Apparently this is a GorillaWarfare general so will post this here
Various people, mostly 130.156.160.91 (new jersey) and 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (north dakota) are questioning Molly's motives for wanting an article deleted which could overlap with her [[incel]] article. An arbcom case against her for wanting to monopolize incel subjects was launched in 2018 from a seperate person. Their pleas for the content to remain has not gone unnoticed, with veterans unsure about how to handle their content complaints.
from 130.156.160.91 on Molly's motive for deletion
. I find it quite immature and petty for a site admin to nominate an article in which she has an editorial interest (in her page she says she created the incel article), all while completely bulldozing through the AfD etiquette and not citing a single example of policy (edit: *policy violation. Also, I forgot to mention more importantly that she did not declare her editorial COI, as creator and major contributor of the incel article, while making this nomination). 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I argued that [Molly's actions on the incel subject has become] a form of COI in my response above, but I think you can also appreciate [Molly's AFD nomination] with the lay term 'pettiness'. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Same New Jersey IP that seemed to author the article. Sometimes it was coming from a New Jersey school.
Molly seems to have claimed an edit conflict was some sort of attack on her, and as a leadup to an underwhelming claim of victimhood. (Not the first time she's done this)
Please do not edit my messages. We had an edit conflict as you left a comment at the same time I was expanding on mine, as I noted in my edit summary ("ec"). I have stated my position on the article and its sources, and given that you now seem to be resorting to bludgeoning and attacking me personally I am going to end this conversation, as it's stopped being productive and threatens to drown out outside opinions on the article's suitability for inclusion as a standalone page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC))
User:small_jars is asserting Molly doesn't have a COI with incel and User:S0091is saying that is "impossible" for 130.156.160.91 to prove. I dunno man, even a top Wikipedia administrator explicitly identified Molly as an "anti-incel activist" after a 2018 arbcom case against her for monopolizing incel subjects was dropped for being premature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =858509008
Most of the people wanting the article to stay aren't much better on the topic, seemingly wanting to advertize a messed up forum