings as an appellate judge are consistent with supporting vaccines, including mandated vaccines, over the objections of parents. It is apparent that the reason Kavanaugh was put on the court in 2018 was to uphold these mandates for the Covid-19 vaccine planned to be introduced to the United States in 2020.
 * An aside: both McConnell and Kavanaugh have certain anatomical features which fairly make questionable their claims of wholly mammalian heritage. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this parody? In any case, outlandish big pharma conspiracy theories are not valid policy-based arguments for a deletion discussion (WP:DEL-REASON may be useful) and violate the WP:NOT policy, about Wikipedia's purpose...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have to ask. Facts indicated are easily confirmable. And userspace essays need not meet article standards. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, delete. Orthodoxy all the way. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Disruptive MfD This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. The prior consensus was valid and moving to overturn it so soon is disrespectful.  Miner Editor (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Disrespectful to whom? DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It has not even been a month since the last MfD was closed. Give it a rest.  Find other great wrongs to right. Miner Editor (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But I will answer your question. Disrespectful to the closer, disrespectful to Wikiprocess, and disrespectful to everyone who participated in the prior MfD.   Miner Editor (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a binary world despite our wishes that it were. Disputes do not always have to be "solved", and sometimes "no consensus" IS the resolution and is perfectly fine.  Let it be. Miner Editor (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The last nomination was an very long and tedious discussion. It is a huge waste of time for everyone to have to spend hours writing out the same stuff every two weeks indefinitely. Either there is some kind of agenda being pursued, or it is the sheer thrill of causing a disturbance, but either way, it is an unnecessary spectacle for unclear benefit. jp×g 02:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I want to pose an honest question per WP:IAR, why are we keeping this divisive essay? I'm just trying to think about this from an outside perspective: We are keeping an essay which nobody is going to cite or use from a banned editor who created it in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfectly good question. In my opinion, (1) no valid WP policy supports deletion of such a user essay, and (2) it seemed to me that the user ban (which happened during the previous AfD a month ago) was a way to do an end-run around the MfD process. Whether that's correct or not, it still looks very bad. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:WORTH: "A well-reasoned essay grounded in accepted interpretations of policies, guidelines, and procedures is going to be of more practical value than a subjective, rambling rant, or a contrarian viewpoint at odds with the community's general approach to something." WP:ESSAYDEL goes on to say that you should provide an argument on "why you believe the essay you cite matters". Your argument is going to how the ban process was unfair, and about the nomination itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ: You closed nomination #2 on 12 July 2023 with no consensus. Do you believe it is appropriate to be nominating again now? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Close. The nominator appears to be a tendentious SPA, who claims to have not edited since 2014, but whose very first edit under this account was this MfD nomination, the whopping third nomination for a... userspace essay... that was kept the other two times it was nominated... the most recent of which was a couple weeks ago. jp×g 02:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Close. - Looks like a sock of someone that wants to continue to WP:RGW. Nothing has changed in the past couple of weeks. PackMecEng (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Close per the above - nothing productive could ever possibly come of this MfD. casualdejekyll  13:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given that there was no consensus the last time rather than keep, and especially since there's been a major change in the situation (author indeffedin part for pushing this kind of stuff in COVID/pseudoscience) that only happened very near the last close, it's a valid situation to re-evaluate the status of the essay. Given the calls to close, WP:NOTBURO policy applies pretty strongly here. The last MfD also had issues with disruption this topic can bring in that likely needs admins closely enforcing the CTOP sanctions, and I'm seeing that again with conspiracy theories popping up like Hyperbolick's keep !vote despite this being a CT area. I'm also not impressed by editors frustrated that the author was correctly blocked for WP:FRINGE promotion and trying to portray this as a way to do an end-run around the MfD process. There is no purpose to the essay at this point where WP:NOTWEBHOST is even more clear. If someone wants to argue the seemingly unlikely event that the author will return, then an admin can undelete it if absolutely needed. In the meantime, it's a major WP:FRINGE focal point that has no place being hosted on an encyclopedia. KoA (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just adding on, the other main policy/guideline discussed before has been WP:UP. That guideline is very clear at WP:UP for what is not appropriate for a userpage: Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example, in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)
 * It's not useful to the community, but more importantly, it disregards reliable sources in a WP:FRINGE subject. There has to be an extremely high bar to justify keeping in that context rather than broadly waving the claim there's no specific policy against the essay. That the author is indeffed only acts as a multiplier effect on the essay being even been less useful to the community or justified in remaining. KoA (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Close, I couldn't pick a side last nomination but re-nomination just one month later is absurd. Plus plenty of user essays are sitting around gathering dust. This is of little real consequence. I would even recommend against nominating it for deletion ever again on account of it being a waste of time. If an unblocked editor creates an essay coming to a similar conclusion, citing its arguments to sway consensus on COVID-19 topics then it would be more worth it to discuss this sort of thing again if/when that happens. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as first choice, blank as second choice - the closer of the prior MfD held the view that the non-consensus result of the prior discussion meant that the page could not be blanked. Given the nature of the objections to the essay, blanking seems to me like a reasonable compromise result. I would invite the opinions of other !voters - especially "close" !voters - about blanking. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A disadvantage of blanking is that it's so easy to revert. While I'm here, I'm going to also say that statements demanding a close do not constitute policy-based arguments for keeping. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be more than willing to offer my policy-based arguments for keeping, but I consider this MfD abusive of the process and I will not dignify it by doing anything other than pointing that out. I have no doubt I am not alone with that sentiment. Miner Editor (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you're not alone. No new arguments are being added for either side. (The "he's indeffed" argument was used in the 2nd MfD as well.) The only new opinions posted here are that this third MfD is abusive. So it should be a foregone conclusion that this should be closed again as "no consensus", if not a speedy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These replies to Tryptofish's reply to my !vote seem to have incorrectly predicted that no new consensus would emerge from this filing. It seems pretty clear, based on the subsequent discussion, that one has. Newimpartial (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no reason to keep around a purposefully POV-pushing essay on a WP:FRINGE topic by an indefinitely blocked editor who was blocked for the self-same POV-pushing. What purpose does this user essay serve exactly? Silver  seren C 00:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete this MfD may be pretty ugly policy-wise, but anyone can see the essay fails WP:UPNOT. Feeling that the MfD is disrespectful to everyone is not a valid reason to keep. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I said disrespectful to everyone who participated in the prior MfD. Please be more considerate of including context when you directly quote.  Also, I said nothing about keeping or deleting, and I did not position it as such.  I was rejecting the MfC in its entirity as invalid and disruptive. Something has to be done about this tactic of just re-filing MfCs and RfCs that you don't like, until you find a closer that does what you want.  Miner Editor (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUMSHOP, for sure. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per what I said last time (and no, I don't feel disrespected that this was filed again). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or blank - KoA's comments do a good job of explaining why this page violates Wikipedia's policies on what is acceptable in userspace, and although it's unusual that it was nominated again so soon, I don't think that's a good reason for a procedural close in this case. Hatman31 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As before. As before. As before. jps (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no good reason to keep this, especially as the user has now been indeffed. – GnocchiFan (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CFORK and UP#GOALS. NightHeron (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, in consistency with my vote at the previous (2nd) nomination. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 16:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete; this page's continued existence in userspace was basically a victory for ruleslawyering over common sense. It's clear from their conduct that AN was basically using the page as some sort of ersatz content fork/draft. As they've recently been banned for breaking psuedoscience discretionary sanctions, we can stop pretending this is a legitimate page. Sceptre (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't know why we're back here AGAIN after only a month, but since it keeps coming up, yes, it needs to be deleted. At this point, it's becoming an annoying time sink, but of course, that in itself is not a valid reason to delete. Nor really is the fact the author is indef blocked. Rather, the issue is we're truly stretching the limits of flexibility in userspace to accommodate this fringe apocryphal "essay". Plenty of other places on the web to spout this nonsense than on an online encyclopedia that demands we adhere to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RS. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a content fork. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 03:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as first choice, blank as second. IMO this essay violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:POVFORK by itself. Accepting that not everyone agrees on these points, it's seems clear it's at least borderline considering the previous NOCONSENSUS outcome. That being the case, perhaps it's okay to allow an editor in good standing to keep the essay as an expression of their individuality allowed by WP:UP. The problem is while this essay was written when they were in good standing this is no longer the case. It seems to me a borderline essay found disruptive by a fair percentage of the community should go if no one is willing to take ownership of it. So the situation has flipped on it's head. That would also ensure all concerns are dealt with since as I raised last time, we have a problem if no one is willing to deal with problems with the essay. I'd note that while at least one supporter acknowledged there were problems and suggested blanking as a solution we're probably here now in part because that editor's attempt at blanking was reversed. If any editor in good standing is willing to take ownership of this essay including fixing problems highlighted we can reconsider whether we should keep it as an expression of their individuality, but it's been over a month and no one seems to be stepping up. Likewise, if and when Adoring Nanny is able to edit the essay again (i.e. has their indef reversed and has no topic ban which would cover this essay) we can discuss if we should undelete or unblank but I think long history suggests that's likely to be 1-2 years away at a minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add that while I'm not totally happy this is back so soon, it's true that last time around the timing of the block and the closure meant very limited consideration was given whether this changes things. It's not clear how many commentators even became aware of the block before it was closed, and in any case, it's hardly surprising even if they were aware of the block, they didn't bother to think about whether this affects things. For that reason, this seems to be one of those rare instances where it's fair to reconsider it so soon, especially since it was no consensus so perhaps that change is enough to push the decision in one direction or the other. Likewise while I'd prefer someone else with more documented experience opened this MfD, I don't think closing it for that reason was ever going to be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to further clarify why I feel deletion is better than blanking, as I said, the circumstances suggest it is unlikely the editor will be able to edit it for 1-2 years at a minimum. And there is a fair chance it will be longer perhaps even simply because the editor chooses not to return. And this is a fairly topical issue, not as much as in 2021 but still while there does seem to be a fair chance the issue will be one of extreme long term unsolvable dispute there is also a fair chance in 1 and especially 2 years things will be substantially. In other words, we're leaving an essay found disruptive by a reasonable amount of the community hanging but blanked around on the chance the editor may one day be able to take responsibility for it again, although by the time they do perhaps it will be a dead issue anyway. Why bother with that? Just let the editor request undeletion if they are and are willing to take responsibility for it again. (I've mostly ignored other editors here since they've had that month but we only got the blanking fight, and some nonsense addition. I think it's fair to give them to the end of this MfD to take responsibility without needing to request undeletion.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fork by a banned user. It probably was a lab leak, but we don't need forks by banned users.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I vote keep in one of the other discussions, this is a user space essay. Yes a poorly referenced and problematic essay, but still just a user space essay. But it's just become a timesink for to many editors, and the author is now blocked and unlikely not be able to editor the topic area any time soon. So IAR and get rid of it. If the author if able to edit the topic area again in the future they can get it refunded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Voted keep last time, but honestly it's not worth keeping it now that the author is indeffed and banned from the topic area. No one is likely to rewrite it to address the NOTWEBHOST concerns that have been raised by many in the numerous discussions this essay has generated. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete not a Wikipedia essay but a political advocacy essay. Andre🚐 01:30, 19 August 2023 (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.