Talk:Brice Stratford

Suggest deletion

Suggest deletion of this page as it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1A10:7819:DF5:B8F9:4C2B:7B74 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Paul W, who marked this page as reviewed. Were there any sources—in the article or not yet used—that most helped you make a determination of notability? I'm asking in part because I was unsure, as a relatively inexperienced New Page Reviewer, if this was notable or not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers. On balance, I felt Stratford achieved notability. I was swayed by the sources about retention of architecturally significant buildings, with more than passing mentions of Stratford in significant coverage about conservation campaigns from UK and Irish regional and national newspapers, magazines and broadcasters (I have edited articles about historical buildings and other conversation campaigns). The article mentions but does not cite articles he has written - for Apollo (this one, for example) and The Spectator (example) - which could be added to the article to substantiate the writer credentials. I was, though, more cautious about the reliability of citations regarding Stratford's forthcoming books (WP:CRYSTAL; however, I considered that, once these were published, they might get coverage from reviewers in independent sources) and about the theatrical appearances and productions (Theatre Voice is WP:Interview content; TimeOut is just a passing mention of the play, not of Stratford; RemoteGoat is a broken link; but The Londonist is substantial reliable coverage). Please note, I am also a relatively recent NewPageReviewer and this was one of my earliest reviews with the tools. I didn't feel the article merited deletion or draftification; with the benefit of hindsight, it might have merited addition of a 'more sources' template relating to the theatrical work, and addition of citations regarding the periodical articles (mentioned in lead but not in body copy). Hope this helps. Paul W (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paul W: Please see my post below. This COI autobio may have fabricated citations on another article, by using a slightly different publication name and incomplete publication data.[1] All cites need to be verified. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

COI, astroturfing, spammers, probable autobio

I'm going through the history now, but various versions of this were started and edited by a COI spammer. See: COI Noticeboard: Brice Stratford, which found over 30 connected sock/meat accounts astroturfing for this individual, including citations to what are possibly fabricated references. Anything posted by or about this person needs to be thoroughly vetted to make sure it is WP:V and WP:RS. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, CorbieVreccan! The sockfarm is a nightmare, and has spammed not only this article but numerous other articles they created. One article (eventually deleted at AFD) even had fake references in the form of unlinked literary journals that when obtained were obviously bogus. Jytdog was very active in fighting the sockfarm but he was sitebanned a few years ago due to unrelated issues. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

One of the socks added Stratford and others to a school alumni list I came across yesterday. Looks like they fabricated that reference, then cited a couple dozen entries to it. What a scourge on the 'pedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No joke. In 2015 there were well over 30 accounts in the farm. By now there are probably 50 or more. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you returned the notability and COI tags. Can I ask why? Notability is clearly demonstrated, and there is no specific COI issue, just suspicion and a past COI editor (which is not enough in and of itself to justify the tag). Based on the below excerpts from the relevant template pages, I don't see that either the COI or notability tags should have been returned.

Based on the below procedure, it seems the tags should not have been put back as the problems had been fixed. As such it seems the correct thing for me to do according to policy is to remove them again, which I will do now (and which I do not mean as any kind of insult, just as the correct procedure). If you wish them to be returned please justify it according to the proper criteria indicated below and clarify this on the talk page.

From the relevant policy articles:

===The article should have a specific problem (from Template:COI)===

"In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. COI editors can be added to the talk page."

"The COI tag should be removed once the problem is fixed."

===Removing this tag (from Template:Notability)===

"If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources."

This has been done.

"The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group."

This clearly establishes the tag should not have been re-added. Any further, specific issue with notability should have been raised on the talk page and clarified there (not the other way around). Furthermore, the article earlier states:

"Do not place this message on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep". This is not a badge of shame to show your disagreement with the AFD outcome."

The Dancing Badger (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think the article still has major problems and that the tags should remain until there is a consensus among uninvolved editors that the problems have been fixed. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• From Template:Notability - "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" and "Do not place this message on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep". This is not a badge of shame to show your disagreement with the AFD outcome."

  This demonstrates unambiguously that the notability tag should not be there. As for your concerns, there are multiple indepth, non-trivial mentions in respectable national publications (Times Literary Supplement, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, The Observer, The Irish Post, The Journal) which are linked to within the sources. Can you explain specifically what your concerns are, or how exactly this article fails Wikipedia's notability criteria? If you can't then, bearing in mind the above, this tag should not be in place.

  From Template:COI - "In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. COI editors can be added to the talk page."

  You have not mentioned any "specific, articulatable, fixable problem" with the article, and instead simply "suspect COI editing ... because there is or was a COI editor." In order to justify the re-adding of the template please define the "specific, articulatable, fixable problem" with the article beyond the fact that there is or was a COI editor, ad/or your suspicion of COI editing.

  The above Wikipedia policy makes it clear that the tags should not be there, so I am going to revert your edit again, which it seems was demonstrably contrary to the correct policy. If you are going to re-add them again (and I would remind you that Template:Notability states, unambiguously: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it.") then please specifically justify that decision according to Template:COI and Template:Notability, specifically addressing the points above.

  The Dancing Badger (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This WP:WALLOFTEXT of WP:Wikilawyering is irrelevant. You are now one of the reasons for the COI tags. The puffery and questionable cites that necessitated the tags are still in the article because you claimed you were going to remove them. Then you said the article was "Cleaned" but put that content back, even reverting other editors who again removed it. So the original problem is still there, and now you have added to it and are edit-warring to continue the problems. All of this increases the probability that you have COI. You should back off, both due to your probable COI, your violation of BLP tone/issues, your deceptive editing that fits the sock patterns, and due to concerns raised at the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Dancing Badger, you have unilaterally removed COI tags from this article four times [2], [3], [4], [5] without discussion or consensus. If you do it again, you will be reported to an administrators noticeboard and likely blocked from editing, possibly indefinitely. Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting COI, notability, post-cleanup

Good work on the massive cleanup, Softlavender. Thoughts now that the astroturfing has (hopefully) been dealt with? (Even if not all the disruptive accounts are blocked yet.) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Anyone unaware of the massive amount of disruption caused by the BriceStratford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockfarm should look at Softlavender's recent contribs and edit summaries of the cleanup. The astroturfer made so many WP:HOAXy edits, fabricated refs, exaggerated claims, etc, etc, etc. So much work cleaning it all up. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe there should be a separation between the now cleaned-up and neutral article and the massive problems created by the sockfarm all over Wikipedia. Since the article has now been stringently cleaned up by editors unrelated to the subject, I believe both tags should be removed. Tags are not meant to remain on an article forever, and there are always next steps if there are still concerns about an individual article. I will remove both tags unless someone objects. NB: Obviously, considering the longterm abuse of Wikipedia by this sockfarm, no account or IP connected to the subject should henceforth edit this article directly, although they may make edit requests on this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think the sockfarm needs to be blocked in total; no exceptions. The astroturfing was so staggering that I feel numb to recognizing the notability here. I think his notability is probably borderline, but it may just be all the miasma generated by his damage to the 'pedia. That said, I agree: If you're confident you've removed all the fabricated citations and other problems, we can remove the tags. We may need to semi it as well, given the history. Again, excellent work, Softlavender. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm still researching a couple of loose ends; will follow up when I have finished. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• This article has now been stringently cleaned up by editors independent of the subject. I have removed the tags, as long as COI, astroturfing, spam, and autobiography does not return. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)