User talk:Daft Elephant

Nomination of Femosphere for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Femosphere is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femosphere until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(As a note, I am not the nominator just doing some clerical work.) Skynxnex (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious usage of AfD procedure

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Dear Team/Admin,

I hope you’re well.

I’m wondering if you can help me with an incident that has occurred regarding the malicious usage of the ‘article for deletion’ process against an article that I authored.

The article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femosphere) was submitted on 19 April 2025 and I am confident that it meets all of Wikipedia’s guidelines. Several other editors also agree with this, as can be seen in the discussion. However, a single, rogue editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HairlessPolarBear&action=edit&redlink=1) created their Wikipedia account on 23 April 2025 with the sole purpose of having the article deleted, subsequently triggering the AfD process.

They proceeded to make a number of spurious accusations of guideline violations, with a clear, prejudiced agenda. Moreover, one of their allegations was libellous; that is, they wrongly accused me, without providing evidence, of being part of some kind of clandestine, co-ordinated effort to promote the article. When I refuted this claim, they essentially copied and pasted their list of baseless assertions into a new comment and posted it again – in effect harassing me.

I would be very grateful to you if you could investigate this matter. I went to great lengths to ensure that the article was notable, neutral, and objective. It would be a shame for an article that makes a substantive contribution to Wikipedia’s body of knowledge to be deleted because of the actions of a single, rogue editor.

Please get in touch with me if I can provide any more information, or help in any way.

With thanks, and best regards,

DE

~~~~ Daft Elephant (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daft Elephant. I saw your comment about this, at the AfD page, so I came here to look. The reason that the admin help template did not work is because you enclosed it in "nowiki" tags. Doing that actually prevents templates and other formatting from happening (including your signature, as well as the links in your comment here), so I fixed it for the template.

I'm not an admin, but I'm an experienced editor. Now that I've fixed the template, an admin may perhaps show up. Alternatively, you can report these kinds of things at WP:ANI. In this case, I personally don't think this requires an admin to do anything, but perhaps an admin might disagree with me. The AfD process is going to play out as it should (so far, going strongly towards "keep"), and I don't think the other editor is really being that disruptive (other than making a wall-of-text at the AfD page, which, to be honest, you have done, too), so I don't think they need to be blocked. The fact that they are a new account and this is the only thing they've done so far isn't necessarily a reason to block, either. Although I've supported keeping the page, there's no question that it's a controversial subject, and some people may understandably be uncomfortable with it.

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Please feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tryptofish, thanks very much for your help on this - I really appreciate it!

Rearding the rogue editor, it's more that they used their singe-use account to trigger the AfD process in bad faith. I see that an admin has responded - I disagree with them, of course, but will need to find an alternative way of communicating with the community to get this problem resolved.

I fully recognise and agree that the article covers a controversial topic, which is why I went to such great lengths to be neutral and objective. I might not have found the perfect balance but I'm encouraged that so many editors, like you, have offered help and support. Daft Elephant (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint does not require administrator intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]