RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Nathan Cofnas

Nathan Cofnas | Result: Delete wins by a two-to-one margin.

Nathan Cofnas (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Well this was fun.-Flandres (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Flandres (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. I was the original creator of the deletion request. Unfortunately my comment was deleted where I explained why in detail but to summarise: nearly all the article is off-mission to this wiki and documents Cofnas's legal threats and online feuds on Twitter. Many people agree Cofnas is a nasty person but it seems totally irrelevent to this wiki he's an arsehole who sits on Twitter threatening to sue people every 5 minutes to his lawyers. The remaining sections of his article only cover his global warming denial and misinformation he promotes about plant-based diets, but note for the former there are virtually no sources aside from a single tweet Cofnas made.Oenophyta (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

   The original comment:

   Nathan Cofnas holds some controversial views but is not noticeable and Wikipedia deleted his page because he's basically a nobody. His publications are rather unimpressive. Most the article consists of documenting Cofnas' legal threats and feuds which seems off-mission for this wiki. Many will agree Cofnas is an unpleasant person but documenting his legal threats and feuds or spats on Twitter doesn't seem to fall within the scope of this wiki. The rest of the article consists of criticising Cofnas for climate-change denialism and his writings on anti-veganism. While accurate, Cofnas has hardly written anything on the former topic and the main source appears to be a single tweet he's made about climate change which he says he been misunderstood or quoted out of context (disputable). Concerning the latter topic (veganism and vegetarianism) he has been criticised for promoting misinformation about plant-based diets but that section only covers one paragraph of the article and cites a couple of vegan blogs that rebut him. The page seems to also be a magnet for Michael Coombs to troll who regularly vandalises it.

   Christopher (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

   Let me point out that there is fairly any decent skeptical coverage of Cofnas's work and that if you search his name, we are the only webpage on the first page of Google results that isn't controlled by or affiliated with him. If we delete this page, the only information anyone is likely to get about him will be under his control, which will be a significant victory for his cause. As for notability, see this useful essay on the subject.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Kevs ^Ping! 10:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
4. He's a nobody. This is just another example of Oliver D. Smith creating a hit piece about one of his many online enemies. And he tries to start feuds with just about everybody he meets online, even me for fuck's sake! Spud (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
5. What Spud said. We should delete any page created by Smith on the spot if we want to actually enforce his ban. Christopher (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Not every page, I think. He created the Emil Kirkegaard page, for instance. GeeJayK (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Emil Kirkegaard has been substantially edited by other people, and is higher quality as a result. This page was written entirely by Smith with only minor contributions from others, and isn’t worth having. Christopher (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

6. GeeJayK (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Per Spud. Oliver Smith has used this place to further his petty internet feuds for literally years now. --RWRW (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
8. OK, I'm now swayed to delete it based on it being MikeM/Smith/Boglin drama. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
9. Not notable, Smith pet article. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
10. Probably missional deep down, but presently reads like diet ED. Not a lot to salvage. Gangster Computer God (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. I would say remove all the internet drama stuff and keep the 20% or so which is on-mission.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Highly relevant, as shown by Mikey constantly bitching about it.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

   Some vandal hates this page. Bongolian (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Seems on-mission. Though the person documented is more cranky in terms of a nasty character (threats, etc.) than craziness, seems like there's both. Maybe there should be discussion on improving quality of the article (perhaps by editing down some things), but I think that's a separate issue. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
4. I see documenting the pseudo-academic world of racialists as on mission, and this person is notable enough to have gotten a few articles published in that direction (the Philosophical Psychology incident seems rather noteworthy to me for instance). Of course from a general point of view the guy is a nobody, but pretty much all the pseudo-academic racialists are. A lot of the stupid Internet drama can be trimmed. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Keep, we shouldn't delete because it's a Mikey target, that would be giving him exactly what he wants. Plutocow (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Lots of pages are Mikey targets, this one is up for deletion not for that but because it was created by Oliver Smith (which is why it’s a target, they hate each other). Newer users aren’t usually as familiar with him as they are with Mike because he isn’t quite as obvious, but there’s a reason both of them were banned and we shouldn’t be hosting their drama. Christopher (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   I oddly see no listed reason why Smith was banned. The Coop made allegations he doxed someone but these claims were never substantiated and are in fact preposterous, almost comedy if you examine them i.e. it is claimed Smith doxxed User:Greenrd but this user's email on their account links to their real name while their surname is Green and "rd" is short for his first real name (Googling "Greenrd" and the first thing that comes up is this person's real name). I fail to see how you can dox someone who openly uses their surname some of their first name letters and connects their real name to their email on here. The Coop page for Smith does not claim he was banned for doxing nor mentions any reason. Oenophyta (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Why are we relitigating Smith’s ban in an AfD? You’re the only person who mentioned doxing, why are you so invested? I’m not certain of anything and if I’m wrong I apologise, but this plus a comment showing you know about Mikemikev’s Wikipedia trolling is a bit suspicious. Christopher (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   I don't want to be mean, but can Pluto vote? GeeJayK (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Anyone can vote in AfDs, only user penalties (bans etc) and changes to site policy have restrictions. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Christopher The main problem with the Cofnas article is its off-mission content; looking at the page history - Smith created the article in April 2019 but his version had no mention of any legal - instead this inappropiate content was added by User:MrYellow in October 2020. This account is tagged as Smith but I see no evidence its him, secondly, an IP editor showed up complaining this was an incorrect block: "I was the real User:MrYellow. I'm not Smith. User:Instinct is almost certainly (but not definitely) Smith complaining about the incorrect block (even if he's a banned user it seems justified he pointed out a mistake). Instinct is correct no evidence was presented I am Smith. I've spoken to Smith by email: the sysop who blocked MrYellow (Dysklyver), has has made multiple errors with blocking accounts under his name on this wiki. It seems strange my account was blocked with no discussion." Who incorrectly blocked the MrYellow account? Dyskylver aka Judge_Dredd. This is also the same person, a disgraced ex-tech (who lost his tech rights after collaborating with Emil Kirkegaard and leaking him Ips), who banned Smith for doxing, but if you go to the coop you find no evidence for this allegation. This mess all seems to be one disgruntled user (an ex-tech) with a vendetta against Smith. A look at Judge Dredd's edit history shows they only log in to block accounts as Smith (often with no evidence and making some mistakes such as MrYellow). Oenophyta (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Goat

1. @Oenophyta I fixed the AfD for you.-Flandres (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Non-notability in and of itself is not a valid reason to request that an article be vaporized. We are not Wikipedia. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

   Yes. Historically we regarded importance to the mission to be more important than high notability. Though within limits obviously.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

3. It's not clear what the reverted troll hopes for, it's actually more likely that the trolling will increase support for keeping the article. But I was already leaning towards throwing in a vote for keep. I say ignore the troll entirely in adding your further votes. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   The reverted troll is Michael Coombs, he’s interested in this page because it was created by another banned user he has a feud with. You’re right that voting to keep a page because Michael doesn’t like it is a bad idea. Christopher (talk)

   I was wondering if the motivation really was that simple (I don't have long experience with the regular trolls here). But then, MC seems to be someone who persists for the sake of persistence, regardless of the results. Anyway, I'll quote the reason you added for deleting this article, since it's one I didn't consider when I voted: "We should delete any page created by Smith on the spot if we want to actually enforce his ban." --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   Deleting something based on who created it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Suppose another editor were to create the same article the following day? Or in six months? Should it still be deleted based on the fact that it had once been created someone who was previously banned? It seems to be that we should make these decisions based on the merit of the article - not on our opinions about the original author.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   The same person created dozens of articles e.g., hereditarianism, spiteful mutant hypothesis, London Conference on Intelligence, OpenPsych pseudojournals, to name a few and most of the individual page creations associatd with the latter (Noah Carl, Edward Dutton, John Fuerst, Michael A. Woodley of Menie, etc). Doesn't seem wise to remove all this content suited to the wiki's goal and aims to refute pseudoscience - most of the Cofnas article however is off-mission leaving only a tiny relevant section about his dubious views on climate change, hereditarianism and veganism. Oenophyta (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)