View source for Wiki143:Administrators' noticeboard

<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo                = old(7d)
|counter             = 372
|archive             = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize      = 700K
|archiveheader       = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft      = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--

      ----------------------------------------------------------
      New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
      ----------------------------------------------------------

--><noinclude>

==Open tasks==
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->

== Review of SPLC closure ==
{{atopg
| result = Endorsed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
}}
===RfC closure review request at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center]]===
:{{RfC closure review links|1=|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center}} ([[User talk:Chetsford#User_talk:Chetsford#SPLC_Close_Question|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]<!-- Template:RfC closure review -->

'''Reasoning''': @[[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] closed the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center|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:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 01:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

====Closer ([[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]])====
:'''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 [[User_talk:Chetsford#SPLC_Close_Question|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]].</small><p>

:'''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 [[User:Berchanhimez|Berchanhimez]], [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]], [[User:Springee|Springee]], [[User:Masem|Masem]], [[User:Sean Waltz O'Connell|Sean Waltz O'Connell]], etc.) [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk: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.<br>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.<br/>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.<br/>More importantly, though, this is not a vote where there is one side that wins but a [[WP:CON|"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).<br/> "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.<Br/>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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Chetsford/usuallyattributed|a Q&A here]] that explains "usually attributed" to a level of detail impossible to include in a closing statement, but apparently necessary. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 00:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

====Non-participants (SPLC)====
* '''Background:''' This is a two-part RfC. [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Part 1 (SPLC)|Part 1]] addresses the [[Southern Poverty Law Center|SPLC]], and the closing summary for Part 1 states, {{xt|"information sourced to it should '''usually''' be attributed"}} (emphasis added). [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Part 2 (Hatewatch)|Part 2]] addresses the [[Southern Poverty Law Center#SPLC Hatewatch|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 [[User talk:Chetsford|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 <ins>attributed, or otherwise</ins> 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 [[WP:INTEXT|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 [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]], because while {{xt|"Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with [[WP:INTEXT|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 [[WP:DUE|due weight policy]] (which requires articles to {{xt|"fairly represent ''all'' significant viewpoints that have been published by [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source|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 <del>contradication</del> <ins>contradiction</ins> 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 [[WP:RFCST|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 [[Special:Diff/1293470511|a single comment by one editor]] (that is the 39th of the 41 responses in the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polling: Part 1 (SPLC)|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. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 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. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|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 [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|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 [[WP:POINTY|pointy]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 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. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 04:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per Buffs below. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Let&#39;srun|Let&#39;srun]] ([[User talk:Let&#39;srun|talk]]) 13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

====Participants (SPLC)====
*'''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 &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|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. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk: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 <b>usually</b> 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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Samuelshraga|Samuelshraga]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk: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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

====Discussion (SPLC)====
*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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 01:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::Nevermind, I did it myself. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 02:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
:::My bad. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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 verifi''able''. 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. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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}}
: [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::Ping for {{u|Snow_Rise}} was broken, fixing here. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:DUE|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 &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 06:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::For absolutely pure fact? No. In that case attribution is not necessary. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk: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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 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. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] &#124; [[User talk: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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] &#124; [[User talk: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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
**::Wouldn't that be the same or any rs? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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.) - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] &#124; [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 05:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Jmabel|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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] &#124; [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Jmabel|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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] &#124; [[User talk: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? [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:WHATABOUTISM|whataboutism]].  - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 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 '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 17:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That is really not what the close means or any reasonable interpretation of it. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 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? [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 18:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
*I agree with {{noping|Snow Rise}} that, given that they tend to make [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|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. [[User:JeffSpaceman|JeffSpaceman]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk: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)&hellip;"
:* "According to that same SPLC report&hellip;"
:* "Continuing from that same report&hellip;"
: [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] &#124; [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::If you have to do this, you should just remove the information as [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk: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  [[WP:WHATABOUTISM|whataboutism]]. Note this is an ''essay'' on arguments not to use in deletion discussions. They were probably referring to another essay, [[WP:OTHERCONTENT|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.

[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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.  --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 18:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Kyohyi|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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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.  --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Requesting an Unblock on my Topic Ban ==

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. [[User:Alessiorom13|Alessiorom13]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.87.130|86.23.87.130]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank @[[User:Liz|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! [[User:Dfadden|Dfadden]] ([[User talk:Dfadden|talk]]) 07:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::IPs rotate. Looking at an IPs edit history won't clue you into their experience here. [[Special:Contributions/12.75.41.116|12.75.41.116]] ([[User talk:12.75.41.116|talk]]) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

== Requesting Block Review ==
{{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. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk: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]]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 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. [[User talk:Donald Albury|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. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Soetermans|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">soetermans</span>]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|<sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''TALK'''</span></sup>]] 22:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I gave them a warning about it. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk: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. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::True. [[User:Truth69420|Truth69420]] ([[User talk: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! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, you fooled me, rsjaffe! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 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. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SpaceboundRocket|SpaceboundRocket]] ([[User talk:SpaceboundRocket|talk]]) 23:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== To unblock editing adding music genres ==
{{atop
| result = You have not followed [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|the instructions]] for requesting an unblock. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
}}

[[User:CrimeFind31|CrimeFind31]] ([[User talk: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}}

== Block request ==
{{atop|1=VOA-blocked by {{noping|Paul Erik}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 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. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 04:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Archives ==

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. [[User:Jerium|Jerium]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

== Admin needed to close ANI proposal ==
{{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 [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 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. 🥴 [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 23:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:By my count, Proposal 2 has 43 supports and 17 opposes. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:True, those proposals dont need to be closed together, and that one seems ripe by now. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::It looks like the entire mess has now been closed. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 09:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Signature altered at RfC ==
{{archive top|I removed it and left a comment there. I don't think this needs any more time spent on it now. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 22:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)}}
Sangdeboeuf has altered [[Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress)#RfC for Blue's real name|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:  [[Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts|Sign]] the brief statement with either [[WP:4TILDES|<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>]] (name, time and date) or [[WP:5TILDES|<code><nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki></code>]] (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.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 22:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Fake election user sandboxes ==

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 [[Special:Diff/1297523595|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 [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_198#Restrict_new_users_from_crosswiki_uploading_files_to_Commons|endorsed on enwiki]], and Commons will [[:commons:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enforce_Cross-Wiki_upload_restrictions|implement this via edit filter]] in August unless the WMF [[:phab:T370598|does so]]. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 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 →. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 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. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 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. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 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. [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

== Request for removal of permission ==
{{atop
| result = Done. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|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, [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 23:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Global RFC about paid editing as a CU ==

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 [[meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed|this page]]. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding MarioProtIV's editing restriction ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1297725529#Motion: MarioProtIV's editing restriction rescinded|motion]] that:
{{ivmbox|1=[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones#MarioProtIV & NAC|Remedy 4 (MarioProtIV & NAC)]] of ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WikiProject Tropical Cyclones]]'' is rescinded.}}
{{bcc|MarioProtIV}}For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 03:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding MarioProtIV's editing restriction}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 03:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Euriziano page deleted ==
{{archive top|The page was deleted from the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. See the [[:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Euriziano|deletion discussion]] there. You may wish to consider pursuing [[:simple:Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] on that project. We can't help you here. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Kuros2025|Kuros2025]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:TH|Teahouse]], which is the appropriate forum for this question (as this is the noticeboard for administrative matters, which this is not.) Happy editing! <span style="border-radius:3em;padding:5px;background:#483D8B;">‍'''[[User:Relativity|<span style="color:white">Rela</span>]]'''[[User talk:Relativity|<span style="color:white">tivity ⚡️</span>]]</span> 13:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Recreation of deleted article under altered title ==

Hi admins,

The article [[Dananeer]] appears to be a recreation of the previously deleted page [[Dananeer Mobeen]], which is currently protected and can only be recreated by an administrator. It seems the title was deliberately altered to bypass the restriction.

[[User:Behappyyar|Behappyyar]] ([[User talk:Behappyyar|talk]]) 03:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a reason, [[User:Behappyyar|Behappyyar]], that you didn't notify that article creator, [[User:A01169242]], about this discussion? It's a required step to take. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::<s>Also, is there a reason you came here instead of tagging the article as [[WP:G4]]? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)</s>
:::Strike the above - the original AfD was closed because it was G5'd, so G4 doesn't apply. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Given that, the subject may - ''may'' be notable - the original title was [[WP:SALT|salted]] because it was being repeatedly recreated by socks, or ''apparent'' socks. Given this, I'm going to move [[Dananeer]] to [[Dananeer Mobeen]] as the more correct title. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] @[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] I believe the recent move of [[Dananeer]] to [[Dananeer Mobeen]]—a previously salted title—is unfair to editors who are following the proper review process.
::::I had previously submitted a draft ([[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen]]) version of the article under the correct title as per standard procedure, and was advised on the noticeboard to work through the draft and seek admin review for recreation.
::::Meanwhile, another editor appears to have created an article under an altered title ("[[Dananeer]]")—likely to bypass the creation restriction—and that version has now been moved to the salted title without a full review of sourcing or notability.
::::I believe this undermines the proper editorial process and disadvantages those acting in good faith. The correct approach should be to review all existing drafts and content before restoring a title that was previously protected due to sock activity.
::::Requesting reconsideration of the move. I respectfully request that before further action is taken, administrators (and other experienced editors) compare the content and references of the two versions — the current mainspace article and my draft — and assess which one better meets Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards.
::::[[User:Behappyyar|Behappyyar]] ([[User talk:Behappyyar|talk]]) 05:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Behappyyar|Behappyyar]], you STILL haven't informed the editor involved in your complaint about this discussion. Why? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 17:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::User has been notified. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks dear [[User:Behappyyar|Behappyyar]] ([[User talk:Behappyyar|talk]]) 17:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::When you first asked me, I thought you informed him on his talk page. Sorry for that. [[User:Behappyyar|Behappyyar]] ([[User talk:Behappyyar|talk]]) 17:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Trying to summarize what could be a wall of text to put this into context. User Beyappyyar [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_68#Dananeer_Mobeen_article_request original requested] the undeletion here. They are also part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress#11_June_2025 this SPI] filing which partially relates to it (Pinging {{ping|Hoary}} and {{ping|DMacks}} who were involved with answering that request). This page has been bludgeoned into the mainspace by a long-term abusing sock farm (StayCalmOnTress). It was just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ADananeer_Mobeen&diff=1297364057&oldid=1297359689 declined] by {{u|S0091}} at [[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen]]  on June 25, 2025 and then recreated by user A01169242 on June 27, 2025. Why do we keep entertaining paid socks?--[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 00:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:if that SPI is ever closed by a CU @[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]], I'd be happy to cleanup as I know I inadvertently assisted Beh in an earlier thread. I think the issue is non CU admins can't get do anything here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. The June 11th one with this thread's OP is just awaiting behavioral evidence. I just filed one of the user who created the new page so we can see where that goes. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 00:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:On 15 January '25, {{U|Anuwrites}} considered [[Dananeer Mobeen (actress)]] not to be ready for mainspace and moved it to [[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress)]]. I haven't noticed any effort to delete the latter. Whether it should be deleted is a matter on which I have no opinion. If there's no need for it to be deleted, then a editor -- of course one who's not a sock of a blocked editor -- believing that Dananeer Mobeen qualifies for an article is free to work on it. So far as I can comprehend the comment by {{U|Behappyyar}} that ends [[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_68#Dananeer_Mobeen_article_request|this archived WP:HD thread]], it doesn't even start to convince me. While [[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress)]] exists, any effort to start "Dananeer Mobeen" or "Draft:Dananeer Mobeen" is a waste of editors' time. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*The original 'salt-evading' article, for the record, is now at [[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen 2]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with this topic or user-pool other than what I could quickly see in deletion/protection histories, and was merely GF-addressing the HD question on its face. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 02:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, after I moved the current creation to [[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen 2]], A01169242 decided to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=1298033360&oldid=1297364057 move] the June 25th declined [[Draft:Dananeer Mobeen]] back to [[Dananeer Mobeen]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress#30_June_2025 SPI now pending].--[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 04:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*I'm just seeing this discussion now. But after deleting yet another CSD R2 from [[Dananeer Mobeen]] from this article being moved back and forth again from main space to Draft space, I protected the main space page. I understand why the full protection was lifted but it seems like the current state of this article is rather chaotic. A draft article shouldn't be moved back to main space until it has received AFC approval. These constant moves are disruptive. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Liz}}, apparently it was not protected in time as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=1298045864&oldid=1298042036 this user moved it back] claiming DRAFTOBJECT. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 05:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Liz}}, were you going to revert and protect? We now have someone who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=prev&oldid=1298124319 "doesn't care about the ANI thread"] saying they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=prev&oldid=1298124574 take responsibility] for the page and adding in-depth ONEEVENT information in an attempt to make it look notable. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 17:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Also noting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGZWDer&diff=1298049976&oldid=1298046791 this comment] you made. Was going to follow up with user this morning but see you already did. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Adding the now [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dananeer_Mobeen DR] filing since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298126971 the filer] "don't give a fuck's fuck about this ANI thread" and likely will not add it as relevant to this thread. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''NPP comment''': I have independently from this discussion ascertained that the subject is notable, have removed BLP-related issues, such as content failing verification, and have marked the article as reviewed. I have also made an expansion to the article, but much of it was reverted by CNMall41 who is complaining about me above, who appears distrustful and sadly believes that my "editing is starting to close in on TE territory" (meaning, [[wp:Tendentious editing]]). I have to say that I think that CNMall41 <s>became influenced by this AN discussion and the administrative angle a bit too much to calmly</s> /did not<small>—16:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)</small>/ assess the topic and the article on purely content merits and has made quite unreasonable content edits as a result. It is about these edits that I have started the DRN.{{pb}}To be clear, I '''contest G5''', and take responsibility for the article (this was the current revision when I marked the article as reviewed: [[Special:Diff/1298120709]]).—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::"Influenced?" I would say that my influence came from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#12_April_2021 the] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#18_April_2021 many] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#26_April_2021 SPI] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#19_October_2021 reports] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zaid_Zayd/Archive#14_July_2023 involving the bludgeoning] of this page to the mainspace. As far as being "a bit too much to calmly assess the topic," you are making an accusation of my mental state. I am sure you don't give a "fuck's fuck" about it, but you will need to redact that statement as your lack of [[WP:CIVIL]]ity isn't appreciated.--[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 04:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed. {{ping|Alalch E.}}, consider yourself officially warned regarding [[WP:CIVIL]] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dananeer_Mobeen&diff=next&oldid=1298126971 this comment]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:An obvious sock left a comment on my talk page in connection to this discussion: [[Special:Diff/1298241562]]—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::I have closed a request at [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]] concerning [[Dananeer Mobeen]] as also pending in a conduct forum (this conduct forum).  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::I recommend that [[Dananeer]] and [[Dananeer Mobeen (actress)]] be [[Wp:SALT|salted]] in article space as [[WP:GAMENAME|title gaming]].  Please do not salt any titles in draft space.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I recommend applying no such salting, made pointless by the live article, whose existence removes the name gaming impetus from the equation. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== [[:McAleese report]] ==
{{atop|result=No admin attention is required here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}
I moved this article to draft space as I felt it wasn't good enough for main space, it was edited and I still don't think it's good enough for main space. {{u|Iliketoeatbeansalot}} moved the article back into main space without doing the draft submission. I am hoping an admin can deal the issues here, as it's far too hot and bothersome for me!! Peace. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 14:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:This is literally a copy and paste from the main article at [[Magdalene laundries in Ireland]], that the creator is edit warring over wanting to say nice things about it. There's zero in this draft that isn't in the main article that provides much more information. Should be deleted and maybe a protected redirect to the main article from McAleese report. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 14:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::Yes.
::I have notified Iliketoeatbeansalot of this discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iliketoeatbeansalot&diff=prev&oldid=1298110870]. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I saw the speedy and changed the article to a redirect as I felt it had potential. It was reverted and so I deleted it. I still think it may have potential and should exist as a redirect. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:: If they're only here to push {{diff|diff=1297320992|label=this POV}} they should be indeffed. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] <span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#FFF">[[User_talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|talk]]</span> 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::They have edited quite a range of articles since 2011. Not a [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account]] [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Maybe not, but they're adding absolute garbage POV sources to articles, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home&diff=1296980873&oldid=1296831423 this]. They're here long enough to know better. [[User:Bastun|<span style="padding:3px;background:#ffa502;">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 21:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::They seem to have been able to produce decent edits but also get reverted a lot. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 21:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
*Article was deleted as a CSD A10 and I created a Redirect. I'm not sure that anything else needs to be done. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== RFPP ==

Wow, What a back load.  - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime Phone|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime Phone'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime Phone|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 22:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== Salting ==

Would someone mind salting the following to prevent re-creation? These have been the repeated subjects of UPE for seven years and the most recent version was just deleted at AfD three days ago.
* [[Scott Russell Surasky]]
* [[Russell Surasky]]
* [[Russell S. Surasky]]
* [[Russell S Surasky]]
Note that two versions of the article, [[Bridge Back to Life]] and [[Russell Scott Surasky]] have been salted since 2019-2020". See also [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ross_kramerov]] for additional info. [[User:Iggy pop goes the weasel|Iggy pop goes the weasel]] ([[User talk:Iggy pop goes the weasel|talk]]) 22:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I'll do you one better and blacklist them. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 08:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Now that's a new one to me - didn't know a) you ''could'' do that or b) the Page Mover perm includes creation of a blacklisted article. Older AND wiser today! Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>Maybe not so much wiser as better informed... Best</small> [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 09:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Excellent, thank you! [[User:Iggy pop goes the weasel|Iggy pop goes the weasel]] ([[User talk:Iggy pop goes the weasel|talk]]) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
==Disruptive user==
User:Sportsfan1234 has repeatedly nominated a large number of articles related to African women's footballers for deletion (primarily through PRODs) over the past several months. This pattern has led to the removal of numerous articles, including those about players who are clearly notable — having participated in major international tournaments or played professionally. While not every article may be perfectly sourced, many contained multiple reliable references that were seemingly overlooked in the nomination process. This approach to deletion, especially when done rapidly or without thorough review, has caused significant loss of valuable information across articles on continental competitions, domestic leagues, and club histories. Such actions risk undermining the representation and documentation of women's football in underrepresented regions. [[User:Lunar Spectrum96|Lunar Spectrum96]] ([[User talk:Lunar Spectrum96|talk]]) 11:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:While it looks like other users have raised this with @[[User:Sportsfan_1234|Sportsfan_1234]], is there a reason you didn't wait for them to respond to [[User_talk:Sportsfan_1234#African_PRODs]] before coming here? You're also required to notify them you have opened a discussion. You have not done so. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 12:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== Page SputnikMusic Being Consistently Edited by Agenda'd Ex-Staff ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sputnikmusic&action=history

Users keep adding an unnecessary and defamatory "Controversy" section (with and without neutral language issues)
(this was previously posted in the simple English wiki admin noticeboard by mistake - I apologize, I do not really know what I'm doing in asking for assistance here!) [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D|2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D|talk]]) 14:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:Restored version before edit warring started, and fully protected for 4 days to allow for discussion, preferably with fewer violations of the [[WP:Biographies of living persons]] policy. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 14:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::Much appreciated, thanks! [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D|2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D|talk]]) 14:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

==An administrator recall petition has been initiated for [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]]==
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a petition at [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr]] for Night Gyr to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users|extended confirmed]] users, an RRfA is required for {{pronoun|Night Gyr|obj}} to maintain {{pronoun|Night Gyr|pos}} toolkit. For further information, please consult the [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall|administrator recall policy]].
<!--Template: Admin recall notice/AN-->[[User:Iggy pop goes the weasel|Iggy pop goes the weasel]] ([[User talk:Iggy pop goes the weasel|talk]]) 18:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

== User:Nathannah ==
{{atop
| status = Moved

| result = to [[WP:ANI#User:Nathannah]]. {{nac}} '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC) '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
}}

[[User:Nathannah]] blindly reverted many of my edits.  Despite clear explanations for them.

Examples:
Television shows being referred to as "short-lived" or "long-running" - this is unencyclopedic and doesn't show a NPOV.  What is long-running to one may not be to another.  It's not a definite fact and is not typically used in articles.  And is irrelevant to the context.

Mentioning credits for actors on show pages (e.g. Seinfeld's Jason Alexander) - Also unencyclopedic and informal.  It typecasts the actor.  Mentioning the actors name is sufficient.  On a similar note, calling an actor "award-winning", which is an unnecessary detail in most cases.  It looks like something you'd see in a press release.

I changed the place of death from the county to the specific city.  This can be verified through a death certificate on Ancestry and wire reports.  The initial error/vagueness came from a findagrave profile, which isn't a reliable source to begin with.

I've had lots of edits like this approved without issue.  These phrases don't add any value.  If the articles were up for FA review, this would be one of the first recommendations for improving it.  I don't want to risk getting a 3RR violation. [[User:Megainek|Megainek]] ([[User talk:Megainek|talk]]) 01:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
:Please copy this to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Continuous disruptive editing by Megainek]]; this is an improper venue. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 01:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
::I did. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}