Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ibrahim Coker/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. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibrahim Coker/sandbox[edit]

This is fictional history set in the near future written in the past tense. I am not tagging it as a hoax for speedy deletion as G3 because it is in a sandbox, and a considerable amount of leeway is allowed with regard to the use of sandboxes. However, user page guidelines apply to sandboxes, and they include a rule against user pages that look like articles, and this looks like an article that contains untrue history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep typical sandbox content, doesn’t seem intended as deceptive nor appear to be an article. Dronebogus (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misinformation, malicious, insulting to China, can only bring Wikipedia into disrepute, and is a driveby dump by a non-contributor. Delete as disruption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia, so I admit that I am still getting a feel of things and violated WP:FAKEARTICLE, but could you please elaborate on how my snadbox article is malicious or misinformation? Unless you're referring to bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, there was no harmful intention brought along by my sandbox. The sandbox is misinformation in the idea of the information itself being false, but misinformation also carries malice. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation of fantasy as fact.

The part about lynching is egregious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lynching is the extrajudicial murder of someone without a fair trial, and in the scenario, that's what happened to Xi. There's a lot of egregious and horrible things that happen in real life and fiction, I don't see how that makes me malicious, especially since I didn't present it as a good thing. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be WP:NOTHERE. What is your editing experience at Wikipedia? Is this your first account? Presenting a fictitious scenario involving the lynching of a named living person is egregious and is WP:G10 worthy and is a blockable offence on your part. China should not get soft treatment for being paranoid, but allowing stuff like this, completely inappropriate to the project, and hostile to China, will only worsen the situation where they block Wikipedia. Go elsewhere with your speculative future histories, it is not encyclopedic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
China already blocks Wikipedia. There’s nothing we can do to make them block us more so it just sounds like you’re getting offended for the Chinese government (not Chinese people, the PRC government) for some reason. I don’t think this constitutes G10 since it’s not calling for Xi Jinping to be lynched. It’s just someone’s speculative history pet project, and while not appropriate for Wikipedia you seem to be WP:BITING for the sake of biting. Dronebogus (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not offended for China, but this fiction would be offensive to China (PRC government, sure).

I’m offended that fiction is presented in-universe. See WP:WAF. It’s bad practice everywhere on Wikipedia.

Mostly, discussing the future lynching of any living person is WP:G10 worthy. Creating an enticing story about your demise is more insidiously offensive than simply calling for your demise.

WP:BITING. You think this is a newcomer? I deny that, I think he is a probably troll and SOCK violation. In any case, this page is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia, and as it is his only contribution, he is a net negative to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet? Of who? You can’t just throw around accusations baselessly. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to MfD WP:DUCK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to MfD WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His sole “contribution” is to write a fictional future history scenario involving the lynching of the Chinese leader. What good intention do you think he brings? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None, but my problem is you’re lashing out at an easy target over a WP:RAGPICKING issue, with a bizarre focus on protecting a ruthlessly authoritarian government from being offended. Dronebogus (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional histories are always deleted, and so they should be. They are a hazard to any editor who stumbles across them and doesn’t suspect the material is false. This is not ragpicking, fiction presented as fact is a hazard to the project.

The focus on the egregious element is the proposed lynching of a living person.

China being able to correctly point to content that is offensive, false and misleading is I think a fair point to note in addition. It is not the focus of my rationale to delete.

I think it is extraordinary that there is a “keep” !vote. It is deceptive. It may not be intentional deception, but if not it is foolish. It is a hazard to the project, and if it weren’t for the “keep” vote I’d have tagged it {{db-g10}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never ever made a "proposal" to lynch Xi Jinping, nonetheless anyone at all. Believe it or not, I do not support extrajudicial murder. Yes, it is part of the scenario, but I never put it forward as if it was a consideration (what a "proposal" is), I feel like you're trying your best to frame me in a harshly negative light. I've already clearly done something wrong, you have no reason to stack ontop all of the other things you're flinging my way. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you did not appreciate the problem with what you were doing. If you don’t do it again, and continue editing, that would be great. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back (5-6)? I had a wikipedia account where I fixed some spelling/grammatical errors on pages whenever I found one, but I abandoned it since I had a lot of other priorities. For now, I noticed a spelling mistake on an article and decided to start a new account to clean up/janitor small errors like that and start my sandbox, which has gotten me here. I honestly don't know what makes you think that I'm a sock puppet or a troll. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A new account writing problem material in userspace is an indicator of a sockpuppet throwaway account. Your responding to this, and ongoing editing, indicates that the indicator was mistaken on this occasion. Sockpuppets never explain themselves. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the blank blue linking of an SPA’s main Userpage is a sock cue. Genuine newcomers leave it redlinked, or put some actual content on it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, probably blank? - For anyone who remotely seems WP:HERE, I think we should have very few requirements for sandbox content, but for whatever reason some people create user accounts just to write fictional silliness in userspace. This looks like one of those cases, so I wouldn't object to it being deleted (or, really, is there any need to do more than blank it?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for your made up ficitonal history. There are plenty of free hosting options on the web that one can use. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fiction masquerading as an article draft. Go post this on another website somewhere. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Dronebogus - I wasn't ragpicking. I checked the contributions of the originator after requesting speedy deletion of an article in article space that couldn't possibly have been true, as a hoax. It was also future history presented as past fact. So I had a reason to look at their other contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2022 (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.