User talk:2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 15:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

RE:AfD

I think that if I were to reply to your statements about my behavior on the AfD, it would gum up the works on the discussion to go on such a tangent. Thus, I'll address your concerns here. I would appreciate if you did not rapid-fire comments, as I have been unable to write replies in time to avoid edit conflicts, which is part of why I am moving here - continually re-editing my comments to react to new developments would make the thread illegible when it doesn't even apply to the discussion, as the thread is about my behavior.

• That I am casting aspersions: My claim was not made "routinely" or "continually." I made one statement and one off-hand joke. I apologize if the joke was too far, that's my bad. Additionally, the statement was not made in any "attempt to besmirch [another editor's] reputation," it was made out of a genuine concern that the discussion was being taken over by a user who has an interest other than building an encyclopedia. The statement was not made "without reasonable cause," as the similarity in writing styles by two IPs on a single page (when the second IP was making these arguments as their very first edits) was suspicious to me. I attempted to reword my comment so that it would be less authoritative and more representative of my opinion but was EC'd out.
• That I have misrepresented SOAP - the creator of the website has said time and again that any mention of their site advances their agenda - not just that "any publicity is good publicity," but that they are part of a movement and the repeated mention of their resources builds the movement and contributes directly to their goals. Another editor has come forward that they had been asked by the creator to make a Wikipedia article and refused. I believe it is a logical extension of that fact to say that there is a possibility that the article was created by someone who was asked to do so by the owner of the website.
• I agree that the SOAP-based argument is not a strong one on its own - but in the context of the discussion and the subject, it is only one part of a larger argument that the article should not exist and should be either deleted or its contents merged, that uses notability, that argues its content would be better contextualized as part of the larger article, et cetera.
• That I am focusing on ad hominem attacks rather than discussing notability: The first and foremost part of my argument was that the site is insufficiently notable to justify an entire page on its own, because of the sources presented by the creator of the article as evidence of notability, only one actually focuses on the website as the subject of the paper, and that the remainder mention it but ultimately are about the subculture in general.
• That "all my posts" were "about ad hominems" save a single, JNN sentence: First, the phrase "all my posts" carries the implication that I have made numerous posts to the AfD. I have made two unique ones. Second, neither of my two posts were "about ad hominems"- as I said above, I made a single comment that I have admitted was worded poorly, and a single joke that was in service of clarifying a misunderstanding that had occurred. Neither of those were the focus of those comments, in one case it was the last thing I mentioned, and in the other it was a throw-away statement to identify a specific person or persons without having to copy IP addresses into my post. Finally, the sentence you're referring to isn't an WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE argument. The sentence indicates that I have read the arguments about notability, looked at the sources raised, and came to the same conclusion. It isn't saying "this isn't notable, no further information," it is saying "after my own review of the sources presented, I have come to the same conclusion as those above."

I recognize that SOME of my statements did not meet the standards of decorum expected at AfD, and I apologize. However - hatting my !vote, accusing me of engaging in a consistent pattern of making baseless accusations when I haven't made a single one without what I believe to be good cause, then characterizing my two posts as a major disruption and that they were made with the intent to attack - all these things paint my contribution in a negative light that I don't believe is representative of the situation.

Once again, I apologize profusely that that pair of my statements were written in a way that they were hurtful or otherwise unacceptable. That being said, I think it would be less disruptive to come to my talk and have a conversation about it rather than take serious and accusatory actions in the middle of a discussion that I am trying to be a part of.

I welcome your response - I intend to rewrite my !vote and comment, and strike my original one, in order to produce a clearer and less inflammatory post. Please note that this is NOT an invitation to strike my comment, I will do it myself when I have rewritten it. PriusGod (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The other editor was making unsourced negative statements about living people. They may be removed by anyone per WP:BLP (the rules about BLP do extend beyond articles to the Wikipedia namespace). The essay WP:NOTFORUM also applies.

About notability dicussions: proving notability requires one to consider all sources about the topic that exist, not a subset of sources. Your comment was WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE since it is unclear how all, let alone any, of the sources brought up did not meet WP:GNG. As a reminder, only two good sources are enough for WP:GNG. At least 20 have been brought up by others.

As for your comments about me: I found the incels.is article a week ago via a Google search and decided to contribute to this discussion logged out. I do not want such a deletion discussion to set a bad precedent for Wikipedia as a whole (allowing to rely on opinions instead of guidelines, WP:CENSORED, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Tagging my reply to you: PriusGod. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Saying that you "decided to contribute [...] logged out" appears to imply that you have an account and are electing not to log in for participation in this discussion - I don't see what the harm would be in logging in to continue your contributions - why not just make a comment logged in letting people know that the posts you're making under this IP are yours? I don't mean this as an accusation of IP socking, just that it might make the conversation a bit clearer since there are so many different IP addresses in play at this point.

I am aware of that, but the original IP listed four specific examples that they claim are the core of meeting GNG - in order to avoid muddying the discussion, I focused on those while forming my original argument. Ultimately, my argument now is a synthesis that while the site may warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, the overwhelming majority of RS coverage (perused the listed citations between comments) of the site has to do more with its relationship to and status in the incel community at large, and would be best used with the supporting context of the article. I no longer am of the opinion that any mention of the site should be removed.

That said, I think it's important to note that even in my original argument, I did not assert that there were no sources that met GNG, but meant to say that the lack of sources that specifically focused on the dynamics of incels.is instead of the incel community at large (with mention of incels.is' role) showed that the sources would be best applied in a new segment of the Incel article that goes into detail about actual incel communities. I began to clarify that in my second comment, but it was definitely insufficient. PriusGod (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Some sources discuss:

• specific rules on this site (banning of femcels)
• the site's two admins' nihilistic philosophy (who also run the suicide site Sanctioned Suicide).
• Notable members like an ex-mod and their interactions with this site.
• academic treatement of this specific site's content (which is presented in the abstract as belonging to this particular website)

This is why I am of the opinion that there is a lot to talk about this site in particular.

Another angle is that the main article is too long to accomodate the above specifics of this website. WP:SIZERULE recommends splitting incel just because of its length. Tagging: User:PriusGod. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

the site's two admins' nihilistic philosophy (who also run the suicide site Sanctioned Suicide).

I think the admins might have a better shot at an independent article than the site itself, since at least two separate endeavours contribute to their notability. Seems like something that may have been discussed somewhere before, but I'm pretty new to this topic so I'm not sure. Such an article would imo also be at less risk of PROMO or SOAP, because we wouldn't need to link to either of the sites themselves at the top of the page. small jars tc 20:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a standard case of WP:INHERITED. The mainstream coverage talks about each site separately. The owners have much less SIGCOV (two NYT articles and one Uruguayan press article come into mind, from memory).

Addressing your second point, in spite of WP:CENSORED, I believe that it is morally wrong to mention "suicide site" by URL (so WP:IAR is a good fit for that). For the incel site, the risk of imminent harm is much less there. It is basically the same as mentioning 4chan or r/incels by URL since both host incel communities and host similar ideas and rhetoric (in my understanding). But one must also consider the Streisand Effect: if the URL is left out, may more people be led to the site for the bad reason? I think this is a rationale behind WP:CENSORED existing. If the readers see a WP:POINT behind leaving stuff out, that would ultimately cause WP:UNDUE promotion. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Tagging you: User:SmallJarsWithGreenLabels 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, but I don't really think 4chan is a valid comparison. Only certain parts of that site are nearly as toxic. We even have user:UBX/User 4chan2, though I guess there is a decent case for putting that up for deletion. small jars tc 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Another angle is that the site's name is tied to its URL, so not including the URL would make this decision stick out more and has a higher chance of creating a Streisand Effect. You can compare with Daily Stormer, where consensus has been achieved before to include the URL as to not make a point that undermines the WP:RS coverage of the site.

NPOV, or the ability to maintain it in the futhre, is generally not a concern during deletion discussions (see WP:AFD) since there will always be a large enough supply of good faith editors, in particular within the Gender subject area.

Tagging: User:SmallJarsWithGreenLabels 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, it is also meaningful to consider that incels is a reactionary community, while suicidal people are usually not. That's why the Streisand Effect is particularly important here. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Also WP:EWLO might be of interest to read. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that an article that describes the sites/communities that serve the subculture generally (in the vein of Alt-tech), with a subsection about incels.is (among other things like r/incel, manosphere incel forums, etc.), would do best in that case - doesn't make Incel longer than it has to be, could even make room in the article as Incel could probably lose some of the stuff in #History, all of #Connection to suicide forums, a good amount of #Of incels and basically all of #Of platforms providing services to incel communities.

Thanks for the heads up on EWLO - as you can probably tell, I'm new to participating in discussions like these though I've lurked for the better part of the decade. Shame on me for forgetting that part of the sock policy when I've looked at it as much as I have. PriusGod (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that the nominator GorillaWarfare is already cleaning incel of sources with .is as a subject, so that seems of consensus that the article is (was) too broad.

I think WP:WHENSPLIT is appropriate here, since it suggests splits when one section is too large. Yet, based on the sources, there are putatively multiple sections to be made about this site. Usually, there isn't multiple subsections dedicated to one subtopic in a main topic.

As for your point on having an article for all the sites collectively, I would suggest doing that via multiple subsections on the incel article and link this site on its subsection. I believe this proposal does not meet WP:SALAT (the guideline for standalone lists), due to a disbalance in coverage. Tagging User:PriusGod. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

---