Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane?

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

User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane?

 * – (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 related to WP editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see it as a content-draft or FAQ-draft. Andre🚐 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly, deliberately, marked as a userspace essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an essay, to be sure, but I always interpreted it as something that was being cultivated, curated, and adapted for eventual prime-time production use, when the political hot-button-ness of the topic has faded and such things could be adapted to mainspace with suitable non-recentist space. Perhaps that is naive to say, but I am inclined to assume that the intention would always be to move as much of the information as possible in such essays or articles in userspace into mainspace, with WP:NODEADLINE. I can't speak for Valjean and I may be reading too much into it or taking it into a different direction than he would, but that is my rationale for opining. Andre🚐 22:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Andrevan is right. Also, this isn't an ordinary essay as it takes its inspiration from one very RS (with supplemental RS backing): "Interview of Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" It is open for discussion and development.
 * It was, like the other nominated subpage, written in response to the conspiracy theory nonsense from an unnamed fringe editor (who is inspired by clearly unreliable sources), one of those "Russiagate" people who deny or minimize Russian interference and the clear role the Trump campaign played in cooperating with it. They try to place all the blame for the Russia investigation on the Steele dossier, which played no role in the opening of the investigation. This essay lays out all the preliminary factors that raised suspicions in the international intelligence community and led to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That is a clearly notable and mainstream subject covered by myriad RS. Deleting this only serves the agenda of fringe editors.
 * If it being an essay is a problem, I can userfy it again and bury it as one of my other non-essay user subpages. I can also make it a real article. What would you advise? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. This essay is a work of political advocacy, based largely on original research/synthesis, and not something that should be hosted on Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia article that could be created from Valjean's essay, since it would immediately be a WP:POVFORK of the main Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) article, advancing the thesis that the FBI's investigation was properly predicated and that the investigative steps taken were appropriate, in contrast to the issues identified by the Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the Durham special counsel investigation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you are pushing a fringe POV, don't you? You are expressing doubt about the legitimacy of the original investigation into Russian interference and how that properly morphed into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into whether the Trump campaign was cooperating with those efforts. Mueller found that they did just that. Never cast doubt on the legitimacy of those investigations, as that would be forbidden advocacy of a fringe POV. (People who use the term Russiagate are usually pushing such views.) Those investigations were fully justified, as documented by multiple Congressional investigations, Mueller's investigation, the Horowitz investigation, and the FBI's own findings. Any problems with the seeking of the FISA warrants on Carter Page do not detract from that and had no impact on the full investigations. That was a minor sideshow that Horowitz identified and the FBI took measures to prevent in the future.
 * Another point. OR is allowed on both user and article talk pages, as well as in essays. It is often a necessary part of discussing various POV, the process of examining issues and figuring out how to properly interpret sources, the relations between events, etc.
 * This writing is how I figure out what's happening and what RS have said. Some of what I have on my subpages is useful in article talk page discussions and has ended up, after discussion, as content in articles. That's why I do it. The ultimate goal is article improvement. To censor private subpages is problematic. If I was working with unreliable sources and pushing fringe POV, that would be a different matter, but I am not doing that. The editors who disagree with me are often doing that, and I'm working with content that makes our articles clearer in their presentation in what RS say, thus creating more content that undermines the fringe POV. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and favors RS. I'm as mainstream an editor as you'll find around here. It may not be the intended effect, but efforts to prevent me from working on my own subpages just aids those with a pro-fringe agenda.
 * How about telling me a better way to do this? I'm open to learn. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Durham special counsel investigation "identified issues" that were pertinent is itself a political advocacy POV being advocated for, here on this page. Andre🚐 02:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it's a fringe POV. Durham is a political hack who tried to provide cover for Trump's misdeeds and failed. His "investigation" was an abject failure that found nothing new and just pushed more fringe POV. The Horowitz report, by contrast, was very professional, identified real problems, and didn't push any fringe denialism or engage in any cover-ups for Trump. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:28, 30 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) 00:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ) 02:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Valjean - You say that I need to Assume Good Faith. Where have I questioned your good faith?  What are you asking me to assume good faith about?  I know that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, which is what good faith is about, but writing argumentative essays is not an effective way to improve the encyclopedia.  What do you mean by telling me to assume good faith (which I have already done)?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I explained how it is not possible for an essay to be a content fork. Essays are a special class of content that are not part of the encyclopedia and cannot, without bad faith, be mistaken for part of the encyclopedia. "Masquerading" is a word that is an aspersion and a clear failure to AGF.
 * The creation of an improper content fork is not good, and that is not what this is. In that sense, I want you to AGF by believing me. I'm sorry if you got lumped into the group (very small at present) who erroneously assert that OR and SYNTH are improper here, or that this is a content fork, or some other accusation. User essays contain an editor's opinions. That is legitimate. It would not be legitimate if those opinions were contrary to our PAG or RS. That is not what I am doing here. In that sense, I want you to AGF. I am very mainstream. I ask for help because I am not perfect. Deletion is not help, but censorship of an editor's efforts to develop content and sourcing that can be used in the encyclopedia. This MfD is misguided, but has inspired me to finish my work toward making this into article content. See this as a beginning draft. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have removed content that can work as a distraction, thus keeping the essay focused on the main topic. A reading now gives a very different impression and is fully in harmony with the RS and narratives found in our well-sourced articles, from which much of what is not sourced now comes. The sources are already in use elsewhere. With some work, this essay could be focused even more and become a section in one of our articles, or maybe a separate article. As it is now, there is no question that it is an essay and does not pretend to be an article. No one would ever make that mistake, so accusations to the contrary are not in good faith. I have never seen a mainstream essay in userspace attacked in this way. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Most user space essays are about Wikipedia. This is not. That's the point, and I don't know why you can't or won't see that. This is duplicate content in user space which you clearly wish to control. That simply is not what user space is for. That's not just my opinion, that's site policy. If this were, as you claim, a "mainstream essay" I would not have nominated it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See my response below. It has been changed significantly and is no longer an essay. It is now quickly moving towards its original goal as article content, a fully legitimate use of user space. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * NO LONGER AN ESSAY. Beeblebrox, I have removed all mention of "essay", since that is not being accepted. Now I am continuing development for use in article(s) or as its own article. This is a fully legitimate use of userspace. This MfD has inspired me to finish my work toward making this into article content. Please AGF in my intentions and stop this process. Do not delete the page as I need the history. See this as a beginning draft and help me get it right. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, it was an essay in your last comment from yesterday, and you'd never seen such an unwarranted attack on a "mainstream essay", and today it is not an essay at all and I need to assume good faith and volunteer my time to help you develop what is now suddenly a draft of an article on a topic we already have an article on? This is getting surreal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Slow down. Notice the words "no longer". (I have significantly altered the content, and all framing as an essay is gone.) It was an essay but is no longer an essay.
 * NOTE that improvement of content during an AfD or MfD to resolve objections is allowed, so see your initial effort as a success in that regard. Now it's time to drop the stick because the target has significantly changed. It was always aimed at becoming, at least some parts of it, article content, and I am now spurred to move more quickly toward that end.
 * Are you really suggesting that the preparation of article content (much not found elsewhere here) is suddenly not a legitimate use of userspace? No one will now even mistake it for an essay and of course it cannot possibly be a content fork as it's in userspace. Let me develop this for article content. YOU don't have to help me, since, at least in this instance, you don't think helping another editor is a legitimate use of your time. Fine. Others who might be interested are welcome to offer suggestions and corrections. Some have done so, and I thank them for it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Question - If this is no longer an essay, what is it? Is it a draft?  Drafts are permitted in user space, and are reviewed, and compared against existing articles.  If it is a draft, please tag it with AFC submission and we will review it.  If it is still an essay, it is subject to the rules about essays.  If it is something else, what is it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it intended to engage in an article content dispute with POV-pushers or falsifiers? If so, that is done in a conduct forum, as I explained above.
 * What is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that drafts are permitted to be incubated in userspace before submission. Obviously, we're already at MFD, so it will be deleted if there is a consensus to do so, but assuming it hadn't been MFD'd, wouldn't any user be permitted to have a userspace draft for a while and then just move it into mainspace when/if it's done. Valjean is an experienced user and not a newbie creating spam articles. These pieces of content, in my view, aren't essays about Wikipedia but material about the content itself that would ultimately be encyclopedic. Andre🚐 14:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Robert, I have never used the draft article process, used an AFC submission tag, nor submitted my draft work for "review". That's not how I work. Is there some law that says I have to follow the process you mention? No, there isn't. I've been here since 2003, and my first few article submissions suffered from the newbie/ignorant problems and were promptly deleted, but since then I have never been hunted down in this way, except by fringe editors. Some search all my subpages and archives to find some way to find fault with me. Their aims are nefarious. Editors have usually left my userspace in peace if they weren't interested or didn't like the POV found there. They didn't MfD them and draw more attention to them. Note that the public is clueless about this, and other editors don't even know these exist unless they seek them out.

Editors have lots of latitude in this area, and the way this is being done really brings into question the whole essay process. Are there really editors who want to curtail that process and censor how other editors think? I have written a number of articles, as well as created lots of content, and I always do it in my userspace, not some officially announced draft space.

I'm somewhat autistic (it runs in the family, including my son's Asperger syndrome) and messy in my thinking, with huge amounts of info whirling around in a disorganized pattern in my mind, and it often takes me a long time to deliberately or randomly get around to organizing some of it into coherent and useful content. Therefore, I tend to begin work and let it percolate on the back burner, working on it a bit at a time, sometimes for months or years, before finally using it. I may get an idea that "this hole in our information needs to be filled, so I'll start aiming toward fixing it". Then I'll start collecting sources, as that is the basis for all my thinking and work. I don't have any independent points of view that are not from RS. Then I'll start choosing how to paraphrase or quote the relevant parts from the sources, then work on wording, framing, arrangement, etc. This may take years. In some cases, I have marked such a page as an essay to draw more attention to it so I'll get more input and corrections from other editors. Most editors either ignore me or offer constructive criticism and help. They don't do what is being done here and try to force me into action that is not at my own pace.

Maybe my method sounds like a nefarious, evil, and wrong process to you (I'm being treated like a criminal here), but I'm a volunteer here and no rule forbids me from using my own process of getting from A to Z, as long as I am not pushing fringe theories or using unreliable sources. Advocacy of them is forbidden, while advocacy of mainstream POV based on RS is fully allowed and expected. While I'm in my own userspace, discussion and experimentation with ideas is allowed much latitude, even more than on article talk pages, where OR and SYNTH are allowed. Userspace is not part of the encyclopedia. No essay can ever be mistaken for an article. Essays do not have to be "about Wikipedia", they just have to be about our work here, and that is largely about various topics, including trying how to frame potential content. If I have crossed some red line, then that line needs to be described much better. PLEASE point me to an explanation about that line and how to not cross it.

Because I can see the writing on the wall, and know that this effort only plays into the hands of fringe editors who don't like where this info might be going, I expect more of them will now find this MfD, !vote here, and the content will then be deleted, history and all. Therefore, I have started focusing on it, rather than let it percolate in my usual way. It is no longer an essay. You won't find it listed in the essay category. It is now even further hidden on a backburner, out of sight from all but those who want to harass me. Because of that fact, bringing more attention to this is counterproductive.

I'll try to more quickly (not pleasant for me) work on using the content in articles or make a full article since there really is a hole in our coverage of this matter. I find this use of force to monitor and control my method stressful. I'm just a volunteer with good intentions. I am not pushing fringe POV. I'm trying to improve our coverage of topics, yet now someone is trying to force and control my process. It's just wrong. I always try to extend more latitude toward other autistic editors as they don't use normal thinking processes and need more elbow room. Maybe we should not be allowed to write essays. I'll have to think about the consequences of that path. It looks dark and authoritarian to me. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You seem to think this is personal and I am out to get you. I don't know why you would think that or why you would equate a userspace essay being nominated for deletion as equivalent to someone "hunting you down" but that feels like a kind of ugly accusation to be making in what should be a mundane deletion discussion. Why you are acting this way is not my problem as, again, this is not personal. It's also somewhat outlandish that you seem to be responding to arguments that nobody has actually made, i.e. that anyone has even come close to suggesting that you should not be allowed to write essays at all. I think you need some persective here. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You may well be right about perspective. Right now my perspective may not be balanced or objective, but it's still how I feel. My autistic brain has difficulty processing this as if it was about anyone else. No, this is indeed directed at me and strikes directly at my own convoluted method of creating content, so of course it feels personal, and we know that feelings are tricky things. I'm trying to deal with this and the insomnia, loss of appetite, heart arrhythmias, worry, and dark thoughts it causes. It's not easy, especially at my age (72). It's a very real health threat. I'm just human and very flawed with my quirks and difficulties in life. I don't need this kind of grief added to it.
 * Where did you even learn of this now-former essay? More importantly, what inspired you to even nominate it for MfD? When you first contacted me, I was immediately taken back to similar attacks by malign editors. Were you now in league with them? I didn't know. I know there are malign forces around here that do this type of thing, and that they have targeted me before and keep an eye on what I do, so excuse me for associating their behavior with your more-or-less identical behavior. Whether you want it or not (because you likely have very different and benign motives), you are fellow travelers with them at the moment. The end result helps fringe editors who base their views on unreliable sources, who push conspiracy theories, and who generally do everything they slyly can do to protect the interests of Trump, Putin, and Russia, regardless of what RS say to the contrary. They try to slant articles with their narratives from unreliable sources. They attack mainstream editors like me. They do it here at Wikipedia, in case you haven't noticed. That's why we have the CT alerts for American politics. You didn't even recognize my work as mainstream, and that REALLY worries me about you, your knowledge base, and your POV in this topic area.
 * What worries me more is how far you might go in pursuing this. Will you prevent me from archiving my page so it's completely out of sight, yet accessible to me for proper use? Will you rev-delete it? Will you begin to censor everything I do so I can't edit or write essays that even mention topics of interest here? I really have no idea what kind of threat I'm facing here, and it's the "unknown" aspect that's the most scary. Please explain more.
 * Where does it say that a personal essay in userspace must not touch on topics other than direct PAG subjects (about Wikipedia)? What do you even mean by "about Wikipedia"? Where is there a safe space/sandbox for me to work on developing sourcing, topics, analysis, formulations, etc. that help me understand issues and develop them for later use in articles or in talk page discussions? No other admin has ever done this to me before, and many of them know of and have read my essays. You are unique in attacking this work. Right now I don't see any safe space to work because you are looking over my shoulder and invading my userspace, not to help me understand the issues, historical narratives, and word things better with better sources, but to censor me.
 * Try to put yourself in my place and imagine how you would feel if I, a stranger, snooped around in your private "backyard" and started telling you what you could or could not have there for your own and your friend's enjoyment, even taking measures to remove your "property" by force (to use an analogy)? That's how this feels to me. I don't have anything dangerous or fringe in my "backyard" here. My actions are benign and ultimately constructive. Your actions are drawing unwanted attention to my backyard in ways I did not intend. If it's something you don't think others should see, then why are you doing something that ensures many others see it who would not have seen it otherwise? Your efforts are counterproductive. You could have just approached me in a less formal and private manner with some good advice. I'm always open to that. This is just needlessly painful.
 * Please withdraw this MfD and let me back out of this situation by archiving the page, with its history. I promise I won't restore it to public view. Your original target has moved. You bought a hunting tag for one animal, but now things have changed and there is no hunting season for the new animal. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's some stuff about essays that might be relevant:

From Policies and guidelines:

From Essays:

Where does that forbid me from writing an essay about topics we handle in our articles? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SOAPBOXing and otherwise inappropriate use of userspace. This reminds me of the Adoring nanny case that MfD just recently had to deal with. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * THE PAGE IS NOW BLANKED AND WILL NOT RETURN. I'll try to speedy delete it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:55, 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.