Talk:Nathan Damigo

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Cleanup and expansion[edit]

Can someone who knows what they are doing clean this up? It should look much cleaner than the current mess. JustAPoliticalNerd (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until the looming WP:G5 issue is resolved, people who know what they are doing could probably better spend their efforts elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, without evidence of sockpuppetry confirmed, while this article may not be to your liking, can I ask that you leave those working on it be for now rather than attempt to persuade others from collaborating to improve the article? If you take issue with the article there are more than enough ways to deal with that if you feel it fails the criteria for notability. -- Longhair\^talk 01:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fair point, I suppose. I've presented some, but hardly all, of the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. I suppose I shouldn't have been so cryptic, since if this is sock puppetry (and I am confident that it is), PerfectlyIrrational already knows where the SPI is. After a certain point, humoring behavior like this is disruptive, even if some good comes out of it. We are far past that point with this sock, however. Every time I look I find more old BLP problems with their many, many socks that have yet to be caught and fixed. That's not even counting the countless gnome-edits made to get auto-confirmed, most of which were pointless at best. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not taking sides, I just saw an argument brewing that you could possibly easily walk away from until any sock investigations are confirmed :D -- Longhair\^talk 01:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article with a notability notice, being that most of the article concerns his founding of various nationalist groups. While many of those groups have articles his individual notability is unclear. We have similar nationalist groups here in Australia and their founders are mostly redirected to the group(s) they've been involved with. Somebody with more knowledge on the US issues will call past eventually and decide where to go from here. Hope this helps. -- Longhair\^talk 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. my comment was trying to prevent future disruption, but it didn't work, obviously. As I've said elsewhere, I think this could make for an article, but this is a bad way to get there. The articles written by this sock are superficially neutral, but they have a... hagiography vibe when viewed from a distance. The consistent drive of this editor has been to promote alt-right and other extreme-right figures as being credible and significant by shoveling in every possible source they can find. If every alt-right figure has many links to other alt-right figures, we end up with a walled garden of nominally noteworthy individuals, and we never really get around to explaining what they do that makes them notable. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

I’ll help clean up by restoring the redirect :-). Irrespective of any possible socking, the subject is not independently notable of the group and a separate article is not needed. Please see WP:NOPAGE and WP:FORK. Damigo’s already sufficiently well covered in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]