Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

I edited some of the earliest drafts, articles, and disambiguation pages regarding 'pizzagate' in collaboration with others. Having little interest in whether the claims are true or not, i listed only undisputed factual elements of the theory, loosely prioritized by socio-economic relevance. Over the next 5 days, our work was increasingly under attack. At first, pages would be sabotaged by the following morning - such as ridiculous redirections to old articles linking the word 'pizzagate' to freshly written sections with rather vague references. Cross-checking these sources brought up pretty solid evidence of fabrication. Next, other editors began accusing us of attacking and harming people. ~ This seemed bizarre. Our articles outlined the broadest picture, void of any individual focus, and listed the full range of organizations that were/are integral to the conspiracy - true or fake. Yet the 'sabotage' removed all these references by obsessively targeting only Comet Ping Pong - just Comet Ping Pong, over and over again! By the end, any effort to stop the damage was reversed within minutes, then it was seconds, finally our editor rights were removed and the Drafts deleted. ~ Today, i notice the current 'pizzagate' Article STILL obsessively focuses on Comet Ping Pong and removes ALL key components that are again, integral to the conspiracy - true or fake. For example, can researchers determine why the 'Stratfor Emails' from 2009 are not cited as an early and most crucial component of the pizzagate theory? WHY obsessively target a small pizza restaurant and reject verified information sourced from an international news-agency? ~ these actions invalidate all the core reasoning which later resulted in the articles being deleted. James spencer moulson (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James spencer moulson: Your original draft presented it as if it was plausible and implicated living persons in the conspiracy. When "The New York Times reported that the claims are false," you changed it to "The New York Times reported the claims as false," toning down the implausibility. You cited only one mainstream source against the whole Pizzagate board on Voat -- not balanced at all, and an indication you do not know what reliable sourcing is.

Wikipedia sticks to mainstream sources, and mainstream sources are focusing on one of the main targets of the theory. Later conspiracy theorists downplaying their previous obsession in light of the Comet Ping Pong connection being debunked and unfavorable does not change that.

You calling other people fixing your libelous mess "sabotage" is a failure to assume good faith -- YOU fucked up, we fixed it. Why are you so obsessed with trying to present aspects of the theory that only the conspiracy theorists think is relevant?

And what's this "we" and "our" business? Did you write this on behalf of a Pizzagater site? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]