Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sophisticated template vandalism.3B need admin help

{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}

{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}

{{Clear}}

{{Admin tasks}}

__TOC__

{{atopg

| result = Endorsed. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

:{{RfC closure review links|1=|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center}} (Discussion with closer)

Closer: {{userlinks|Chetsford}}

User requesting review: {{userlinks|PARAKANYAA}} at 02:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1294832005]

Reasoning: @Chetsford closed the SPLC RfC as "always requires attribution", but generally reliable. This is contradictory and I request a review of it. While I don't agree that there is a consensus for always requiring attribution, the bigger problem is that it is inherently oxymoronic to declare a source "generally reliable" for factual matters, but then say it must always be attributed. Per our own description of generally reliable:

Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a well-established news organization would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.

It is incomprehensible to declare a source generally reliable when it can only be used in an attributed matter; that is definitionally an "additional considerations" close. Should at least be "other considerations apply" so people know not to use it without attribution and so we can facilitate its removal from pages where it is not attributed. In practice, a result of requiring attribution for all statements is an additional considerations or marginally reliable close, and if that provision is kept this should reflect that. As is this gives a nonsensical result, and people will add it to pages as GREL without knowing they cannot use it for most facts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:First, the appellant files this challenge on the basis of erroneous information. They say

::{{xt|"Chetsford closed the SPLC RfC as "always requires attribution"}}

:This is false. The relevant portions of the close are:

:*"information sourced to it should usually [emphasis added] be attributed"

:*"application of a potentially contentious label [emphasis added] to someone or something should be employed only if attributed, or otherwise supported by other RS"

:*"the foregoing should not be read as meaningfully different from the status quo" [to wit ""The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION."]

:Second, general reliability is not analogous to universal reliability which seems to be what the appellant is actually seeking. It is neither unusual nor exotic for a generally reliable source to have use-case caveats attached (e.g. WP:RSPADL, WP:BELLINGCAT, WP:CSM, WP:DESERET, WP:PEOPLEMAG, etc.).

:Third, as per my discussion with the appellant here, whether the consensus of the community is or is not paradoxical, is not something a closer can control. The beginning and end of the closer's authority is to read the consensus of the community, not enforce coherence upon it.

:::Details of the foregoing: The essence of the appellant's argument seems to be that, if the words "generally reliable" appear anywhere in the close, then no caveats can be attached without it being incoherent. Whether that's true or not is a separate matter from whether it was the consensus of the community. The discussion was filled with !votes that expressed just that e.g. {{Xt|"generally reliable, should always be attributed"}}, {{xt|"Option 1 ... it should always be attributed"}}, {{xt|"Option 1 with attribution"}}, {{xt|"Option 1 with attribution"}}, etc., etc. In combination with the (numerically superior, after qualitative adjustments) Option 2 !voters who said things like {{Xt|"functionaly [sic] the same as the many people who !voted "Option 1 but with attribution""}}, {{xt|"Option 2 - they should be attributed at all times"}} and so forth, there's clearly no consensus for the determination of universal reliability the appellant desires. In closing RfCs, I always assume that every !vote is a perfect expression of the intent of the editor and never try to infer what I think an editor meant to say but was incompetent of expressing. For me to simply say "generally reliable -- no attribution ever required" would have been an overriding WP:SUPERVOTE.

:Fourth, the appellant said {{xt|"they cannot use it for most facts"}} but that's simply not the case and does not form any element of the close: (a) as noted in the close itself, nothing has meaningfully changed from the status quo; (b) incontrovertible facts are absolutely citable to the SPLC without inline attribution precisely as they were before based on any reasonable reading of the close and understanding of the role of Talk pages; (c) if one believes the foregoing is insufficient, one is ultimately relitigating the RfC and not the close as the kind of perfected language desired by the appellant to form part of the close is simply absent across most editors comments and, in fact, many of the "2" editors overtly expressed an intent that they wanted statements of any kind attributed (see comments by Berchanhimez, Blueboar, Springee, Masem, Sean Waltz O'Connell, etc.) Chetsford (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::A point of clarification, as this may impact whether or not editors would like to support overturning the close or not.
It is with intention that the close vaguely says "usually attributed" and doesn't specify "attributed for statements of opinion only"; it is not due to accident or oversight.
Discussants, by and large (with a few exceptions), did not specify this limitation. The closer must assume each !vote is a perfect expression of the belief of the !voter and not presume sweeping instances of !voter incompetence.
More importantly, though, this is not a vote where there is one side that wins but a "process of compromise" where the the community expresses its desire through the holistic character of the discussion. In addition to the fact that most !voters generally indicated attribution with no explicit limitation, a not-insignificant number of !voters explicitly demanded attribution in any and all circumstances (as I note above). And, there was yet a third class of !voters who indicated that SPLC should not have primacy in disputes in the nature of facts when contradicted by other RS (either requiring contextualization or preferencing different sources, such as academic publications).
"Usually attributed" will be read by reasonable editors as a necessity for attribution in instances where there is good faith objection (i.e. the well-articulated objections of multiple editors versus the generalized opposition of one or two obstinate editors) to the veracity of a specific piece of information. In other words, the close is not a Passe-Libre to force any piece of content into an article over the objections of other editors as long as one first declares it's not "XYZ" class of information; nor, however, is it a requirement that any content sourced to SPLC must be inline attributed without exception.
While I appreciate some editors occasionally desire RSN RfCs that result in Passe-Libres that allow them to obliviate the necessity of article-specific Talk pages (and in many cases they do) this was not the end result of this RfC. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Here's a Q&A: There seems to be a level of incomprehensible confusion as to what the close does and does not accomplish, and it seems all sides are reading into it their desired outcome. I have therefore written a Q&A here that explains "usually attributed" to a level of detail impossible to include in a closing statement, but apparently necessary. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Background: This is a two-part RfC. Part 1 addresses the SPLC, and the closing summary for Part 1 states, {{xt|"information sourced to it should usually be attributed"}} (emphasis added). Part 2 addresses the SPLC Hatewatch, and the closing summary for Part 2 states, {{xt|"information sourced to it should always be attributed"}} (emphasis added). Based on this, PARAKANYAA's initial rationale for the closure review request appears to primarily apply to Part 2 (about Hatewatch).{{pb}}The closure had been substantially amended after Chetsford received a request on his talk page and before PARAKANYAA filed this review request. In Special:Diff/1294802704, Chetsford changed the closing summary of Part 1 (about the SPLC) from {{!xt|"SPLC's application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should only be employed if supported by other RS"}} (emphasis added) to {{xt|"SPLC's application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should be employed only if attributed, or otherwise supported by other RS"}} (emphasis added). A clarification that {{xt|"the foregoing should not be read as meaningfully different from the status quo"}} was added to Part 1 in Special:Diff/1294824349. In contrast, Part 2's closing summary (about Hatewatch) has not been changed, and still reads, {{xt|"its application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should only be employed if supported by other RS"}} (emphasis added).{{pb}}Analysis: The Part 1 closing summary is highly detailed and includes a numerical breakdown of editor responses that incorporated a qualitative assessment of the arguments made, but the Part 2 closing summary is much shorter and omits the analysis. Chetsford said in the Part 2 summary, {{xt|"For purposes of brevity, I'm going to jump straight to the conclusion and skip the preamble, which would largely or identically mirror the explanations given in Part 1 (above), albeit with a slightly (though not radically) different distribution of opinions."}} Because the Part 2 summary describes a consensus that is different from that of the Part 1 summary, I would like to see Chetsford explain in greater detail how the Part 2 editor responses show consensus for restricting the use of potentially contentious labels from Hatewatch that are attributed inline with the {{xt|"should only be employed if supported by other RS"}} qualification, in contrast to the Part 1 responses that do not show consensus for the same restriction for the SPLC in general.{{pb}}I disagree with PARAKANYAA's argument that a source designated as "always requires attribution" cannot be considered generally reliable, because while {{xt|"Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution"}} (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), {{xt|"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"}} (WP:BIASED). I do, however, ask Chetsford to explain the differences between the Part 1 and Part 2 editor responses that would lead to consensus for {{xt|"always"}} requiring attribution for Hatewatch, but only {{xt|"usually"}} requiring attribution for the SPLC as a whole.{{pb}}On the other hand, the finding in the Part 2 summary {{xt|"its application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should only be employed if supported by other RS"}} would imply that Hatewatch's potentially controversial labels are less than generally reliable, as it is stating that these labels are never reliable enough to pass the due weight policy (which requires articles to {{xt|"fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"}}) on the sole basis of the Hatewatch article that the label is published in, without being accompanied by other sources that are reliable enough to avoid such a requirement. It is not a contradication contradiction to consider Hatewatch generally reliable even with this restriction, as Hatewatch also consists of content other than potentially contentious labels. But as I mentioned before, I would like to see Chetsford explain in greater detail how he found consensus for this restriction.{{pb}}Another part of the closure that caught my attention was the second-to-last paragraph of the Part 1 summary, {{xt|"Finally, no one objected to the construction of the RfC which, in effect, validated Barnards.tar.gz's unobjected-to comment that 'they should not be used to support contentious labels for groups and individuals outside of their core competency area of American racist groups'."}} Neither the Part 1 nor the Part 2 RfC statement asked about the reliability of the SPLC and Hatewatch for topics outside of {{xt|"hate groups and extremism in the United States"}}, and a single comment by one editor (that is the 39th of the 41 responses in the Part 1 polling section) among the approximately 361 comments in the RfC is unlikely to have been read by many of the other RfC participants. I would strike this finding, as I do not consider it adequately supported by the RfC responses in total. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC) {{small|Fixed spelling 19:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)}}
• I see no issues with the generalities of this close (essentially, that the status quo remains in force), I'm sure Chetsford would be willing to add the same clarification to part 2 as well, as indicated. I agree with Newslinger that a single comment from a single editor in a rather large RFC should not be taken as sufficient support to find much of anything. Whether it could be made clearer that what "usually" refers to (i.e. opinion) I see outside of the main scope of the close review, though if people want to workshop refining the exact wording I'm sure that could be done, maybe in the discussion section. This is therefore an endorse from me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. As this discussion goes on it's become increasingly clear to me that this is one editor's deciding they don't like the closure, and taking such an idiosyncratic view of said closure that they have responded to it by making edits that can only be described as pointy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Chetsford always does thoughtful closes, and this one was no different. There really cannot have been some other close, despite the challenger's reasoning, and the contention that attribution inherently means unreliable is confusing the concepts of WP:RELIABLE and bias. all sources have bias, regardless of reliability, and the decision to attribute specific positions of some sources does not speak at all to the reliability of the source. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse per Buffs below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Closer accurately read the consensus from the discussion and weighed arguments in a reasonable matter. Let'srun (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. I don't see any reason that this needs to be relitigated - the close was well thought out on both aspects (SPLC as a whole and Hatewatch) and I don't see how it could've been closed any other way. They are a biased source, as basically everyone (even option 1 !voters) admits - WP:BIASED addresses this directly: {{tq|Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".}} This discussion showed the consensus of the community that the SPLC, while reliable, is so heavily biased that information that can only be sourced to them should generally be attributed in-text. As the closer points out, this is not a suicide pact - there may be circumstances in which in-text attribution is unnecessary, such as if there are other sources for most/all of the information being included in an article. I thank the closer for their careful review of the comments and opinions. And please guys, we don't need to relitigate anything here - I don't intend to reply further here unless someone has a specific question for me (and if so, please ping me to let me know). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• The closure reflects the discussion's odd focus on attributing opinions and contentious labels, which is already a requirement regardless of how reliable the source is. Even top-tier sources like the NYT and Washington Post have an "attribute opinions" caveat which frankly shouldn't need to be said. I think there was an unspoken assumption that "SPLC only publishes opinions and therefore must always be attributed" which ignored the non-opinion research work that they do.

:There's not much that a closer could have done about this while remaining impartial, however a clarification of {{tq|"information sourced to it should usually be attributed"}} (when exactly should it be authorized?) would avoid any confusion or wikilawyering down the road. –dlthewave ☎ 05:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - While I would have preferred that Chetsford explicitly stated that attribution was necessary only in relation to opinions and not in relation to statements of fact, that they stated "... information sourced to it should usually be attributed" (my emphasis) covers it. Generally I find Chetsford's closes to be of a high quality and I have no non-trivial issue with this one. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close It would probably be worth adding the same clarifications added to Part 1 to Part 2. Otherwise this seems to have followed the discussion and results in status quo for the source. Springee (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close I think the difficulty here is that the 4-way split at RSN didn't serve us well. Although Option 2 says "Additional Considerations" and so it may seem like !voting Option 1 excludes that, many participants in fact specified additional considerations - especially around attribution. Similarly, Option 2 voters (including myself) were not necessarily voting against GREL (and I was specifically voting for it).

:Confusion around this occurred during the RfC itself - an editor said that my !vote was self-contradictory in the same way as the filer of this CR interprets the close as being. I think closer has done a good job. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Partial endorse mostly per Springee and Newslinger. I agree that the changes to part 1 should be reflected in part 2, and I also think that line about a single editor's comment should be struck. However, after Chetsford's clarifications and what !voters said below I don't think what PARAKANYAA is concerned about actually part of the close. I think the intent here is that SPLC should always be attributed for opinions but it can be cited without attribution for pure facts. Loki (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close I don't like the outcome. I think the conclusions made by participants were incorrect. But I also recognize my opinion/arguments didn't carry the day. The closure was an appropriate outcome. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Far from raising issues, I think Chetsford's close was an extremely nuanced and skillfull rendering of consensus in very difficult circumstances, and I believe they captured the essence of the overall community findings in the discussion about as accurately as anybody could have been expected to. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'll hold off on replying pending the application of the Template:RfC closure review. I would apply it myself but I can't self-notify so if someone else wouldn't mind, it would be appreciated. Chetsford (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Nevermind, I did it myself. Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:The conclusion is confusing because all statements require attribution. However generally statements of fact are attributed with footnotes, while statements of opinion are attributed in text, no matter how reliable the sources.

:Should we phrase the first sentence of the Westboro Baptist Church: it "is an American unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, according to the SPLC?" Does anyone think the source is so unreliable that they got the denomination, location, date of founding and name of the founder wrong? TFD (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, that is how we would have to write factual citations to the SPLC now going forward. Which in practice amounts to removing most information cited to them, that cannot be clearly or reasonably attributed (Anything besides x is hate group according to SPLC, which we already had to attribute), because it makes the writing abysmal. But the big issue is this is actually a far more restrictive standard than most no consensus/marginally reliable sources even have, so in no way is this a GREL close - it will create untold confusion from people trying to add it to support facts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::According to the policy if not in practice, statements require specific attribution via footnote when challenged, but not necessarily. Statements must be verifiable. I think also the point was basically around attribution for controversial or extraordinary claims or contentious labels. I think this is not a charitable read of the close at all which states {{tq|There is a consensus that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States is generally reliable but information sourced to it should usually be attributed, academic sources are preferred when available, and, SPLC's application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should be employed only if attributed, or otherwise supported by other RS.}} Endorse the close but was involved and the close is similar to what I said in the discussion. Andre🚐 02:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::1) Scroll to the second part, which has the same oxymoron (declaring something GREL but giving what is a MREL result). It was also modified somewhat right before I posted this but I do not think that makes it any clearer given this is considerably stronger language than before, so clearly something has changed.

:::2) This is not better if we are referring to facts. They already had to be cited for extraordinary or contentious claims... If it's supposed to be almost always, in what circumstances should they NOT be attributed/when can we use then without it? That is also not a GREL close. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is a rare case where I think the opinions of (certain) participants are more valuable than those of non-participants, and also where some extra consensus-building might be useful. So: {{u|Simonm223}}, {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Thryduulf}}, {{u|SnowRise}}, {{u|Binksternet}}, {{u|Jmabel}}, {{u|Santasa99}}, {{u|PackMecEng}}, {{u|Silver_seren}}, {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, you all !voted Option 1 but said the SPLC should "always" be attributed.

:# Are you aware the SPLC is sometimes cited for pure facts?

:#: For instance: in our article on the white nationalist Kevin Alfred Strom we cite {{tq|Strom indicates a high school teacher who shared his hatred of communism introduced him to the John Birch Society (JBS) where he first met members of the National Alliance which was more vocal about race theory and conflict}} to the SPLC exclusively.

:# Would you still support requiring attribution to the SPLC for pure facts?

:#: So the above would become {{tq|According to the SPLC, Strom indicates a high school teacher who shared his hatred of communism introduced him to the John Birch Society (JBS) where he first met members of the National Alliance which was more vocal about race theory and conflict}}

: Loki (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ping for {{u|Snow_Rise}} was broken, fixing here. Loki (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would argue additionally that if we can only write such basic information in an attributed manner we should just remove it, which will be quite a lot of content on the modern far-right. Probably most of it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::As someone who !voted for "with considerations", that consideration being in text attribution, I believe yes, that should be attributed. If it is an actual fact that is due weight to include, then it will have been picked up by other reliable sources and we can evaluate whether to attribute in text based on those other sources. If it has not been picked up by other sources, it is very likely undue. But if it is determined to be due, we must attribute in text. A biased source will, by definition, include "facts" when they support their viewpoint - even if those facts may not be as fully vetted as another source would've done, or if they're not important in the grand scheme of things.{{pb}}In a situation where the SPLC reports a fact and other reliable sources attribute it to the SPLC, there can still be a local consensus that in-text attribution isn't necessary in our article. For an extreme example, if the NYT, AP, and the Guardian all report on the fact (even if they attribute it to the SPLC), then it may not be necessary to say "per (source/SPLC) [fact]". But if the SPLC is the only one reporting it, or it's only being picked up by questionable sources, then we should be attributing even "facts" in text because of the risk they are not accurate and/or are only being reported for biased reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What reliable sources are not biased against the far-right? If bias is a reason for unreliability, and not actual evidence of factual inaccuracy, why would the NYT, the Guardian, and AP not have the same problem? AP infamously lowercases "white" but uppercases "Black" literally solely to spite white supremacists, the Guardian regularly doxes far-righters, etc. These are not reasons for unreliability. If sources being biased against the far-right is a reason for unreliability we do not have any sources on them because all pro-far right sources we have declared unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::And, if the consensus is that information from a source is almost always undue weight that is definitionally not a GREL closure, which is what I said in my main post. This should then be marked as generally unreliable or marginally reliable for clarity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm aware of what you voted; the reason I didn't ping you is that you were not in any way ambiguous about that. I only pinged people who voted Option 1 but always attribute because that position seems somewhat contradictory and is thus ambiguous.

:::As you can see, there were quite a lot of people like that. About a quarter of the RFC participants in fact, easily enough to swing a consensus. Loki (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::For absolutely pure fact? No. In that case attribution is not necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::I thought I had made it clear in my comments that I believed the pre-existing status as generally reliable and the wording of their entry was exactly correct: i.e {{tpq|The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.}}. Nothing in the discussion convinced me otherwise and nor do I see a consensus to change that, so I do think the close is poor (not just in this regard, but the very legalistic tone as a whole should be dropped in future) but it is not grossly incorrect. I am very disappointed in the combative vibe I'm getting from this review though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My response is substantially the same as Thryduulf's: This is of course a situation requiring a case by case analysis, but, while I consider the SPLC to show ever indicia and meet every criteria for general reliability that we use for determining such matters, it is also in the business of identifying and detailing extremist organizations. As such, a strong majority of statements cited to it are going to involve WP:exceptional statements and implicate other policy considerations directing restraint in what we state in wikivoice and an extra bit of application of NPOV considerations. {{pb}}So, where statements are attributed to multiple sources making the same clear description of a given subject, it may be appropriate to cite sans attribution. In the majority of cases where the SPLC is the sole descriptor, it will probably be important to attribute. Of course, context is queen and there may be exceptions, but this is the general pattern I would expect to manifest if policy is being applied correctly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• I thought I had made myself clear on this when you tried this argument previously.

:{{tq|No, you're just inherently wrong. I (and others) voted Option 1 and meant Option 1. The subject matter that SPLC primarily focuses on, however, means that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV generally applies for those topics. Per the subjects at hand, we shouldn't outright say that some group is a hate group without attributing where that conclusion is coming from. It doesn't matter where that statement is coming from, every single source being used, no matter how reliable, would need to be attributed for such statements. Option 1 still completely applies even when attribution is needed for the subject.}}

:But, fine, if this needs to be overly explicit, I meant "attribution for opinions". There you go, it's GREL. Are we done now? The community is not in agreement with you, PARAKANYAA. Silverseren^C 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:* I don't know what you think I'm arguing, because that's what I argued in the RfC myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::For context, when you said that originally it was to Berchanhimez, not PARAKANYAA. I feel like there is some sort of misunderstanding here, because it doesn't seem like you're clearly referring to either of them: PARAKANYAA never made that argument and Berchan hasn't commented in this discussion at all yet. Loki (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You're right, I saw PARAKANYAA in the reply to that comment and thought it had originally been in response to the same. My apologies, {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. I'm just really done as of late with redone discussions that were already going on for weeks. Too much relitigation going on. It's extremely tiring. Silverseren^C 03:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said. If I were citing SPLC, even for fact, I'd be very clear that is my source. They are not a news or academic source, they are an advocacy organization. An advocacy organization is never an ideal source for an encyclopedia, even if it can be a sufficiently good one. So far as I know, they have an excellent track record of getting their facts right, but it doesn't change the nature of what they are. I'd want the same for any advocacy organization, and I don't think that should change just because this is one I generally agree with. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)+
• I also want to add: I'm not at all happy with the way some people here are using the word "bias" (and, apologies, it's late at night here and I'm not going to look again to see exactly who said what). Of course organizations have points of view, but the word "bias" suggests a willingness to suppress or distort facts. Also (related): centrism is just as much of a political position as any other. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with this general view. If the SPLC is the source for a non-contentious fact, (Jonny Wixs lives in Springfield) the I wouldn't be too concerned. However, sometimes the factual statements can still be subjective or require context. An an example, the claim "Jonny Wixs's travel is supported by a [named person]". Is that [named person] directly gives the money or does it mean [named person] gave money to an organization who then gave money through a announced program to applicants including Jonny? It is a fact that Jonny was supported but the indirect nature is context that a source that is trying to support a bigger claim might leave out. So in this case the factual claim should be attributed. This seems to be in line with how the source is typically been used. So I don't see it as a change from status quo. Springee (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Wouldn't that be the same or any rs? TFD (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• In answer to {{U|TFD}}'s question above: I would presume all of that can be easily cited from a top-quality source. It doesn't seem to me like something you should need to cite from an advocacy group.

: (By the way, I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki; if someone wants specifically to further engage me on anything I've said here, please ping.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Jmabel You would presume, but it is not the case, even with extremely significant people like William Luther Pierce, very basic facts about his background are only citable to the SPLC (or it was before I removed large chunks of it as a result of the RfC). Incredible amounts of what seems like basic information are only citable to "advocacy sources". The information ecosystem in this topic area is extremely bizarre. And all sources on this topic, including academic ones, are advocacy sources; there are no sources "neutral" on neo-Nazism. If we disregard sources for being advocacy sources than there are simply no reliable ones, many academics are explicitly anti-fascist activists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::: {{ping|PARAKANYAA}} are you saying that an academic being opposed to fascism makes them not citeable about a fascist? And, if not, what are you saying? A peer-reviewed academic article should normally be citeable regardless of the politics of the author. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Jmabel I am saying that if the SPLC is unreliable solely due to being an advocacy group, without regard for the fact their work is widely cited and their factual accuracy is widely agreed upon, then all sources on the subject matter are unreliable because they're all advocacy sources. All academia about the far-right is of course written with the goal of stopping the far-right. There is not really any substantial difference between the work drawn by academics and the work by the SPLC in this manner; they are both written by experts with the goal of stopping the far-right. They are less academic sure, but that also goes for news coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: Are you saying that is the policy of Wikipedia, or your personal view? Because by that logic, it seems to me we could not cite anyone about murder who was not somehow neutral on the subject of killing people, or about polio from anyone who thinks it should be eradicated. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes. Then why are you arguing that SPLC is less reliable merely for being an advocacy group? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tqq|before I removed large chunks of it as a result of the RfC}} That...strikes me as sounding almost WP:POINTY, not gonna lie. I'll also point out that {{tqq|if the SPLC is unreliable solely due to being an advocacy group...then all sources on the subject matter are unreliable because they're all advocacy sources.}} That's definitely whataboutism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree it is POINTy and you should revert those removals, because they are not improvements and in the cases where you removed the SPLC they were joined by other sources and were not problematic usage Andre🚐 07:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There was no way to include that information without seriously hampering the flow of the article. The 1 case in which it was joined the other source did not actually support the key details, but a broader overview, so you could not attribute it, e.g. saying "according to the SPLC" would be actually incorrect.

:::::::::it is impossible to write a tolerable article where you have to attribute every sentence. According to the APLC, he went to college, according to the SPLC, he got married... etc. If it's in doubt just don't include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That is really not what the close means or any reasonable interpretation of it. Andre🚐 17:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If a source says you should "usually" attribute every single piece of information for a source, but does not elucidate when you should not, then what, exactly, are you supposed to think it means? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You are meant to use common sense and apply the other policies and principles and consider whether there are exceptions. Andre🚐 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::And in this case I see no reason for an exception. I can't think of one where there would be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with {{noping|Snow Rise}} that, given that they tend to make exceptional statements, they should be attributed in such instances, but per {{noping|Simonm223}}, in case of facts that are verified by multiple credible secondary sources, we should not have to attribute them in the prose itself. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Per policy, we would not report exceptional claims, no matter where they are reported, unless multiple rs had reported them. First, the most reliable sources could be wrong and second they would not be DUE. All the cautions that editors have raised about using the SPLC as a source apply equally to any reliable source. Even bias is inherent in any secondary source, since the authors decide what to write about, which facts to cover, whose opinions to report etc. TFD (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::My concern is more about maintaining a consistent position on advocacy groups than any specific concern about the SPLC. I don't think we should put advocacy group opinions into wikivoice. This is true even for the most dependable advocacy group (which SPLC is). For statements of fact we can trust them. For statements of opinion we should attribute their statements. I hope this is sufficient clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{comment}} {{U|PARAKANYAA}} says above that "very basic facts about his background are only citable to the SPLC." To me, if true, that is all the more reason to be very overt about citation: single-sourced information, available only from an advocacy group.

: Also, there are ways to be clear where information comes from without the writing getting clumsy. If (for example) you had three paragraphs in a row whose citation came entirely from a report by SPLC, you could make that clear by starting the paragraphs, respectively:

:* "According to a report [footnote here] from Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC)…"

:* "According to that same SPLC report…"

:* "Continuing from that same report…"

: Jmabel | Talk 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::If you have to do this, you should just remove the information as WP:UNDUE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Just as a comment on this: if we are include three or so paragraphs of wikitext that depend on only a generally reliable source where attribution is needed, without any other type of confirmation from other sources, that does beg if that much content is DUE. Masem (t) 18:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see a reason based on policy or guidelines why advocacy groups cannot be used as reliable sources (except for their own opinions). One editor wrote, "So far as I know, they have an excellent track record of getting their facts right." Isn't that the criterion for deciding a source is reliable?

Another editor said arguments about the use of other advocacy groups are whataboutism. Note this is an essay on arguments not to use in deletion discussions. They were probably referring to another essay, What about other content? It says that one cannot argue for the inclusion of material based on what is done in another article, because one cannot assume the other article follows policy and guidelines. But if someone argues that the SPLC cannot be used because and only because it is an advocacy group, then the same logic would apply to all advocacy groups.

If anyone is interested, there is another article called Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Whataboutism should not be used as an incantation to stop discussion.

TFD (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

: Not an argument that they are wholly unreliable, but I have put forth the argument based in policy that they should be treated as self-published. The basic argument is that advocacy organizations have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to subjects related to their advocacy. Because of this conflict of interest, internal reviewers are not independent reviewers and this falls into how WP: V characterizes self-published sources. From WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content.". So basically, content from an advocacy organization's own websites should be viewed as self-published, and face the stricter scrutiny and greater use limitations that comes along with it. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Kyohyi, it would have been helpful had you provided a link to where you originally made this argument. I am therefore replying to your current post only. From my reading, you agree that WP:SELFPUB does not cover all self-published sources. News media for example are excluded. Your argument focuses on whether or not the SPLC has a COI.

::COI as defined in WP:COI means being "paid or otherwise connected to the subject." The SPLC is not paid or connected to any of the groups it writes about.

::Perhaps you are referring to bias. Per WP:COI, "A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing."

::WP:BIASED says, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs....When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." BIAS in fact exists in all secondary sources. Usually it is not a concern when the bias is toward mainstream views, such as acceptance of evolution, climate change, the moon landing, public health and opposition to crime and racism.

::The reason for RS policy is to ensure the accuracy of facts in articles. Since no source is 100% rs, there are additional policies, including DUE and REDFLAG that prevent the inclusion of information that may be inaccurate.

::There is no reason whatsoever to believe that using the SPLC as a source would lead to greater inaccuracy in articles. TFD (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's an incorrect analysis of COI. WP: COI deals with editor behavior not source Conflict of Interest. A better analysis can be found in WP: COISOURCE which explains that "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting.". That means the internal reviewers have a COI with regards to their organizations advocacy, and any content that is in line with that advocacy does not have independent review. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I find it somewhat funny that half the people who are endorsing are going "actually, the status quo is the same, we only have to attribute for opinions" and the other half are endorsing more or less going "actually this is a major change and we do always have to attribute now". Not very clear; as clarified by Chetsford, this is NOT only for opinion statements, so almost all factual statements to the SPLC onwiki are now improper. in any case I don't see how this is not quite a major change to the status quo, given that someone is going to have to remove or refactor 1000+ citations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 13#Iran–Israel war was closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Four variants of "Israel–Iran war" were nominated at RfD on the 13th, but an article has now been created on the topic at the stylistically incorrect {{-r|Israel – Iran war}} (that's a spaced en-dash). The RfD can now probably be speedily closed by moving the article to {{-r|Israel–Iran war}} (without prejudice against further title refinement) and retargeting the other redirects there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–Israel War seems like it should be resolved before the RfD is closed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I've singlehandedly closed basically all discussions from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 17 to the present day, which means that when I'm involved then nothing gets done even if the consensus is unanimous like at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Wikipedians who like Jacknjellify's animated web series. Anyone fancy helping out there? Steps at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'll try reviewing the instructions but, to be honest, I find CFD closures to be very confusing compared to AFD or RFD. But I'll try to see if there are some low-hanging fruit.

:Given recent announcements here regarding old AFDs and RMs, it looks like we need to be pulling some retired admins back to active duty or at least part-time service on admin rotation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Good thing we've got admin elections coming up. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We could use more admins patrolling ANI, too, I feel like I'm closing too many of the discussions there. What happened to all of those admins from the previous election? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Most of them are still active, at least as editors. And some of them as admins too. For example Sohom Datta has been processing MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, another area that was at one time done singlehandledly by me. But it seems that work expands to fill the space available to do it or something like that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I just went and checked the election list from October and some of the names, like User:Rsjaffe, User:DoubleGrazing and User:Dr vulpes, are ones I see around on the noticeboards. Since they were mentioned, I'll ping the remainder of that 10/24 election class to see if they are available to help out with the requests posted above this one.

:::::Calling: User:Queen of Hearts,User:SilverLocust, User:ThadeusOfNazereth, User:Ahecht, User:SD0001, User:Sohom Datta, User:Peaceray and User:FOARP! If you have some time available from your editor and admin duties, your assistance would be welcome! Be well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've worked on AfDs and especially CfDs in the past, but my spoons for admin work have dipped a bit recently. I may try and see if I can poke at stuff a bit more in the future though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ironically, CfD was a significant part of the reason I ran in AELECT, but I'm unfortunately in about the same boat as Bushranger right now (although I did close the web series one). Also paging @HouseBlaster and @Qwerfjkl, both of whom I've historically seen active closing CfD (although the latter isn't an admin). charlotte ^👸♥ 11:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'll decline patrolling ANI (it was one of the things I specifically said I wouldn't do in my AELECT statement, partially for my own mental sanity), but I'm open to patrolling CfDs and will add it to my list of things to start doing. Sohom (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm in the opposite position as Sohom -- I specifically said in my AELECT statement that I wasn't planning on doing deletion, but I can take a look at ANI. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Never say never! -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, it's nice to see some of you new(er) admins check in. Glad to see you are well and helping out where you can. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I plan to get back to it soon(ish). (Burnout is a really shitty thing.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I know, I've been there. It's really impressive that you were singlehandedly keeping the backlog under control for as long as you did, honestly, but in truth one person can't handle this forever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm busy IRL but ducking in and out for brief periods, closed a few at ANI but don't have time for the complex stuff til later this week. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Happy to take a look at CfD this week. Have been somewhat involved in CSD and RfD so I'm not unfamiliar with the basae process. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I closed one & relisted a few. I will revisit, probably Wednesday. Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Pppery, I've taken a break from CfD for a while, but I think I'll return to it sometime soon if life permits. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also, maybe I should brush off the dust on this essay I never really finished: User:Qwerfjkl/How to close CfD discussions. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::The best news I've heard in a while. You are really missed, Qwerfjkl. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you, Qwerfjkl, for your essay. I've been here 12 years and I still find closing CFDs confusing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::User:Liz, are you confused by the procedures, i.e. what should be seen as the consensus, or by the technical aspects? (I say this as someone who virtually never closes discussions of any sort.) If it's just the technical side of things, you could always assess consensus and ask someone else to do the technical stuff. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nyttend, sorry to just be seeing this. No, after working with AFDs since 2020, it's not the discussion closure that I find challenging, it's the implementation of the consensus and working with the CFD bot on the Working page that I find confusing. I think it's also strange that XFDcloser doesn't take any action, you might close a discussion as Delete but XFDcloser doesn't actually delete the category, that has to be done manually. But it's the emptying the category and the merging that is the heavy lifting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::No worries on the delay. If a CFD-active admin has voted in the discussion, maybe you could just close it and ask the other admin to implement your decision? It would be preposterous for someone to object to the other admin's actions on WP:INVOLVED grounds. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The closer does not delete the category because a check needs to be made that the category is empty, and we have bots doing this. If the result of the closure gets to this page, we will take care of the rest. Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And admins can go directly here, but this one is indeed confusing. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, Pppery, for your CFD service. And thank you to everyone above who has said they would keep an eye on it! Many hands make light work. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

...WP:RfPP has requests going back over 24 hours. In the meantime, @Ser! pointed out on Discord that the IP edit war at Daryl Gurney has continued unabated. Toadspike [Talk] 17:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

: I've processed most of them. And yes, I am doing this to pay forward my request for help with CfD above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your work on getting these done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Needed. Over some years I was able to help bring North America + South America's category structure to be matching to that of Europe. But Verizon refuses to upgrade my city unless the city gives Verizon millions of $$$$ the city won't pay $$$ for Verizon to have a monopoly. And so the old xDSL/POTS/ISDN phone system/service of Verizon slowly breaks down and gets slower and hardly functional. I have to use a VPN dns service just to get more dependable internet than what Verizon offers. BUT VPNs are banned on WikiCommons so I cannot do anymore clean-up. And ss Verizon isn't a stable connection and VPN isn't allowed I'm not abl to help. Hopefully the elections allows them to get back on track. CaribDigita (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::CaribDigita, is this somehow related to the thread, or did you accidentally post this in the wrong place? Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We are btw at about 48h again. I have done a bit, and can do a couple of more, but it is the bed time for me. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=I think this discussion has reached a natural conclusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC) }}

FYI:

I saw a user page on this topic tagged for speedy deletion with {{tl|db-notwebhost}}. It looked like a draft article so I removed the speedy tag and moved it to draft space.

I’ve since encountered [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Teacher-Social+Change+Agent&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns12=1&ns118=1&ns119=1 multiple articles] on this topic in various users’ spaces.

I think this may be some sort of class project. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at your link, A. B., I only see Draft:Teacher-Social Change Agent. There are other drafts with this title but they aren't recent. Can you list other examples from 2025? I also notified User:Aharrison06 of this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Liz, here are two others from which I removed speedy deletion tags:

::*User:Sashae Lewis - created this month

::*User:AzariK5124 - created in December, tagged today.

::I did not look carefully at the other articles listed in the search link above; I didn’t realize they weren’t current.

::I’m curious— I wonder what’s going on? Most articles created as school assignments tend to come in clumps. I doubt this is a sockmaster obsessed with “teachers as social change agents” spawning user pages. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It seems to be a part of a course' syllabus at Walden University [https://www.coursehero.com/file/187266629/wk-3-discussion-6616docx/] [https://www.cliffsnotes.com/tutors-problems/English/52248696-Create-digital-encyclopedia-entry-eg-Scholarpedia-Wikipedia/]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Here are pages sorted in reverse order by month:

::::*June 2025

::::**User:Sashae Lewis

::::**User:AzariK5124

::::**Draft:Teacher-Social Change Agent

::::*March 2025

::::**User:Npineda1/Sample page

::::*December 2024

::::**User:Khaandi/sandbox

::::**User:Lab1981/sandbox

::::*September 2024

::::**User:Kheshief Jennings-Berry/sandbox

::::**User:Simone Kirkland/sandbox

::::*July 2023

::::**User:Walden student/sandbox

::::*July 2022

::::**User:$ophia29/sandbox

::::**User:$cxtt/sandbox

::::**User:ClaudiaRxse/sandbox

::::**User:Vallee0116/sandbox

::::**User:Alinaplaza/sandbox

::::*January 2022

::::**User:Brevitorhall/sandbox/Teacher- Social Change Agent

::::**User:Samjerv/sandbox

::::A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::None of these editors ever added anything to Wikipedia; I see the value of this exercise for Walden University but not so much for Wikipedia. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, I started nominating these as I saw a lot of people hosting the same topic on their user pages. All looked almost alike, used the same set of references, and were essays. In addition to the ones above, the following were created yesterday and today:

::::::* User:Khadene Allen

::::::* User:OliviaKeller98

::::::* User:Minott2025

::::::* User:Aharrison06

::::::I'll also note that Draft:Teacher-Social Change Agent had a version deleted in January 2022 that also looked like the current ones, and included a reference to Walden University, so this confirms it has been going on for a while.

::::::I have not notified any of these people, though I can if anyone thinks I should. Personally, I believe this discussion is not about the actions of any one of these, but rather what in the heck is going on with Walden using Wikipedia as a web host (somewhat unwittingly, as the syllabus seems to lack understanding that the presence of more than one version of an article is disruptive, and that asking people to write a Wikipedia page without telling them what that means is careless). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Actually, that deleted draft has several different authors and a version was created in August 2021. And note that in all these years with all these authors nothing survived to become an article: though there may be something contained in another article as I didn't do a comprehensive search. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::A few more. Of course, this doesn't include all those that have been deleted.

:::::::* User:KatelynRalph sandbox 18 June 2025

:::::::* User:Reid-Finegan abandoned draft written mid-2023

:::::::* User:Joldamar abandoned draft written early 2022

:::::::* User:Thorbellin January 2022

:::::::* User:Brendakowalski abandoned draft written August 2021

:::::::— rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Well, Walden is primarily an online university that currently has 42,312 students and it's clear that over the past few years, some students plagiarized their work. I'm sure if we ran some Quarry queries on certain phases we find in assignment descriptions, we could find other examples of commonly used themes and phrases that are reused in student work.

:For anyone who spent time in a university, this student behavior shouldn't be a shock. None of these articles is going to be approved for main space so I'm not sure what the expectations are for our administrative corps. It's an interesting discovery but I'm sure if we looked around, we could find additional examples of students copying work and putting it in their User space pages. But I'd argue that there are many, many activities involved in maintaining this project that are more worth your time. Between AFDs, CFDs, RMs, ANI discussions (all of which had backlogs that were mentioned above), your time is more valuable spent elsewhere, using your acquired and valuable skills as editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::I reckon that sums it up pretty well, Liz. Thanks for putting this in perspective. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::A. B., it's just that college projects that have gone awry show up fairly often on WP:AN, especially ones who aren't working with our WikiEd program and who do not have a liaison from WMF. I know there are active class projects right now where students pose assignments/answers on their User talk pages and it is completely confusing for editors who visit their talk pages to figure out what is going on with them. The bigger question, which folks avoid posing, is why can't old User pages that have class assignments from 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, etc. years ago be easily deleted? Unless they qualify for CSD U5, we generally let them be.

:::User space is "safe space" that holds tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of junk, experiments and abandoned efforts from editors who once edited but are now long gone. We have a couple of editors who go through the laborious process of tagging pages in User space that qualify for one of the criteria for speedy deletion but most editors would rather spend their time working on constructive projects rather than going through stale pages in the old, musty, dusty basement of User space. And that focus seems best for the health and motivation of our editors and also for the health of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Just an FYI. I went to change a block to add a revoke talk page access to a user and I ended up adding a second block to the user rather than just changing the existing block. What you have to do (I now know) is click on the little pencil to modify the existing block. A little different but tricky if you're not expecting it. Cheers ;) fr33kman 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC

:Hello, Fr33kman, I find this story a bit confusing because you are not an administrator on this project. Are you talking about your experience elsewhere? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:: {{u|Liz}} Fr33kman is an admin (and CU) at Simple English and possibly elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the update, Black Kite. We should have a Master Directory of admins somewhere. And if it already exists, someone please let me know where! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Liz: You can see all of someone's user rights across (almost) all Wikimedia wikis at Special:CentralAuth, e.g. Special:CentralAuth/Liz. Double-click "Groups" to sort by that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was thinking of a page on each project that lists admins. I know you can see that here by looking at the admin category. So you wouldn't have to go checking, user by user. That might already exists on many projects, I don't know but that's what I was thinking when I mentioned a "Directory". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Special:ListUsers/sysop will give you a dynamic list on any wiki. It and all other user rights lists are linked from Special:Statistics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the suggestions, Tamzin! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm now frantically looking for the little pencil... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, just now I needed to revoke TPA. My instinct told me there should an "edit" button somewhere but of course that would be too simple. The clever designers have a pencil icon that is invisible when using dark mode but remembering the above post allowed me to eventually find it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::That dark mode glitch needs fixing. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Inquirer has been directed to some solutions to issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{articlelinks|Arishfa Khan}}

I recently attempted to create a new article on Arishfa Khan, but found that the title was deleted in 2018 due to sockpuppet case and deletion discussion. It is currently protected from recreation, restricted to administrators.

Since then, Arishfa Khan has become a notable public figure as an actress and social media influencer. She has been featured in reliable independent sources. She has appeared in several music videos and has a massive following across platforms like Instagram and tiktok frequently cited in influencer rankings.

I believe she now clearly meets the general notability guideline, and sufficient reliable coverage is available to support a properly sourced article.

Kindly consider unprotecting the page so an article can be created.

Thanks. Behappyyar (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Behappyyar}} I'm not an admin, but if you write a properly sourced draft in your userspace, an admin would be more likely to unsalt the page. Also, the proper venue to ask for page unprotection in WP:RFUP. cyberdog958^Talk 04:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Cyberdog958 is correct, Behappyyar, write a draft article, in Draft space or your User space, submit it to WP:AFC for review and if it is accepted, the protection will be changed and the draft will be moved over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, absolutely! I actually tried doing exactly what you’re suggesting earlier, but the issue is that the draft itself is also protected ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&create=Create+page&mfnoscript=1&title=Draft%3AArishfa+Khan Here]), and only administrators can create it. Behappyyar (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Behappyyar I have dropped the Draft to EC so that you can create it. Recommend @Liz and @Cyberdog958's suggestions for mainspace. Ping me if you need the draft reviewed and I'm online. Happy to help. Star Mississippi 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Per my note below, this draft would need more eyes than I have bandwidth for right now, so it should go through an experienced reviewer. Star Mississippi 16:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: They still can't create the draft because it's on the title blacklist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oops! Draft:Arishfa Khan now exists. Thanks @Pppery for flagging. Star Mississippi 16:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Noting the declined request for unprotection made by the OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease here].-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::thanks @Ponyo. As I read @Izno's close of the SPI (courtesy @CNMall41), I don't see any confirmation that Beh is a sock although I also have no reason to doubt CNM's research. I will edit my note above about reviewing this draft should it be recreated as it will need more thorough review than I anticipate time for. Star Mississippi 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks for the ping. There is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress#11_June_2025 open SPI] at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::(I have not closed the SPI involving Behappyyar.) Izno (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Apologies, I misread the status. If this ends up being a sock I will re-delete (or if I'm offline anyone else is welcome to). I believed it was a good faith request of an editor with a year's tenure but may well have been wrong. Star Mississippi 16:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Who created that with no content?? Behappyyar (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I did, since it was on the blacklist and you would not have been able to @Behappyyar. I leave your question below to someone else to weigh in. Star Mississippi 17:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Comment @Star, @Izno, @CNMall41; As I’ve already mentioned during the SPI and on my talk page, I have no connection to any other account. I’m confident the outcome will reflect that, and I appreciate the fair handling of the case.

:In the meantime, I just wanted to ask: should I wait until the SPI is concluded before continuing work on the Draft:Arishfa Khan, or is it okay to start it now?

: Behappyyar (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Based on the sources you proffered at WP:RFPP/D any draft would fail. You'd need to find different, better sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank for your response. I will make sure to find out reliable references and create a draft according to Wikipedia guidelines. Behappyyar (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Behappyyar, I'd encourage you to start writing a draft even though you don't have the perfect set of sources right now. Practice writing the article can't hurt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: @Liz Thank you for the encouragement! I’ve gone ahead and created the draft here and added several references as well. I know it may still need improvement, but I’m hopeful it will continue to get better with time and feedback.

:::::Thanks again for your support!

:::::Behappyyar (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Greetings! I was originally blocked from Buffalo ReUse weeks ago (a page I created) for alleged COI reasons, but since then User:Kevin Hayes, the organization's co-founder, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294761429 has confirmed I am not tied to the organization and did not create the page on their behalf]. Admin User:Star Mississippi then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294823153 suggested I ask an uninvolved admin] for an unblock, as the original blocker User:Daniel Case seems unwilling. In the time since, User:GPL93 has repeatedly engaged in Wikipedia:hounding, and has made concerted efforts to delete my edits. This includes GPL93 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_of_the_deconstruction_company_Buffalo_ReUse.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1294028258 trying and failing to delete the Buffalo ReUse logo], GPL93 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Gainer&diff=prev&oldid=1294017903 trying and failing to delete a redirect from the owner's name to the Buffalo ReUse article], GPL93 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GPL93&diff=prev&oldid=1294038592 continuing to allege I have a Conflict of Interest after I explained to him the rules of image uploading], and then this morning GPL93 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Erie_County_Democratic_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=1296312821 moving my new article on the Erie County Democratic Committee to draftspace without a cited reason], GPL93 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Erie_County_Democratic_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=1296312826 attempting to delete the Erie County Democratic Committee logo], and then GPL93 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296311446 snitch-tagging the move] to User:Daniel Case who blocked me from the article, presumably acting on the false COI allegation from weeks ago. I am of the opinion that someone with page-mover privileges should not be using them to hold my articles hostage in draftspace based on an existing grudge. I appreciate you looking into this matter, and thank you for your time. TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:GPL93 did provide a reason for moving it to draft at Special:Diff/1296312825. Concerning attempting to delete the Bufallo ReUse logo, the CSD only failed because it is a non-free image. I don't find the non-free usage rational convincing because there is an alternative open to usage of the copyright image, such as going and taking a photo of the orgs office. TarnishedPath^talk 14:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:*Involved Comment I believe I became a part of this issue at the result of an AN/ANI but may be wrong. Further on the topic on my Talk is at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Just_so_you_know. While I believe TNM was being disruptive at the original AfD for Buffalo ReUse, their conduct has improved in the aforementioned TP discussion and I believe overall, although I haven't had the on wiki time to follow all the conversations. The original disruption may have been out of relative unfamiliarity as it did not come across to me as one of malice. Once I saw I had closed an AfD that was at the start of the COIN discussion I thought it best to stay out of it administratively which is part of why I suggested TNM file an unblock for the Buffalo ReUse article. I did file the RfD on Gainier since @GPL93 and I disagreed on whether it was a speedy and that seemed the next best step. I have not followed the new issues/article that @TheNewMinistry is referencing and have no opinion on GPL's moves. Star Mississippi 14:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:Oh, should note I ultimately did semi Buffalo ReUse with the blessing of @Daniel Case despite their original decline as there were two IPs who were continually edit warring and disrupting the article independent of any allegations against @TheNewMinistry Star Mississippi 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Seems like to me that "alternative" would apply to thousands of articles that are using a non-free logo, just go and take a photo of the orgs office, of course in cases where a physical location is involved. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::A photo of an office location and an organization's logo are not equivalent. A logo is a branding identity that is used to identify the organisation. Some building that is their office is not. A non-free current logo is generally accepted as non-free content when used to identify the subject of an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed, I guess I should have made that distinction clear in my original post. Instead, I was merely pointing out that the "alternative" was an untenable rationale. Thanks for the clarification. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_of_the_deconstruction_company_Buffalo_ReUse.jpg&diff=1295269431&oldid=1293790620 I provided the correct fair-use rationale when uploading the copyrighted logo] that a bot [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_of_the_deconstruction_company_Buffalo_ReUse.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1293839749 then resized appropriately] to a lower resolution. GPL93 didn't understand that and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_of_the_deconstruction_company_Buffalo_ReUse.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1294028790 insinuated that copyrighted logos were not allowed on Wikipedia], and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GPL93&diff=prev&oldid=1294037628 accused me of deliberately skirting the rules]. It's all a petty grudge that I wish he would drop. TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at Draft:Erie County Democratic Committee, the word 'coatrack' springs to mind. If the section on Zellner isn't an outright WP:BLP violation, it is a close approximation to it, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think the simplest solution to that article being in draft, if TNM thinks it should be in mainspace, would be for them to submit it through AFC. TarnishedPath^talk 15:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm currently blocked from accessing/editing/resubmitting Draft:Erie County Democratic Committee, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296311446 at the request of GPL93] and later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296311825 approved by admin Daniel Case].TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erie_County_Democratic_Committee&diff=1296417266&oldid=1296417168 moved to mainspace]. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Evidently repeatedly citing a source for negative content on a named living person is seen as entirely valid even when the source [https://www.investigativepost.org/2025/04/21/wholl-make-the-primary-ballot/] doesn't mention the individual at all. Has WP:BLP been rewritten from scratch in the last few hours or something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree that some sections should be reworded to reflect the committee acting as a whole and not specifically Zellner. Would fix it if I wasn't blocked. Which reminds me - can someone please be a pal and restore the logo into the infobox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_the_Erie_County_Democratic_Committee.jpg). That way it doesn't get autodeleted and I don't have to reupload it later. Thank you! TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you're blocked from the article, then what you're asking here is for people to proxy-edit for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't believe my request was unreasonable or would be interpreted as "unproductive" according to the policy you linked, but I apologize if you saw it that way. I can ask {{ping|Silver_seren}} who (kindly) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erie_County_Democratic_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=1296428892 restored the logo] to remove it from the article again if this is a problem. Or if that request would once again be considered unreasonable, you can do the honors. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• GPL93 hasn't been active on the project since yesterday but I posted an invitation to them on their User talk page to come and respond to the accusations made here. It does sound like some targeting might have occured so an explanation would be appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• I apologize for the delay because my power was knocked out yesterday morning and did not come back on until recently. I will say I made a mistake in the CSD nomination and I do apologize for that. I also think that TheNewMinistry should have been able to have edited the article after I draftified as long as it was in the draft space (I thought the block would only be on the mainspace). Otherwise, I have been trying to prevent the blatant POV-pushing by TheNewMinistry. Even without a COI, it has been very clear that they cannot edit objectively regarding Erie County, New York politics. When the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gainer began, TheNewMinistry took {{u|BottleOfChocolateMilk}} to WP:COIN pretty much immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1292778708#BottleOfChocolateMilk accusing them of being a "political operative"], then also accused me of wrongdoing and then also accused me of lying and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Gainer&diff=prev&oldid=1292571064 then decided to double down on those accusations, after giving my explanation]. Also literally the day that Michael Gainer was deleted via consensus,TheNewMinistry created Buffalo ReUse that had incredibly close prose to the deleted article and a redirect to Gainer. {{u|Daniel Case}} noticed this on his own and made the initial block. They have no issue accusing other editors of being part of some "anti-progressive" cabal. I draftified Erie County Democratic Committee because, as {{u|AndyTheGrump}} pointed out, it is essentially a thinly veiled negative BLP of Zellner. I think TheNewMinistry should probably be topic banned from politics in Erie County-Buffalo. Enough is enough. Best, GPL93 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{+1}} If TNM wants to impress us, he should go over to Independent Together and offer to moderate in that mess ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Administrator User:Daniel Case: given that you are a self-described Democratic politician residing in Upstate New York [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Case according to your userpage], and this discussion is specifically about you blocking me from articles related to both an Upstate New York based political candidate and a Upstate New York based political party, you should probably recuse yourself. I requested an uninvolved admin, which you most definitely are not. TheNewMinistry (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I really haven't wanted to be too involved in this anyway, but I should note that I am both literally and figuratively more than 200 miles from Erie County, and have despite living in the Buffalo area for five years (albeit 30 years ago) never had anything to do with that county's Democratic Party.
• :::Although my suggestion that you go over to that IT article, about a party in an upcoming local election in New Zealand where there have been similar allegations of COI editing and blocks, still stands. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Glad your power is back and you're safe @GPL93
• :Re: {{tq| also think that TheNewMinistry should have been able to have edited the article after I draftified as long as it was in the draft space (I thought the block would only be on the mainspace)}} it's moot now since it's back in mainspace, but the block follows the article between spaces. Daniel Case blocked TNM from the ReUse since that was a new creation, not a move from Gainer. Star Mississippi 13:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe that I'll have to invoke Wikipedia:STICK here. I did my due diligence in bringing to COIN's attention the mentioning of a Wikipedia user in a third-party source so that it could be investigated and noted on record. I personally made no allegations, simply repeating what was alleged in the article. The related discussion was closed and I have no further comment on it. I believe the source of User:GPL93's animosity stems from the original AfD discussion for Michael Gainer ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Gainer viewable here]). Gainer is currently a progressive political candidate for mayor in Buffalo, and my second comment in that AfD was expressing concern that Gainer's article might be targeted for his political views There were attempts to delete the Wikipedia page of progressive mayoral candidate India Walton in 2021, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Walton requests to delete her page on notability grounds]. Walton's page was retained, but I tried and failed to prove Gainer's notability in the AfD and can live with that. Some of the content from the deleted Gainer article I carried over to Buffalo ReUse, and when it started to get hit by IP vandalism I acted in good faith and requested page protection. Instead, admin User:Daniel Case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/06#Buffalo_ReUse denied my request and blocked me from editing the article]. Sure enough, the page was heavily vandalized soon after and User talk:Star Mississippi had the page protected, but not before much of the content was removed. ScottishFinnishRadish was nice enough to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1296604617 restore most of the deleted content] to the Buffalo ReUse article this morning. User:GPL93 insinuating I am pushing conspiracies is unfounded, and I question his integrity when saying he did not know I would be banned from draftspace, given that he didn't move Erie County Democratic Committee to draftspace until User:Daniel Case confirmed to him that i had been blocked from the article. Again, this is all a petty grudge I wish you would drop. Please accept my apologies for any perceived slights, and let's move on from this. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It should be noted that {{u|BottleOfChocolateMilk}}, the subject of the COIN investigation referenced above, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erie_County_Democratic_Committee has tagged] the Erie County Democratic Committee article for deletion. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:For whoever needs to know, I just submitted a formal request for unblocking on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheNewMinistry my talk page] along with a link to this discussion. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::There are no circumstances whatsoever under which an unblock would be appropriate until you give a clear and unambiguous explanation for why you cited a source for negative content regarding a living person (Jeremy Zellner) in the Erie County Democratic Committee article, despite the source [https://www.investigativepost.org/2025/04/21/wholl-make-the-primary-ballot/] making no mention whatsoever of the individual. In my opinion, a mere page block is a wholly inadequate response to such blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. There are clearly other issues with the section on Zellner (starting with the section title), but due to inaccessibility of sources, I've not been able to check it fully. I am sorely tempted to blank the entire section on WP:BLP grounds until it can be properly checked, and rewritten in a manner compliant with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@AndyTheGrump, saved you the trouble. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Your claim here seems very overblown and misleading, {{u|AndyTheGrump}}. The article stated "{{tq|Zellner regularly has the committee's lawyers challenge nominating petitions of non-endorsed candidates, with over a dozen candidates denied ballot access.}}" The [https://www.investigativepost.org/2025/04/21/wholl-make-the-primary-ballot/ source used] states that the county commissioner (who is Zellner)'s attorney (who is Kulpit) "{{tq|in the last five years has taken part in about a dozen efforts to disqualify candidates, always in the service of the party’s endorsed candidate.}}" It seems to me the information is directly from the source. You don't need Zellner's name in the article, whenever it is referring to the county commissioner or the actions of people at the direction of the committee, that is referring to Zellner. It is directly and obviously implicit. Silverseren^C 15:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::'Implicit'? WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that it's ok to cite a source for something it doesn't say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes? All the time? If we have a source that says "The President's administration did a thing", would you then argue that has nothing to do with the President being behind the action just because it doesn't have his name included? The source here explicitly says that the county committee and the commissioner had the lawyer do this thing. The person that is referring to having the lawyer do a thing is Zellner. Silverseren^C 16:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::How about, rather than making up hypothetical quotes, you quote directly from the source cited, the text you think supports "Zellner regularly has the committee's lawyers challenge nominating petitions of non-endorsed candidates, with over a dozen candidates denied ballot access." AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I already did. But if you want the entire section, here:

::::::::{{tq|She has done this work on behalf of the party before. Court records show Kulpit helped get Joel Moore, a candidate for Buffalo City Court, kicked off the ballot in 2021. That same year she and another attorney filed, then withdrew, a challenge to the nominating petitions of Kim Beatty, who went on to win the Democratic primary for Erie County sheriff, then lose the general election to Republican John Garcia.}}

::::::::{{tq|All told, Kulpit in the last five years has taken part in about a dozen efforts to disqualify candidates, always in the service of the party’s endorsed candidate. County Democrats have endorsed state Sen. Sean Ryan in the mayor’s race and Erie County Legislator Taisha St. Jean Tard for the District 2 seat.}}

:::::::I should note that that last sentence refers to [https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/politics/early-democratic-endorsement-buffalo-mayor-causes-stir/71-0f54be18-3a6f-42bf-9828-d14ff3eb0f13 this controversy] from two months prior where Zellner had the committee endorse his preferred mayoral candidate at the opposition of many committee members and others. Which is a ongoing major topic about the committee in current times. Silverseren^C 16:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That is a statement about what Kulpit has done. "On behalf of the party". Not on Zellner's behalf. If you are going to cite a source for someone doing something 'regularly', it needs first to state that they did it at all. Which the source doesn't. Sure, if you assume that the premise of the section title, "Zellner's consolidation of power" is an accurate representation of the situation, one can spin it that way, and assume that 'on behalf of the party' means 'because Zeller said to do it'. But we don't. Or we shouldn't (And nor should we have section titles like that in the first place). When including negative content in BLPs, we need to be extra careful about sources, and having to read between the lines about who was responsible for something simply isn't acceptable. If you don't have a clear and unambiguous source for such content, it doesn't belong in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::All you'd have to do regarding the sentence in the article is change it to saying, "During Zellner's time as commissioner of the party, the party attorney Kulpit..." Easy fix, little issue. And the title of the section can obviously be changed. It's not difficult to do. Though clearly Zellner is central to the time frame noted previously in the article. Practically all the news sources about the county committee in the past decade has been about Zellner's actions as head, with many of those news sources noting the decline of party support by voters in the area and other negative effects during that time period. It is not "negative content in BLPs" when it's about political activities that all of the news sources across years are discussing. Furthermore, this seems to be a content discussion and one where there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement. It is not at all one where someone should be blocked from the article for adding it. Silverseren^C 17:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You seem to be saying that there's nothing wrong with citing a source for something it didn't say, just as long as it's possible to rewrite the article afterwards so it actually follows what the source says. Not an argument I'd like to have to defend... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Looking into this further, there may be other issues with the sourcing for the section on Zellner. The article cites the WGRZ-TV website for something (a broadcast?) entitled "Focus on dual roles for Erie Co. Democratic Party Chief/Elections Commissioner". The link [https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/local/buffalo/focus-on-dual-roles-for-erie-co-democratic-party-chiefelections-commissioner-wny-buffalo/71-79c6d7c0-d319-4587-87da-3de202f7401f] doesn't work, and the website's search function seems unable to locate it. The article also cites a second piece from WGRZ-TV, entitled ""Buffalo's heated primary sparks controversy", which I have likewise been unable to locate. Ignore this it seems to be an issue with links redirecting to YouTube. I'll see if I can find a work-around.

::I haven't looked at all the sourcing - some is paywalled. Beyond that, the neutrality of the content regarding Zellner is clearly open to question: I can't for the life of me understand how entitling a section "2012–present: Zellner's consolidation of power" could be considered remotely appropriate. It is blatant editorialising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheNewMinistry&diff=prev&oldid=1296685653 I just wrote] on my talk page as part of the unblock request, The Buffalo News is the city's newspaper of record and has been for over a century. It is unfortunately paywalled, but using 12ft would allow you to access the content. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::How about answering the question I asked? Why did you cite this source (not from the Buffalo News, though it makes no odds either way) [https://www.investigativepost.org/2025/04/21/wholl-make-the-primary-ballot/] for content on Zellner, when it makes no mention of him at all? I suggest you think carefully before answering, given that deliberate misrepresenting of sources is the sort of thing that tends to lead to cbans rather than page blocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I just answered this up above, Andy, by the way. And this badgering is making you look bad, because it's obviously you in the wrong. Silverseren^C 15:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::There is absolutely nothing 'wrong' in objecting to the misrepresentation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Does anyone else think that relocating this discussion, or this aspect of it, to WP:BLPN might be the best way to resolve this? Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The section was already removed from the article anyways, so that point is moot. The issue remaining here is Andy trying to claim impropriety on the part of TNM. Silverseren^C 19:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, it was originally a COI discussion that I guess morphed into a BLP dispute? I'm not sure if all of the parties at the beginning of this complaint are still actively involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=Unbanned|1=By the consensus of the Wikipedia community below, the WP:3X ban of Aradicus77 is lifted, with the agreed-upon imposition of a topic ban from Red Krayola, appealable in six months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{u|Aradicus77}} has requested an unblock on his talk page. He was originally indeffed by {{u|Bbb23}} as a spam-only account, and reblocked by me after sockpuppetry was discovered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradicus77. After discussing the process with him, he’s made an appeal for me to copy here and open a discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I'm appealing my site ban and past blocks for ban evasion and sockpuppetry. I originally started editing because I was passionate about the band Red Krayola and wanted to improve their coverage. I didn’t fully understand Wikipedia’s policies, especially around neutrality and sourcing, and my edits led to a block. Instead of appealing properly, I kept returning under new accounts to continue editing, which only made things worse. Eventually, under DaveELeonard, I tried to follow the rules — editing unrelated topics, sourcing properly, and using talk pages — but I now understand that even well-intentioned edits still counted as ban evasion. After speaking with a moderator, I’ve taken time to review the relevant policies. I accept the past issues and would like a chance to contribute again, the right way — one account, no evasion, and full adherence to community standards. Thank you. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• Support as (one of the) blocking admins. The user seems sincere about wanting to do things the right way, and I’m inclined to extend a second chance. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support general unblock but with the indef topic ban on Red Krayola per the user's talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support In line with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Always beats the alternative Whac-a-Mole. No opinion on any topic bans they agree to. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• This seems a bit early, as the last sock was blocked at end of December. See Special:Diff/1266092071. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :If my maths is correct, it's only a little under two weeks early, to be fair. WP:NOTBURO? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agree this is close enough. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support with a topic ban they can appeal in six months. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support shows a positive track record of editing which makes me think they'll be a productive editor. Spirit of SO is fine with me as it would be too bureaucratic to bring this back in two weeks. No opinion on t-ban from Red Krayola. Star Mississippi 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support unblock. It doesn't seem to me that a topic ban is necessary, but if it will make other people more comfortable, I have no real problem with it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a topic ban that would be appealed in 6 months. killer bee  15:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support with a topic ban that would be appealed within a year. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support in two minds with regard to a topic ban, but if included should be able to be appealed after a shorter period, ie six months not 12. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Looks promising. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=So, SFR raised the protection level to XC so I think that will cut down on any socking. Enjoy your vacation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{articlelinks|Michael Palance}}

I’m on vacation till Sunday and can’t monitor the page to the extent I should, and also am on mobile, which limits my ability to file reports. At any rate User:Fizzywaterboy is a brand new account whose first edit was adding Michael Palance to a cast list. The other edits seem to be minor edits simply to become autoconfirmed. They now have performed a minor edit to the Michael Palance article in behavior that appears to be sockpuppetish (I’ve reverted it for other stylistic reasons). At any rate it seems the article’s subject is willing to go to great lengths to be able to edit his own article, and I’d be wary of any new users editing it. I’d like to request a higher protection level, but I don’t think I can with the current state with respect to the article. GalStar (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MPalance if you wanted to add further socks/meat pupsters to for an admin/cu to assess. Knitsey (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Reported to the above SPI although I don't hold out much hope as it was declined last time despite the new accounts and all the ip hopping to restore their preferred version. I've also requested a check user as they seem to be making accounts in advance this time. Knitsey (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

There is an RfC on the new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Offensive comment removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Does this comment violate any Wikipedia policy on banning racist comments, and if so should it be removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Faith_Domergue#African_American 176.108.139.1 (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I just removed that 10 year old comment. Editors shouldn't be analyzing a person's bodily features to speculate on their racial identity. I'm surprised that it stayed up for that many years without anyone objecting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Forum shopping

| result = Continue with your original topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concern about editor CNMall41's behavior%3A COI accusation%2C tag addition without discussion%2C and article flagged without due process. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

Dear administrators,

I am seeking assistance regarding two persistent maintenance tags — Conflict of Interest (COI) and Notability — on the article Shashwat Singh. Despite improvements made to address the concerns, the tags remain in place without recent discussion or follow-up.

Here is a summary of the situation and actions taken:

1. Freely licensed image uploaded and clarified:

A freely licensed image has been properly uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and copyright clarification has been noted on the article's Talk Page.

2. Reliable secondary sources added:

The article now includes citations from multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, with significant and non-trivial coverage. These include:

Rolling Stone India

The Hindu

Hindustan Times

Deccan Chronicle

Mid-Day

News18

Indulge Express

The Times of India

Ei Samay (The Times Group)

These sources collectively meet the standards set by WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for establishing notability.

3. Neutral point of view maintained:

The article has been rewritten to follow a neutral, encyclopedic tone, removing any promotional language. All statements are now properly cited.

4. Incorrect COI accusation:

It has been flagged that a major contributor has a close connection to the subject. This is factually incorrect. I am not professionally or personally connected to the subject and have edited solely to improve the article’s quality and compliance with Wikipedia policies.

5. Request for administrative review:

I am kindly requesting that an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor review the article and the two tags in question. If the concerns are addressed, I respectfully request that the tags be removed or that guidance be offered on any remaining specific issues that need to be resolved.

Talk Page Discussion: Talk:Shashwat Singh#Request for COI and Notability Tag Review

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards,

Msmimiin Msmimiin (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=Editors referred to discussion on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Because of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ToadetteEdit,_Project_Space_Again, I would like to have my access to project and project talk removed indefinitely. This is considered "under a cloud" so removing it would require discussion. Thank you. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is already being discussed by the community at the very link you provided. I would strongly suggest not acting on this, and instead waiting for the community consensus there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::ToadetteEdit, I think you meant to say "so restoring it would require discussion." Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and close. Community discussion is ongoing. We do not need a concurrent discussion. Star Mississippi 23:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Discussion in question has been closed Star Mississippi 23:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

The RFC on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor has been sitting on WP:CR since April, and it's unlikely that anything less than an admin close would be satisfactory, so I'm posting again asking if anyone will close the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:The RFC has been closed thanks to Beland. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

It looks like there's a slow-moving revert war at Hazaras, which spilled over into accusations of sockpuppetry in a thread on my user talk page. I don't have the bandwidth to sort it out, and I only discovered the article because an image recently added to it tripped an abuse filter I patrol over on Commons, so I leave this in your capable hands to figure out. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, The Squirrel Conspiracy, I think we all are busy so could you take the time to share some diffs and notifying editors involved with this edit war about this discussion at WP:AN. Otherwise, your action is what we casually refer to as "throwing a hand grenade" and then walking away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Liz}} {{grey|(I wish our admin backlogs at Commons were as well under control as yours are here.)}} Fair enough.

::Just looking in the last few months, I see {{u|Shishaz}}, {{u|Vofa}}, {{u|SdHb}}, {{u|HistoryofIran}}, and {{u|KoizumiBS}} as the people reverting each other, with {{u|Badakhshan ziba}} as the only other person making major edits to that page during that time frame, and their work possibly getting caught in the crossfire. I should state, for the record, that I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter itself, and only learned that the article existed earlier today.

::#Back and forth over the Hazaras' population: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=1289560949&oldid=1289560115 This edit] is HistoryofIran reverting Shishaz. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=1294777957&oldid=1292676615 This edit] is Vofa reverting HistoryofIran. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=1295220865&oldid=1295138778 This edit] is SdHb reverting Vofa.

::#Back and forth over Genghis Khan: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1296497746 This edit] by KoizumiBS is a major change to the section on Genghis Khan with an edit summary indicating that there's an ongoing dispute. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=1296774701&oldid=1296497746 The very next edit] is Shishaz reverting it. At this point, I become aware of the article because Shishaz uploaded a file on Commons that tripped an abuse filter for AI images. When I went to remove the image, I saw that last revert, and rather than just remove the image, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=1296778981&oldid=1296778840 I reverted Shishaz] (having not realized there was an ongoing dispute, I just saw it as a poorly explained removal of a large amount of seemingly well written and properly cited content, hence the revert). A bit later, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=1296868667&oldid=1296868505 this edit], Vofa reverted me.

::#Sockpuppetry investigation: After I reverted Shishaz, they left a message on my page. HistoryofIran replied to that, pointing me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad.

::Hopefully that helps. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, this additional information is very helpful, thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Liz Hello. Unfortunately, it seems that some new users are vandalizing the Hazara population article. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns and Taliban are trying very hard to portray the Hazaras as a minority and a small population, and also to portray the Pashtuns as having a population of over 50%.

:::We are also witnessing vandalism in the Ethnic groups in Afghanistan article, and by comparing the history of this article, we find that they have made many changes to the information in this article in the last one or two years.

:::Another issue that the Hazaras are struggling with in Afghanistan is that some people are trying to say that the Hazaras are not indigenous to Afghanistan and that they migrated to Afghanistan from Mongolia, and thus they intend to portray the Hazaras as immigrants and non-natives in order to continue to harass the Hazaras.

:::Unfortunately, what I am saying is the current reality of Afghanistan, where these issues have greatly intensified under the shadow of the Taliban government.

:::Please do not allow a number of newly created accounts to vandalize the article. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::While I understand the concerns raised, I believe it's important to separate political narratives from encyclopedic standards. Wikipedia articles should reflect reliable academic sources and scholarly consensus, not national or ethnic sentiments - however understandable they may be. The discussion about the Hazara origin - whether it includes Mongolic ancestry or not - is a matter of historical and genetic research. Multiple peer-reviewed sources support the presence of Mongolic elements in Hazara origins. Including this information is not "vandalism".

::::Accusing editors of "trying to portray Hazaras as immigrants" simply for including these historical perspectives risks crossing into WP:POLEMIC territory. Moreover, blanket labeling of edits as "Taliban-backed" or part of a political agenda is counterproductive and can easily violate WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith). Let's focus on sources, citations, and consensus - not motivations we cannot verify. KoizumiBS (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, there is definitely a Mongolian gene in the genetics of Hazaras, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and even Kazakhs, there is no doubt about this.

:::::The Hazara population is mentioned as 9% in old sources https://web.archive.org/web/20131014200908/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html?countryName=Afghanistan&countryCode=af®ionCode=sas&#af

:::::and 18%[https://web.archive.org/web/20090110132651/https://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+af0037%29 Library of Congress Country Studies"]. https://web.archive.org/web/20090110132651/https://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+af0037%29

:::::in the most reliable sources, and the most recent academic and research sources mention as 24%https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Afghanistan_Ethnic_summary_lg.png and https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

:::::At the Bonn Conference in 2001, the United Nations announced the Hazara population as 20%.Therefore, the Hazara population should be corrected.

:::::Assuming the total population of Afghanistan is 42 milion in 2024, the Hazara population should be at least 3.780,000 to over 10 million.

:::::The average between these numbers is about 7 million people in Afghanistan.Therefore, this incorrect statistic about the Hazaras population should be corrected. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, I am a bit lost on what to make of this ANI, and if it was appropriate to make in the first place.

::Usually ANI happens when something already happened that breaks rules (3 edit rule, vandalism).

::That said, it is bizarre to make an ANI for a "slow-moving revert war" i dont see that happening, considering that the last edit held up and is there for 13 hours. Vofa (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll give a short summary; Since 2022 Iampharzad and their socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad/Archive) have been mainly fixiated on Hazaras, disrupting by removing/altering sourced info, usually something to reduce the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras, and being incredibly dishonest about their edits and the info in the article. I had not watched over the article since the previous sock User:Bravehm was blocked last summer, and meanwhile, another sock, User:Shishaz, had emerged and continued the same pattern. It's insanity, 3 years of this, where me and KoizumiBS have had to deal with this person. Though I'm not sure why Vofa reverted KoizumiBS, giving no edit summary. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, there are clear signs that Shishaz is Iampharzad - as seen there, they can't even answer why they restored the exact same random edit made by Iampharzad, having been asked 4 times, including by an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:i want to make one thing clear: assume good faith.

:i was not asked to give a brief summary for the restore, except wp itself.

:so, here is a brief explanation: their sources and reasoning made a lot of sense, and as i started looking for other sources, i found more or less the same findings.

:i am not a sockpuppet, and there is no good reason to assume others of being a sockpuppet. agreeing on an edit is consensus, not a sign of sockpuppetry. Vofa (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:to openly assume bad faith because someone disagrees, calling them a sockpuppet in an ANI is unacceptable, and could result in a block Vofa (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I wasn't indicating that you were a sock of Iampharzad, I'm sorry if it came across that way. Though your explanation is pretty vague, it would appreciated if you could elaborate at Talk:Hazaras. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::your accusation concerned the other editor, to which i replied. The other editor had already given a brief summary of their edit, and i made a short explanation here. Vofa (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Then in that case I must disagree with your remark. I did not assume that Shishaz was a sock just because of a disagreement, that is quite the accusation (feel free to prove that, and if you can't, please be aware of WP:ASPERSIONS). There are obvious signs of them being a sock per the SPI, including the exact same page moves, edits, etc etc. And Shishaz's explanation is vague (and likely dishonest, just like in the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hazaras/Archive_3#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_18_April_2024_(2)]), just like yours. They claimed that sourced information was removed in a edit which they removed 5k information [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaras&diff=prev&oldid=1296774701] when reverting KoizumiBS. You both have not come with a proper explanation on what was actually wrong with KoizumiBS's edit. So by all means, please elaborate at Talk:Hazaras. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-HistoryofIran-20250623095400-Possible_slow-moving_revert_war_at_CTOP_article_Hazaras] Vofa (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::were you referring to my explanation as dishonest? if yes, on what basis? Vofa (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I was not, which is why I mentioned the dishonest bit in parentheses. Though I should have made it more clear. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Liz at Talk:Hazaras I provided a detailed explanation of my edit, breaking it down into sections: origin, genetics, and language. I also pointed out that several new, academically supported sources I added - such as references to Vambery, Rashid al-Din, and Encyclopaedia Iranica - were removed from the article. Regarding the user Shishaz, his editing and discussion style strongly resembles that of Iampharzad, who has already been investigated in the past. The similarities are clear in both the substance of the edits and the way they are argued. As for the user Vofa, his block history suggests ongoing difficulties in achieving consensus with others. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongolic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1296828533 In this case], for instance, he labeled one of the main theories of Hazara origin as fringe, while also removing a reliable source supporting it. Additionally, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazaragi%20dialect&diff=prev&oldid=1296871920 removed] the reference to Mongolic influence from the title of the section on the Hazara language.KoizumiBS (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Sock drawer closed|1=Crabinovich blocked for hoaxing/disruption and then indef'd for socking. EgertonHistory blocked for hoaxing/disruption and indef'd after being confirmed (via Commons CU, see below) as a sock of Crabinovich. Patrickkouark indef'd as a loudly quacking duck of Crabinovich following the former's original pblock. I believe we're done here; keep an eye out for new socks, and given the cross-wiki abuse a glock request on Meta is likely cromulent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I came across the edits of {{noping|Crabinovich}}, who is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Crabinovich adding info] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_I,_Duke_of_Parma&diff=prev&oldid=1296911407 about persons] who can not be found in any reliable source. One of them is described as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niter%C3%B3i&diff=prev&oldid=1293410025 the father of football and cricket in Brazil], while also being the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=1296602103 saviour of Manchester United]. That's quite some CV, but somehow his article is redlinked/non-existent... The edit summaries are also misleading, and the images the user adds are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Robert_I_of_Bourbon-Parma_with_his_natural_illegitimate_daughter,_Anna_Krejcikov%C3%A1_%E2%80%94_c._1886.jpg clearly AI-generated] (1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D%C3%A9dicace_priv%C3%A9e_du_Duc_de_Parme_%C3%A0_Anna_Krej%C4%8D%C3%ADkov%C3%A1_(1888).png another one] (2). I think a troll is at work here.

Another user, {{noping|EgertonHistory}}, has a similar editing history. Both accounts have been editing e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Egerton,_1st_Earl_of_Ellesmere&action=history here]. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Crabinovich Crabinovich] and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EgertonHistory EgertonHistory] are both active on Commons as well, and all of those images uploaded look AI-generated. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked them from mainspace until they come here and explain themselves, and also flagged at the admin noticeboard at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks, Black Kite. A newly-registered user is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Patrickkouark rapidly adding the same content] again, very likely to be a sock. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yeah, blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Black Kite,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing respectfully to request clarification regarding the block recently applied to my account on the grounds of “possible hoaxing.” I understand and respect the importance of preserving the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable platform, and I share this commitment fully.

However, I would be grateful if you could kindly specify which edits or content additions triggered the concern, and what aspects were deemed potentially deceptive. From my perspective, my contributions — particularly those related to historical or genealogical figures — were made in good faith and based on sources I believed to be valid at the time and talking with members of the family.

If there were errors, misinterpretations, or insufficient referencing, I am more than willing to correct them, discuss the context openly, and work with the community to improve the reliability of the content. I would never intentionally insert false information, and I strongly reject any association with deliberate hoaxing.

I kindly ask for the opportunity to better understand your reasoning and to be allowed to clarify my intent and the evidence I was using. If needed, I am prepared to provide further documentation or sources to support the historical information in question.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, Crabinovich (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Crabinovich}}, the wordiness of your comment is exceeeded only by its vagueness. Adding content to Wikipedia articles based on {{tpq|talking with members of the family}} is original research which is forbidden by policy. Are you using ChatGPT or any other artifical intelligence to draft your comments? If so, don't. We want discussion with genuine human beings, not with loquacious robots prone to hallucinations. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Black Kite,I hope this message finds you well.I am writing to raise a concern regarding a pattern of edits made by the user Eem dik doun in tone, particularly on pages related to the Egerton family and its historical branches. This editor has been repeatedly removing sourced content or modifying entries with no substantial justification, often labeling legitimate references as simply “unreliable source” in the edit summary — without explaining why, citing policy, or engaging in discussion.These removals have been made without participation on the article’s talk page, and no credible rationale or evidence has been presented to support such sweeping edits to historically rooted genealogical content.As someone with both academic and familial ties to the topic, I take the integrity of the material seriously and am fully open to collaboration, improvements, and source reviews. However, the current pattern of reversions appears arbitrary, disruptive, and dismissive of good-faith contributions.I kindly request that this behavior be reviewed and, if possible, that the editor be encouraged to provide proper reasoning and engage in open discussion — in keeping with Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability, consensus, and transparency.Thank you for your attention and support. 2804:187C:8377:C00:B31F:D6D2:3DC5:4279 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• What do others think? I mean, these are obviously AI, but apart from that? (Note that both accounts are now blocked and their uploads deleted on Commons, incidentally). Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:ChatGPT has ruined the em dash for me. — DVRTed (Talk) 15:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::They can pry them out of my cold, dead, human hands. I won't let people that outsource their thinking ruin one of my favorite pieces of semi-obscure punctuation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is why I can't quit Wikipedia. These are my people. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I ran a CU on Commons and {{confirmed}} that EgertonHistory is Crabinovich. Patrickkouark has no activity on Commons, so would not show up on that CU. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Considering the socking and that they are also active on pt.wiki, a global lock request may be in order for the three accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Very possibly. In the meantime, however, I've indeffed them all here. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|result=Thanks to those who cleaned up this confusing case of several articles overwritten on the same page plus all of the page moves/redirects. So far, no talk page response from the new editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I came across the page Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during routine Wikipedia:New pages patrol this morning. It appears to be a duplication of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that has been copied over to overwrite Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes (not the real page Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes) and a redirect Héctor Leyva Chávez. It is probable that this is just an overenthusiastic editor creating duplicates & inaccurately named pages/redirects, including a chain of redirects from his user page. However, given that the "real" ADHD page gets > 4K views a day, I think someone with admin rights should sort this out. Pinging here {{Userlinks|RayRayM1604}} who it seems made most of the edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:N.B., probably posted at the wrong place... Ldm1954 (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Unattributed copy of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and redirect deleted. I'll post an explanation to RayRayM1604. Nthep (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I am formally requesting the removal of my topic ban concerning Michael Jackson. Approximately 6-7 years ago, I engaged in disruptive edits and edit wars with another user. This behavior justifiably led to my block, and shortly thereafter, I continued to create new accounts. Although I ceased making disruptive edits in terms of the content itself, I was still violating Wikipedia's terms of service by circumventing my block through the creation of new accounts, which was inappropriate. Since that time, I have made efforts to improve myself and adhere to proper conduct. Last year, I was unblocked from Wikipedia, and this year, I am seeking to have my topic ban lifted. I deeply regret my past actions and sincerely hope to be granted a second chance, as it now feels like an eternity since I was the person I once was. Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's too soon to lift this topic ban - you were unblocked 6 months ago, and since being unblocked you have made about 30 edits, most of which seem to be updating box office figures. I think most people would be expecting a more significant history of trouble free contributions as evidence that you have overcome the problems that led to the topic ban in the first place. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{User|86.23.87.130}} are you an admin who is not logged in? You do seem to have an understanding of this editor's history, but i'd respectfully suggest that most people would not expect an anonymous IP with 16 total edits to be making decisions about unblocks. Dfadden (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They are not "voting" on an unblock, just offering an opinion which editors are allowed to do. Earlier, they made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1296093923 this remark about WMF] which I thought indicated that they are not a new editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank @Liz. I also noticed they were editing in some places and had knowledge a new editor may not, hence my question if they had inadvertently been editing while not logged in. I appreciate my wording could have been interpreted as a little bit snarky, although that was certainly not my intention! Dfadden (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::IPs rotate. Looking at an IPs edit history won't clue you into their experience here. 12.75.41.116 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Thank you to all who responded to my request for input. After 24hrs with no comments suggesting MisteOsoTruth should be unblocked, I have declined their request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|MisteOsoTruth}}

I am requesting a review of my block of MisteOsoTruth. Please see their unblock request on their user page. If there is a consensus that I over-reacted or that they deserve another chance, I will happily defer to the consensus of the community and my fellow admins. Courtesy ping {{u|Soetermans}} who brought this up. I also note that {{u|Daniel Case}} advised taking the matter to ANI, around the same time I was issuing the block. That said, I still think their long term behavior seems to have ticked a lot of the boxes at WP:TE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Endorse but disclosure that I've previously blocked this user. They've been blocked before for Gamergate-related disruption. From what I can tell, they're still fighting Gamergate-related battles here. This is standard truth-warrior behavior. Time to cut bait. Well within admin discretion, not an over-reaction. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:His comments on the talk pages I reviewed certainly strike me as less than collaborative. I see no reason to let him return. Donald Albury 22:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well... judging by their talk page, this is someone who urgently needs to change their approach to editing, so forcing them to do so by means of a block seems pretty well within discretion. -- asilvering (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:: While we're at it, might I suggest revoking talk page access? They continue all the same. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I gave them a warning about it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think that is necessary at this point. And while this discussion remains open, I would prefer that they have some means of communicating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Don't we automatically block new editors who have "Truth" in their username? It's generally a good predictor of future disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::True. Truth69420 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was just kidding. But I actually was going to ask if anyone knew of an exception and then, poof! here you are! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Ah, you fooled me, rsjaffe! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Good block. While they have a very, very, very slight point in that all that GamerGate nonsense was tied to broader culture wars and there is still a whiff of slanty commentary remaining from the trench fighting of single-purpose editors on both sides, their approach is inappropriate for Wikipedia and makes the encyclopedia worse. This is a collaborative project and battlegrounding and WP:RGW are not tools for improving any content, anywhere. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't want to sound unprofessional, but as a former GamerGater I can tell you that these people all have a conspiracy map in their heads that they think explains why what they did isn't harassment and was totally justified, and they think that anyone who hasn't memorized this map is wrong. In reality their arguments are just pointing madly at minor discrepancies and shouting "WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT ABOUT THIS?" and everyone else thinks that they're annoying or crazy.

::You saw this with the edits justifying sealioning: they think that their bad faith questions are good faith questions. SpaceboundRocket (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = You have not followed the instructions for requesting an unblock. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

CrimeFind31 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Good morning sir and maam, i'm living in the Philippines. I'm sincerely appealing and petition to unblock my account and also editing when it comes of music genres. And also i'm surely proved to myself that i did not violating any rules and regulations when it comes of being also beginner editor since 2023.

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=VOA-blocked by {{noping|Paul Erik}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)}}

User:Giggity gangster 2521 is an account that has seemingly been created with the sole purpose of vandalizing the 2025 New York City mayoral election, would be helpful if someone wades in and blocks them from editing that page at least. Scuba 04:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello, I need help fixing an issues. I performed a technical move request, but the page I moved have two achieve (1) pages: see Talk:United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1 & Talk:American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1. United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites is the main page. Jerium (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've merged the two archive pages' contents into the larger of the two, BLARed the other, and then swapped the titles so that the surviving archive matches the title of the main article. The current state of affairs is that Talk:United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1 now contains the combined material from both archives and {{-r|Talk:American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1}} redirects to it. I think this should resolve the issue but feel free to ping if any other cleanup needs to be done. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#Persistent,_long-term_battleground_behavior_from_multiple_editors_at_capitalization_RMs and its subsections have all been closed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Capitalization_Disputes exists for any extant needs that meet the stardards for ArbComm Star Mississippi 18:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

An administrator is needed to close the proposal at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2: Dicklyon Topic-Banned from Capitalization. I get that it's a giant clusterfuck, but that's why you all get paid the big bucks. 🥴 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:By my count, Proposal 2 has 43 supports and 17 opposes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:True, those proposals dont need to be closed together, and that one seems ripe by now. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like the entire mess has now been closed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|I removed it and left a comment there. I don't think this needs any more time spent on it now. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Sangdeboeuf has altered this RfC to make it appear as though it was unsigned by me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABonnie_Blue_%28actress%29&diff=1297543766&oldid=1297543255 diff]). WP:RFC clearly states: Sign the brief statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). I signed the RfC with just the time and date as permitted by the guidelines at WP:RFC ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABonnie_Blue_%28actress%29&diff=1297041265&oldid=1297040955 diff]). They did not seek permission from me to alter my signature on the talk page, or to move my comment. Per signature cleanup WP:TPO: {{tq|If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information. Do not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason.}} I am unsure on how to proceed, because it is unclear to me if it will further mess up the RfC by putting in a new signature with just the time and date, and I don't want to be seen as edit-warring. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I've noticing more and more user sandboxes with fake articles about elections (both past and future). Some recent examples are User:Pwalsh04/sandbox, User:Nahyla.alaini/sandbox, User:Nextwavepolitics/sandbox, and User:Jaminup/sandbox. In most cases, the users also upload fake election maps to Commons to illustrate them. It's clear that they're being used for some kind of off-wiki "alternate history" forum or game, given how similar many of the fake articles and maps are. Most (but not all) of these users have few/any mainspace edits, despite sometimes claiming that they're using these drafts to practice editing.

Because of the fake maps being uploaded to Commons, and politics being a contentious subject, I consider these fake articles (even in userspace) to be a more significant issue than typical nonsense and self-promotion in userspace. I usually nominate them for speedy deletion as G3, but sometimes they are not blatantly fake enough at first glance. I'd appreciate others' thoughts, especially on possible ways to reduce the problem:

• An edit filter to track (or block) use of {{tl|infobox election}} in userspace by new editors.
• Partial blocks from userspace for those who misuse it - generally as a standard procedure when a fake/spammy article in userspace is deleted. This should be more akin in seriousness to an edit filter than a mainspace block, as good-faith users can (and should) be using draftspace.
• Explicitly including all fake election sandboxes in G3 or U5
• Better bot patrolling of userspace. This could include creating lists of new userspace pages for easier patrolling, or even automatic moves of likely drafts to draftspace.

I am also hopeful that ending cross-wiki uploads for new users will help, as the fake maps I see on Commons are all cross-wiki uploads. The Commons community decided last year to restrict cross-wiki uploads, which was endorsed on enwiki, and Commons will implement this via edit filter in August unless the WMF does so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is not a recent problem, I've seen fake election pages in User space, sometimes to elections held in earlier centuries, for years now. They seem to be more common in years where there is a well-publicized presidential race or general election than off-years like 2025. We delete them as hoax articles when we come across them. I'm not sure if other administrators and editors believe this is the urgent issue that you seem to think it is. If you want to rewrite CSD policy criteria to specifically name these type of articles, I wish you luck. But to be effective, you should have some examples to show people as the pages that you pointed out were all deleted so only admins could view the contents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:If they're {{tqq|not blatantly fake enough at first glance}} for WP:G3 as is, making it more explict won't change that - that's the article itself, not the criterion. An edit filter to flag {{tl|infobox election}} in userspace does sound reasonable, but that's not within AN's remit - WP:EFR is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with the idea to implement a filter. Using Wikipedia to create alternate history election articles is getting out of hand, and it is not a new thing either, it has been going on since at least 2020, when I joined this informal community of election afficionados called ElectionTwitter or ET. I propose that we implement a heavy-handed policy against this and redirect them to https://mockelections.miraheze.org as suggested below. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But, a potential downside is that if we force them out of userspace, draftspace and WP:Sandbox, they will simply vandalise the mainspace articles with their althist stuff. I have seen this happen before. Some of them will inevitably fly under the radar, and that will be a bigger problem because readers will be exposed to false mainspace stuff. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm evidently a bit of an outlier but I'm personally sympathetic to these uploaders. There are a few communities where people make and share fictitious election results, such as on [https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginaryelections/ Reddit] and X/twitter, and they predominantly use Wikipedia-style infoboxes. It is reasonable for new users to believe that your personal sandbox is a private space to mess around without disturbing anyone. Ideally these users would be made aware of alternative outlets such as https://mockelections.miraheze.org. I like the edit filter idea because it can display a non-generic message that explains our policies and potentially informs them of alternative outlets. In my opinion U5 is more accurate than G3, since they are not trying to deceive anyone and have no intention to move their infoboxes to mainspace. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, CSD U5 is another criterion for speedy deletiont that is utilized when the appropriate conditions exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

I would appreciate if a sysop could remove my "pending changes reviewer" permission. I thought I would use it, but I really don't. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Based on recent events, I've started a global RFC about the compatibility of the CU userright with paid editing. Folks who are interested in this can opine at this page. Sohom (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

{{ivmbox|1=Remedy 4 (MarioProtIV & NAC) of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is rescinded.}}

{{bcc|MarioProtIV}}For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding MarioProtIV's editing restriction}}

{{archive top|The page was deleted from the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. See the deletion discussion there. You may wish to consider pursuing deletion review on that project. We can't help you here. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The page I created on Euriziano, a recent artificial language about which various articles have been published in different languages, has been deleted on the grounds that it is not sufficiently relevant, i.e. it does not have proven relevance demonstrated by coverage of a topic in reliable sources. So I ask: why is the page ‘Lingwa de planeta’, a recent artificial language that has no references in reliable sources, still present in

Wikipedia Simple English? THE RULES MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE, OTHERWISE IT BECOMES ARBITRARY. Kuros2025 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{ping|Kuros2025|p=}}, welcome to Wikipedia. Different wikis have different rules as to what content can and can't remain. For example, an article that may be suitable for the Spanish Wikipedia may not be right for this one, and vice versa. This applies to Simple English as well, so they'll have their own criteria for inclusion. In the future, if you have any further questions, check out our Teahouse, which is the appropriate forum for this question (as this is the noticeboard for administrative matters, which this is not.) Happy editing! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 13:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}