Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Trump–Russia crime scene

 __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:  speedily deleted by Fastily per criterion U1, user request. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Valjean/Trump–Russia crime scene

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This looks to me like a classic fake article in user space. It is not an essay about Wikipedia at all, it is about politics. While we do give users some lattitude in user space, this seems like using Wikipedia as a web host for your own thoughts and observation not realted to WP editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I consider it as a content-draft and not just "free web hosting." Andre🚐 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You may consider it that, but Valjean marked it as a userspace essay, so I don't think you are correct in that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a reasonable inference that this is an essay, although, unless I am mistaken, unlike the other one, this one is not so-marked with an essay template, and I think it's possibly a better argument that this one is a kind of FAQ or content draft in the works. Valjean can weigh in when he sees this. Andre🚐 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike a real essay, although it was initially written in response to an unnamed fringe editor who denies Russian interference (hence the words "essay", "help you", and "ask"), this workspace still contains all the things designed to hide it from most editors, such as the "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes."
 * This is how I develop formulations, content, and sources, etc., as part of my own work for use in various articles. It comes in handy as part of legitimate editorial work preparation, and some has been used in discussions and is actual article content now. It's my own editorial workshop, so interference is unwelcome. I have lots of subpages that should be left alone. Some of them, especially these, are obviously hated by our fringe editors, although most probably don't know about them, which is fine with me.
 * Please close both AfDs as deleting these subpages will severely handicap me and serve to aid NOTHERE fringe agendas at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - As stated by the nominator, this is a fake article, a page in user space masquerading as an article. The presence of a side navbox, which contains links to articles in article space, is another indication that this is a fake article.  (Simple removal of the navbox will not change the fact that the page is masquerading as an article and so will still be improper.)  The author says that they are developing these pages in order to oppose fringe editors.  That appears to be an argument that they need to fight fire with fire.  If fringe editors are trying to impose a non-neutral point of view on encyclopedic articles, the author has at least three options that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
 * 1. Report the fringe editors to WP:ANI.
 * 2. Report the fringe editors to Arbitration Enforcement under the American politics case.
 * 3. Request ArbCom to open a re-review of the American politics case as the third American politics case.
 * The author may take one of those three actions, or more than one of them in reasonable sequence. For now, this page is a soapbox and a content fork.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since Robert's comment is a repeat of what he wrote elsewhere, I'll repeat my response. Robert, you need to AGF. An essay cannot be a content fork. Only a real article can be labeled a content fork. Also, read my comment immediately above yours. I am a mainstream editor, and when I see fringe editors casting doubt on whether Russia interfered in the election, I am concerned about their influence and their CIR. Sometimes there is a hole in our coverage where they hang their doubts, and finding better sources and content closes the hole. That's one of the types of things I often develop on my subpages. They may well include OR and SYNTH, but that is allowed on user and article talk pages, as well as in essays.
 * We are supposed to document what RS say, and if that's "meeting fire with fire", then that's what we are supposed to do, but maybe you don't mean that. I don't see it that way. Instead, I believe we are supposed to oppose the forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. We do that by creating better content based on more and better RS. We do that by using that knowledge on talk pages to enlighten those fringe editors. That is proper editorial behavior, and hopefully, we can do it without engaging in battlefield behavior. (Note that advocacy of mainstream POV based on RS is allowed and not battlefield behavior. It is advocacy of fringe POV from unreliable sources that is not allowed. Defending fringe POV is battlefield behavior.) In egregious and persistent cases, we use your three suggestions. I usually try to defuse the matter on the talk page as I find that drama boards are usually disruptive and time-consuming processes. Enlightening fringe editors sometimes prevents more problems and visits to drama boards. If the work I'm doing on my subpage helps with that, it's a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You should under no circumstances be "meeting fire with fire". Wikipedia is not a battleground, not even an anti-fringe vs pro-fringe battleground. As Robert said, we have procedures to deal with these things. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thebiguglyalien, I agree with you. You got the wrong impression of my approach because Robert accused me of using that approach. If you had only read my comment immediately above yours, you'd see that I favor defusing conflicts and using information to deal with those who try to press fringe conspiracy theories into articles using ideas from unreliable sources like Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, ZeroHedge, etc. If they won't accept what RS say and persist, then I certainly do use the three methods suggested by Robert. We are in agreement, so don't let Robert's comment poison the well. BTW, this is all moot now as I have blanked the subpage and will speedy delete it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per Robert McClenon as "a soapbox and a content fork" of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related articles.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, I have to agree that this is a fake article. Hopefully, it was never indexed on Google. That would be inappropriate to say the least. I say this in reference to the top comment that says: "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes." Also, I agree that this essay is an example of Soapboxing. It is also POV forking even if it is not in the main space ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC).
 * Delete as WP:SOAPBOXing and otherwise inappropriate use of userspace. There are plenty of other places to publish things like this. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * THE PAGE IS NOW BLANKED AND WILL NOT RETURN. I'll try to speedy delete it as I'm the only contributor, except for the MfD notice. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:58, 4 October 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.