Dont want to add more to that hellscape. While your addition technically is a WP:MANDY, I think it may in fact be justified by the fact that numerous other countries and some (albeit not many) NGOs concur with the denial. This is going to be a disputed situation for awhile, if not forever, unlike most universally recognized genocides, so it probably merits inclusion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's MANDY, partly in consideration of the WP:NOTMANDY arguments out there. If it's removed then so be it, just doing my bit to try and improve the neutrality while respecting the consensus, even if only as a token gesture. CNC (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Charlie Kirk, you may be blocked from editing. Copied from: ScottishFinnishRadish 12:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Jdftba (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the RM close or removing this comment? If the latter and you really want to remove it then you have my permission to remove my reply as well (ie, that part of the discussion). The issue is by removing your comment my reply is left with no context. Also the comment really doesn't matter, you made a mistake and apologised. No-one really cares tbh, I know I don't, but up to you. CNC (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Stirchley.resident, I can't remember how but I came across that draft but did make a note to take a closer. SafariScribe who declined it might otherwise be able to provide more insight since your asking, as if it's a notability issue then there's probably not a lot I can help with realistically if you've done a thorough search for reliable sources. I also need to check the guidelines of creating multi-person WP:BLP, presumably it's based on WP:GNG (I'm just randomly thinking of Bonnie and Clyde as a prime example here). The main issue I can see is that most of the article is based on the topic that already exists - Operation Raise the Colours - so what's left is probably better included in that article for now as based on the philosophy of WP:MERGE, even if these two individuals in combination are notable, that wouldn't inherently demonstrate requirement for a standalone article, if they are mainly known within the context of a certain topic. Sorry if that's a bit of a confusing reply, hopefully the wikilinks help to clarify this. CNC (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially considered adding this material to the Operation RTC page but much more is know about this particular pair of flaggers than others, and including lots of detail on them would feel like unbalancing the article and making it all about Birmingham. Also, they seem to be moving on from just flagging into what looks like vigilante action - see the bit from the Times about Gravelines, plus from their social media, they've been in France again today. For these reasons, I think a separate article would be better. I considered calling it Raise the Colours (their group name), but much more is known about Bridge and Stanley than other members of the group (which is quite small from what I've seen). Stirchley.resident (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so based on that discussion the issue with the article is effectively WP:SIGCOV; it's not quantity of sources but instead quality (depth) of coverage based on the topic in question. Ideally without me having to search for this in the reference section, can you point to 3 reliable sources that provide such depth of coverage of both of these individuals in combination? Otherwise the title and scope at minimum is a no go. Note that most sources will provide passing mention, not significant coverage. While they are fine to use to attribute claims, they do not contribute towards GNG. CNC (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so after a bit of looking, I think this might be more reliable than I first thought. There are other sources here as well. What are your thoughts of moving to Raise the Colours instead with a teak of the lead paragraph? There can be redirects for both individuals and a hatnote at Operation Raise the Colours to distinguish between campaign and organisation. CNC (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that WP:BLP1E otherwise appears to apply here, based on the those sources, which often leads to content merged rather than standalone articles. CNC (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
So 3 other editors agree with you on this, but two others don't really indicate that (even with some down-weighting of one !vote, I'm not sure I'd call it consensus). I could put "Most editors agree that The Times is otherwise generally reliable" as part of the summary, what are your thoughts on that? On a side note I always find the semantics over "additional considerations apply" - to a specific topic area - and the same applied broadly speaking to be somewhat wiki-layered MREL arguments that shouldn't be a problem but always seem to appear based on misinterpretation. Hence the opening "Additional considerations apply to topics related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism due to lack of reliability in this area" attempting to remove ambiguity or over-expansion of the considerations as it were. Maybe I'm just overly cautious of trying to avoid a controversial-ish close for such a straightforward discussion. CNC (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
