Talk:2021 London mayoral election/Archives/2020/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2021 London mayoral election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
SPA editing
We've had three WP:SPAs appear, add Brian Rose as an independent candidate, and then disappear: Saadmhmd1717, Pantisaz and Mr Veteran16. This looks like sock (or meat) puppetry. In the absence of WP:RS coverage, these edits have all been swiftly removed. Good work to editors for handling this, but should we escalate the response and seek semi-protection or get these accounts blocked? Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, plus one IP editor doing the same: 2a02:c7d:a23:8e00:8d2f:3b2d:73fe:ea32 Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think reporting fly-by-night accounts that are no longer disrupting would be helpful, but semi-protection seems sensible! Rose-related disruptive activity looks like it's been the majority of activity on the page in the last week and would have all been filtered out by semi-protection. There has also been quite a bit of the same for the Renew candidate, I think? Ralbegen (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect that someone is getting rather over-excited (a member of the Rose team and/or family, if I may come across as Hercule Poirot for a moment). Semi-protection might dissuade them for a day or two. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've submitted an RPP request. Ralbegen (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect that someone is getting rather over-excited (a member of the Rose team and/or family, if I may come across as Hercule Poirot for a moment). Semi-protection might dissuade them for a day or two. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think reporting fly-by-night accounts that are no longer disrupting would be helpful, but semi-protection seems sensible! Rose-related disruptive activity looks like it's been the majority of activity on the page in the last week and would have all been filtered out by semi-protection. There has also been quite a bit of the same for the Renew candidate, I think? Ralbegen (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
BRAIN ROSE IS RUNNNING AS AN INDEPENDENT.... WE NEED TO ADD HIM. He is listed as 3rd by William Morris to win the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadmhmd1717 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Saadmhmd1717: Can you provide a link? I don't know who you mean by William Morris. Do you mean the bookies, William Hill? Oddschecker don't show William Hill as listing Rose and have Berry as 3rd in the odds.
- We need a reliable source saying Rose is running. If you can provide that, he will be added. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, here we are. Yes, William Hill has Rose third in the odds today (16/1). William Hill's odds are generally considered a primary source. It's William Hill offering a product. It's not reliable source coverage of the election, like an article in a newspaper or news site would be. Other editors: am I right in recalling that's how a betting company's odds are treated? Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's pretty cut-and-dry that betting odds aren't sufficient for inclusion (and they're primary sources). Betting odds that have been nontrivially covered in reliable sources would be different! Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Plenty of background on Brian Rose should sourcing appear that he is seriously running. Try this and this. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's pretty cut-and-dry that betting odds aren't sufficient for inclusion (and they're primary sources). Betting odds that have been nontrivially covered in reliable sources would be different! Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, here we are. Yes, William Hill has Rose third in the odds today (16/1). William Hill's odds are generally considered a primary source. It's William Hill offering a product. It's not reliable source coverage of the election, like an article in a newspaper or news site would be. Other editors: am I right in recalling that's how a betting company's odds are treated? Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protection ends and the Rose editing is back. Shall we ask for semi-protection to be reinstated? Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to add Brian Rose, having learnt of his candidacy last night, but my edit has been reverted. OK, the press haven't covered it (apart from the slightly dubious Politicalite), but he is on Who Can I Vote For? https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/person/72913/brian-rose I'm surprised no other press has mentioned it, but I didn't realise that was the criteria for being added. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is the criterion to be added. Lots of people talk about standing and then don't, and Wikipedia has clear policies on using reliable sources (WP:RS) and not WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't see that Who Can I Vote For? constitutes a reliable source. If he's a serious candidate, we'll see reliable secondary sourcing soon enough. Bondegezou (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
External links: campaign links?
As has been done on some other articles, do we want an External Links section with links to candidates' campaign websites? Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why not, no different to manifestos being on general election articles. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)