Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)

I haven't read the GNG or NPOL thingies, so I don't know what they exactly say. I may be wrong with the things that I say here, I may not even be posting/writing in the correct section for this. But here's it:

I am a guy from Germany, living in the Netherlands, and enjoy the content that creators on YouTube produce. I've been following Kevin Paffrath for quite some time now and am amazed by his work ethic. When he announced he was running for governor of California, I first thought it was a joke. Turns out it wasn't. I'm thrilled. I belong to about the same demographic as Kevin himself and am so incredibly sick and tired of the establishment burning away tax payers money, changing nothing for the better for the common people. It could be so easy, but everybody has their heads so far up the big wig's butts, that they just can't see de way anymore. A friend of mine over here is part of a pan-European movement called Volt. It mainly consists of young people who want to change the status quo by bringing actual common sense and decency into politics. If I'm not mistaken, Kevin aims just to do that in California as well. Given the Dutch branch of Volt's recent succes in Dutch parliament elections, the concept is taking hold. Volt, not even having been included in polls until just six weeks before the Dutch 2021 general election, managed to score 2.4%, or 3 seats on the parliament. Which is insane. My point here being: Their Wikipedia page didn't get deleted, now, did it?? How come? Why has this tiny splinter of a fractured parliament somewhere in good ol' Europe more right to exist on YouTube than an official Democrat candidate for governorship in California? I smell BS. Also, why does this teeny, tiny village that probably about 5 people outside of the village even know about, have the right to exist on Wikipedia? RIGHT! Because it's the free encyclopedia, a community driven and curated page that wants to make information accessible to all! Holy canneloni, I mean come on! You are the advocates of free information for everybody and now you try to delete a legitimate entry that shares exactly that - information on a critical public matter?! WHY?

I am losing faith in humanity more and more. ThomasMoll (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have identified your problem in your first sentence. If you would read the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL then you would find the answers to your questions about why there are articles on a tiny village (WP:GEOLAND) and new political parties, and why Paffrath's article may not qualify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Your loss of faith is very reasonable. Unfortunately, while most Wikipedia editors are well meaning, a tiny percentage are full-time political actors who selectively swarm any establishment-unfriendly and potentially subversive personalities and topics, manufacture a false consensus, and in a flurry of acronyms and jargon, bury them on extremely spurious notability or reliability grounds. At least two of these people are currently active in the deletion debate. It's really a crisis in information and a disgrace to Wikipedia's ostensible mission.Pc031985 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing tags

The question, Gorilla, is why are you tagging each and every 'keep' vote as canvassed? There are 3-4 that have long editing histories on a variety of topics. Try having some evidence before you go smearing other editors.Pc031985 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pc031985: I accidentally deleted this while undoing yet another of your tag removals, but it's more appropriate here anyway. There is evidence that people were solicited outside of Wikipedia to involve themselves in this discussion (https://twitter.com/realMeetKevin/status/1395427515179487232) and so I have tagged new accounts who have not contributed elsewhere, and accounts which have returned from a long period of inactivity only to contribute in this discussion, as is standard practice. You, as someone who has voted in this discussion, need to stop removing these tags, which is disruptive and hinders the eventual closure of this discussion.

I'm not sure which 3–4 you are referring to; if you are still unclear on why I have tagged someone given my explanation above, or think I have made an error, please specify the user and I will happily double check or explain.

Might I ask how you came to be aware of this discussion? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Paffrath (who I was already well aware of, since he is a major figure in the real estate/finance podcast / online-news world, which is an interest of mine, and where virtually all of his comparably notable podcaster peers have articles) was running for governor. Then I searched to see if he had a Wikipedia article/what it said (since major candidates generally have articles), and saw the (very predictable) deletion discussion.Pc031985 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication at all that Kylekieran, Jimwilliams975, and GalakStarscraper were canvassed. Each has an extensive editing history on a variety of unrelated topics. Have you considered that since Paffrath is in fact very famous, people who are aware of him may also be editors, who like me decided to check his article when it was announced he was running, or for some other reason, and were then struck by the bizarre nomination to take down the article? The numbers of WP editors and people aware of Paffrath aren't at all against that possibility. It's blatantly obvious that you have an agenda to discredit any compelling arguments for keeping the article. It's also blatantly obvious that El Cid, the initial nominator, who was absurdly 'only able to find one article' when there are 37 already sourced, has an agenda to remove Paffrath from public view, probably for political reasons. As stated, I don't even support Paffrath's politics, but he is notable and should have an article.Pc031985 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pc031985, why would it not be possible for canvassed editors to have edited in unrelated topic areas before? Kylekieran had not edited for 10 months before coming here, Jimwilliams975 not for 7 months and GalakStarscraper for over two years. GorillaWarfare has clearly stated that she is tagging everyone who has not edited in 2021, so I don't really know where "without even checking their histories" comes from, particularly given that not everyone !voting keep has been tagged by her. I understand that this might feel to you like an attempt to discredit those voting to keep the article, but canvassing is an issue and you should trust the closing editor/administrator to weigh arguments appropriately instead of being overly concerned about tags. 15 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get real; people including the first poster here are very tired of the politicization of this website and social media/the internet in general. They may not edit that frequently, but saw an injustice and chose to take action. They didn't have to be 'canvassed' by anyone; I certainly wasn't (I've edited on WP for 10+ years hundreds or thousands of times but forgot my previous username after a long period of inactivity).Pc031985 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Pc031985: As I have already mentioned to another editor, I have a Tweetdeck column for tweets mentioning Wikipedia. Seeing his tweet was the first I'd ever heard of Paffrath; finance and real estate are possibly the two topics I am least interested in, and as a Massachusetts resident who has never lived outside of New England I have no real interest in California gubernatorial politics either. All this to say, I assure you I have no ulterior motives for or against Paffrath.

Regarding the users you mention: Kylekieran's most recent edit prior to this discussion and related pages was July 2020 (contribs). Jimwilliams975's was October 2020 (contribs). GalakStarscraper's was September 2017 (contribs). It is hardly unreasonable to suspect that editors who haven't edited for between eight months and 3½ years may have become aware of the discussion through outside notifications, though there are of course other explanations. I have mentioned in at least one edit summary that I have applied the tag to any editors who have not edited in 2021 aside from in this discussion, which seems to me a reasonable metric.

I think part of the issue here is that you are ascribing some sort of accusatory tone to these tags, or believe that they will cause the closing administrator to completely disregard any comments that have been tagged. These are informational only, and administrators do not discount arguments just because a person may have been canvassed (indeed, see the {{notaballot}} template at the top of the page, which explicitly states you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome, and advises people how to comment in a way that is more likely to be effective). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over your last month of activity, it's clear that you are here for deeply ideological reasons, to inject your worldview and politics into articles at any opportunity or preserve the ideological injections of others, not to create an objective encyclopedia. The overwhelming majority of your edits lie in a very narrow field. Perhaps Gavin Newsom somehow represents to you the furtherance or protection of your values, and this drives you to spend your time discrediting Paffrath.Pc031985 (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, someone once told me "Try having some evidence before you go smearing other editors". I am not going to indulge your bizarre conspiracy theories; if you believe I am only here to "inject [my] worldview and politics... not to create an objective encyclopedia" (which would certainly be a violation of our WP:NPOV policy) I would invite you to raise your concerns, with evidence, at the appropriate forums rather than cast aspersions here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do have evidence, I've looked over many of your edits; it's clear you are a zealous proponent of certain ideologies, and spend much of your time bashing those whom you feel are opponents or foils, inserting adjectives and blanket labels that are intended to disparage and discredit, often without including a factual basis for such labels (then you shepherd such articles for years at a time, making sure your tone is kept in place). I don't necessarily disagree with your positions, and I haven't said your injections are false. I just think it's problematic, it's an approach to editing meant to win hearts and minds rather than provide cold, objective facts, and odds are there is also an ideological motive to your many interventions here.Pc031985 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I look forward to you presenting it at the appropriate forum, then (probably WP:ANI, but take your pick). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not going to waste my time. I've seen how this site works too many times. Your buddy Drmies (and maybe Doug Weller, and however many hundred others of the politically motivated full-timers) will intercede on your behalf, project a false consensus, and drown me out. Pc031985 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then stop casting aspersions against me and other editors. You don't get to have it both ways: if you're going to accuse editors of being some sort of ideological warrior, then bring it to the appropriate venue with evidence. If you're not willing to do so, then stop with the aspersions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're simply descriptions of what you do.Pc031985 (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained to you, the behavior you're accusing me of would be violations of policy. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is right there on your user page. Pretty much all you do is run around and tag certain people (and most specifically, just about every non-big-tech social-media platform in existence, which you spend much of your time attacking; very strange) with labels: white supremacist, misogynist, racist, alt-right, far-right, conspiracy theorist, etc etc. Your presence seems to be markedly more about spreading propaganda (again whether good or bad) and influencing opinion than compiling facts and contributing to an encyclopedia. Not surprisingly, you've been green-lighted to all kinds of administrator and 'oversighter' roles. Done wasting any more time on this argument, the admins are going to decide whatever they want on the deletion issue.Pc031985 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to ask you three times. You're clearly not done wasting any more time on this argument, since you're restoring aspersions I've asked you to stop making, so here we are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pc031985 casting aspersions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not addressing Pc031985 because their edits and language speak for themselves and is why they got banned, rightfully so. I have nothing to say to them, on this subject, or any alt accounts they might have created or will create. GorillaWarfare, this is not a criticism of you in any way. Personally, I think you have done a masterful job dealing with a belligerent, ill-informed and combative editor that, obviously, feels that casting aspersions rather than explaining with reason is their preferable course. That being said, I would ask if you have conducted the same search of those who have !voted "delete" on this particular AfD to see if there are any irregularities or oddities in their edit history as it pertains to this topic or AfD/XfD discussion in general as you did with those !voting "keep". I have searched both and I share in your concern for canvassing, either for or against. There are editors on both sides who have either disappeared for a time or neglected to edit anything here for months and seemingly came back in the past few days and this is the only article they have taken an interest in. A very contentious AfD/article is their first choice to comment on or edit upon after their return. It is a huge issue with Wikipedia and with the idea of "consensus". Most AfD's can go either way when it comes to notability. A closing admin could choose to allow or disallow any viewpoint within a discussion for any reason whatsoever and it is very hard to turn around and say they came to the wrong conclusion. The jump from "consensus" to "mob rule" is about the distance from one gnat wing to the opposite. I applaud you for taking the stance you have in cautioning others to review these comments further. I would encourage us all to review the comments/actions of others more closely, whether they agree with our position in the discussion or not. I do not go to another editors history to discredit them and I don't believe the majority of us do. I go there to hopefully learn more about them and understand their position better. I am hoping to find common ground. --ARose Wolf 16:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Yes, I have checked all editors to this discussion regardless of how they have voted. Did I miss someone? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I found, when reviewing all participants, it to be a little "odd" that Voronwae would choose this particular article to return to after three months of not editing and then weigh into a contentious AfD. Define odd though. I am very much an odd person myself (lol). There are many times that I have acted seemingly "irrational" to outside observers but to me I had a purpose. Now, I tagged them here because I believe we should be fair. At least they edited something in 2021 and I am not, in anyway, discrediting them or saying that their opinion or analysis of the article should be discounted. I am not even saying they, or anyone should or should not be marked, only that, if we are going to look at one side of a discussion with such scrutiny, we should, likewise, look at the other side with the same. I took time off for Winter and to reset myself before coming back. I still have not fully felt comfortable editing on articles/participating in AfD's where I am doing much more than offering tips or making minor changes. --ARose Wolf 17:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have been tagging those who have not edited in 2021. That was not the case for Voronwae. I have been fair in how I am applying the tags, and am not only tagging one side of the argument. The cutoff for determining whether an editor may be likely to have returned from inactivity due to canvassing is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, and different editors may have different thresholds. If you are using a three-month inactivity period in deciding when to apply these tags, you will probably want to also tag Tavatar. There may also be others; I can't recall offhand which editors were on the borderline of my threshold. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not placing a tag on anyone. In regards to the time frame, it is slightly arbitrary, in my opinion. But that's okay, we all have preferences and I never implied you weren't being fair. One can act upon a personal preference while being fair in their approach and I believe you did so. I find Tavatar coming back only to edit this particular article, then comment on the AfD and then disappear again to be very odd and I honestly hope they are okay. Editing on the article after being off-wiki for weeks or months is one thing. Willfully engaging in an obviously contentious AfD where one editor has already been banned for their behavior and there are questions about others being canvassed here to vote on the AfD just seems a little odd, regardless of how they !voted and especially if you are concerned about canvassing. What really jumped out to me is the fact that, even before their last break, you don't see either of them commenting on AfD's, like ever. That's concerning to a casual observer but not a deal breaker. They may have perfectly logical reasons and I readily admit that, just like you admit that there may be those tagged by yourself that were not canvassed and simply found the article. :) --ARose Wolf 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]