This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Software: Computing This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware This draft is supported by WikiProject Computing. Freedom of speech This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech

why does somebody keep on trying to delete him? It would be good to have more transparency about this. ThePaddys (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This entire article was supposedly sourced and written in a matter of minutes after the subject arguably achieved notability by registering to stand in European elections, and the author has made no contributions other than those related to the subject. Appropriately sourced critical content has been replaced by either unsourced claims or material produced by the subject. This gives a strong appearance of an undeclared connection between the author and the subject and of being an NPOV violation. Grey Ocelot (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The page was already submitted 2 years ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20220506183504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_Pocock . I am not aware of the policy around page deletion and draft on en.wp, but I guess someone can dig the logs to see who created it. Misc (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The user User:Grey Ocelot was only just created and the only edits he makes are adding links from the Daniel Pocock page to the doxing pages. He did not edit any other pages. He doesn't link to any independent sources about Mr Pocock. He only links to emails written by Mr Pocock's detractors. The user has the same username as a user attacking Mr Pocock in a LWN discussion thread.

Looking at the history of the disputes is very important. Mr Pocock attended the conferences in Albania as a volunteer in 2017. In October 2017 he sent emails to Mozilla's diversity coordinator about harassment and underage abuse. He published copies of those emails on his blog. They are very genuine. Mozilla wrote an internal report. They are refusing to publish the real report. In all the emails that have been published, Mr Pocock is in the role of a witness and supporter of the victims. In March 2018, Anisa Kuci wrote an email thanking Mr Pocock for his support. Miss Kuci was given a trip to DebConf18 in Taiwan. She had a trip to DebConf19 in Brazil. She was given an Outreachy internship. After Outreachy, she was given a job at Wikipedia. Therefore, it looks like there are conflicts of interest around this article involving wikimedia employees and people close to the wikimedia cabal. ThePaddys (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've searched LWN but I can't find anyone there with this username so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't agree that the pages I've cited are doxxing, but I'm new here and they should certainly be removed if there's general consensus that they breach WP:OWH Grey Ocelot (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm also not a wikimedia employee. I do know a couple of editors, but I work in software so this isn't too surprising? I don't think there's any conflict of interests in my contributions, but the author's encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and clearly subjective interpretation of published material means there's legitimate reason to be concerned about a conflict of interest there. Grey Ocelot (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply