Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox

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 Also per user request in response to a comment on their talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox[edit]

POV fork of Electronic harassment advocating for fringe positions that has no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project or an encyclopedia article. User's topic ban precludes any further editing activity on this topic. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was maybe acceptable sandboxing, but delete due to User_talk:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A draft that essentially is a copy or duplicate, with no new information or referencing, of an existing article is exactly one of the CSD D* criteria needed. Needs more discussion at WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)mistakenly posted to wrong discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a matter of neutrality. The current version of Electronic harassment is biased towards mental illness advocacy (I understand everybody trembles at the thought of showing they know something about psychology.. it's good for hooking.. it's cool). My sandbox is not an attempt to promote fringe theories, but an attempt to both correct the above cited bias and generally improve the article.

The mainstream view (given by the reliable sources) of Electronic harassment is that it is a conspiracy theory, not as the lede sentence states "a conspiracy theory, usually a delusional belief..". As the leading section which is without any doubt the most important part of the article it is very inappropriate. It sounds as written by a pre-school child.

"Electronic harassment.. is a conspiracy theory, usually a delusional belief".

That sounds to me as "New York Yankees is a baseball team, usually the best".

Or maybe, "USA is a country of North America, usually the richest".

Doeasn't an encyclopedia deserve better than that?

By carefully consulting the sources it's clear that the topic of Electronic harassment revolves around the following aspects (correct me if I'm wrong):

people from around the world claim to be victims of a so-called mind-control conspiracy involving harassment/torture via exotic energy weapons, and they get together in on-topic online communities - they call themselves "targeted individuals", or "TI"s
these people assert they're being driven insane by the unlawful use of these weapons through, for example, inducing schizoprenia-like voice hearing (also referred to as "synthetic telepathy") for which there's concrete evidence of the fact it can be accomplished via technological means
there's evidence of the existence of at least extensive research into such weapons, if not evidence that they actually exist
mental health professionals tend to not believe the claims and rather diagnose the alleged victims as delusional/schizophrenic
mental health professionals are concerned about the effect internet communication has on these individuals, because it looks as on-topic online communities function as a strong glue that keeps the ill from recognizing their illness
mental health professionals are careful to say that there is no way to prove if someone partecipating in such online communities is suffering of a mental illness, and that a firm diagnosis of psychosis could only be done in person
the diagnoses recall the Martha Mitchell effect, especially because these weapons are allegedly capable, if not meant to be used to, driving someone insane - in other words: targeted individuals don't assert something utterly implausible as "my toothbrush doesn't want to brush my teeth", but something very reasonable although very bizarre as "someone is using modern weapons to beam voices into my ears and drive me mad"
apart from their claims, targeted individuals are described as commonly grounded individuals, also they are aware of the dispute with the psychiatric world, and some of them even criticizes "wacky claims" of TIs who blame various government agencies or groups of people without any proof
the alleged victims oftenly accuse deviated rogue government related groups of being the perpetrators
government representatives are divided over believing the claims and not
clandestine mind control experimentation has been reported on innocent civilians in USA and in the Soviet Union, in the past
there has been a number of violent events involving this conspiracy

Now tell me if you really think the current article isn't both badly biased towards mental illness advocacy and written very poorly leaving out the aspects I instead tried to point out in my sandbox, and if so please explain to me why. Lastly, my sandbox is meant mainly to give hints and spark the debate, not certainly to substitute all at once the present article (although I would sort of agree). I have been accused multiple times on the Electronic harassment talk page (just prior to my topic ban) that my sandbox is worse than the present article without any concrete prove nor goodwill to represent what is allegedly wrong with it, just as if I'm some type of little kid looking for his busy parents' approvement, instead of an editor enganged in contributing to the writing of an article with commitment and critical thinking. I'm treated as an idiotic conspiracy theorist, thus someone must be at fault here. You decide.

About my topic ban, I can just say I had no time to debate it. My real life had priority. But just to give my 2 cents about it, let me challenge the definition of psychotronics since that was one of the points against me at the arbitration enforcement: stating that "psychotronics was coined for the study of parapsychology" is like stating that "crop circles was coined for the study of extraterrestrial life". It's clear by its very etimology that psycho-tronics is about electronic devices that react with the mind. Yet.. seasoned editors got the last word with their attitude and my lack of time.. whatever. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTWEBHOST.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2016 (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.