Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/North8000

Optional question from ViridianPenguin

4. Having 500+ edits on an article talk page can demonstrate competence at brokering consensus but possessing this distinction for seven articles is surprising. What has drawn you to being the top editor of Talk:Libertarianism over 2140 edits across 13 years while only a minor author (#21) of the underlying content? This is not an accusation but rather than open-ended opportunity to discuss what you have gained from that experience negotiating the wording of a high-profile article.

A: Thanks. I take it as a compliment and an opportunity rather than anything else. In general I do enjoy facilitating progress at articles that are having conflicts where it appears that such is possible. (I added that last qualifier to leave out hopeless situations where the article is a venue for an unsolved tussle out in the real world - which are the articles classified by Wikipedia as contentious) There were several unique aspects of the Libertarianism topic and article which made an unusually large amount of work on the talk page both interesting and useful. One was the scope and complexity difficulty of learning the topic. Many different variants, many different meanings of terminology. Another is long term involvement ....heavy involvement starting 15 years ago and still lighter involvement/work more recently. There were huge battles back then but it turned out that the main fuel was a "Tower of Babel" situation rather than a fundamental conflict. This made it very promising (albeit complex) to solve the conflicts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Ganesha811

5. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?

A: I think I'd divide my answer into three sections. The first section is technical use of admin tools that don't exist under any of my current permissions. Each one of these is new to me and I'd learn it carefully and sufficiently before using it. I'm a technical person and would expect that that process would happen without much difficulty, but that aptitude means recognizing The second section would be potentially staying away from the area due to unfamiliarity with aspects other than tools. I have a lot of experience and understanding in Wikipedia, with much gained with 89K manual edits in diverse areas and trying to be a learning sponge all of the time, which is also how I roll in real life. Also I sort of relish rather than avoid the most complex areas. So, I don't anticipate avoiding due to areas covered under this second section. The third section would be areas that I would tend to avoid anyway. For me this would be dealing with behavorial issues of established editors. This is an area which I prefer to avoid. If I did start to inch into it, I'd start by looking for case where I could also provide some guidance / assistance in getting the individual back on track. And if some day I would get deep in that area, I would want to to it after having visibly established that I approach it while being immensely careful, thorough, objective, expert and kind (but tough when needed) in those activities. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from Conyo14

6. About the company you run, if it has a Wikipedia article (or is even mentioned) have you ever edited it or made mention to it?

A:It does not have a Wikipedia article and I never will make one. It does not meet wp:notability and even if it did for many reasons I would not want to make an article on it. I've never mentioned the name in Wikipedia and just did a search and it is not in Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

7. Could you speak about your TBan please?

A: I put my main answer under the question from TarnishedPath. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from TarnishedPath

8. Following on from question 7 by Conyo14, could you speak about your previous socking and site-ban please?

A:I’ve been an editor starting in 2009. Since then, I had a topic ban 12 years ago an a block/ban combined with some topic bans 11 years ago and then none of either since.

First, I’m going to give a one paragraph summary which many would want more details on to be credible. After that a medium length summary and an offer to develop a very large detailed summary

One paragraph summary: I’m not going to be disingenuous. I never did anything that merited even a one day block much less a longer-term broader ban/block. I was so disgusted by what happened that at first I decided to never come back but then I changed my mind. I’ve wiki-learned and wiki-evolved immensely as a result and have had no tbans or blocks since. It was also very informative to all of my wiki work, including trying to keep wrong or overly harsh things from happening to other people.

Medium length summary: First, some “background” type info. I don’t think that “truly unbiased” can even be defined for an article much achieved and I make no attempt at that. A core principle of mine is that articles should be informative, not misleading, and on matters of fact, accurate. When bias is so strong that it makes it misleading, uninformative or inaccurate, I do try to help. This degree of effort has varied. Prior to the case 12 years ago, this effort was both on the article page and it’s talk page. After the Tea Party Movement case 12 years ago, I confined any strong efforts to the talk page but that was not enough to avoid getting whacked in the case 11 years ago. After I came back after that, on wiki-contentious articles, even on the talk page I only lightly participate.

Next is a point which under any good editing is irrelevant but many will otherwise assume wrong things about. Out in the real world I have self-developed opinions about each individual topic/ area / aspect. This is not affected by, driven by or summarize-able by being on any “side”. And I make even those individual opinions irrelevant to my editing to Wikipedia. My brain works by learning, remembering and applying the “gist” of things. It’s not a tape recorder of the details that led to that. My description here is based on the “gist” of the events 11 and 12 years ago from memory, not reviewing the hundreds of thousands of words of 11–12-year-old details. I am a very strong believer and supporter of Arbcom as institution. The severe mis-fire in the case 11 years ago not-withstanding. Description Per my criteria described above, I saw what was happening at the Tea Party Movement article to be severe enough to do harm towards making the article uninformative, misleading, and outright factually wrong in one area. I actively worked to resolve those issues (both on the article page and it’s talk page). Even though it was basically a content dispute (not a behavioral issue) somebody took it to Arbcom. They basically gave all of the active involved editors (from both “sides”) a rest on the article via “no harm no foul” topic bans. This was probably a good pragmatic solution. After this I decided to play it doubly safe and confine any big activity on such articles to the talk page. I saw some issues which IMO met the above criteria at the Gun control article and the was a content dispute. I confined my activity in the contentious areas to the talk page. I MADE ONLY ONE DISPUTED EDIT TO THE ARTICLE, and that was reverting deletion of a large amount of sourced material (I believe longer-standing) on historical gun control. While there might have been some edge case behavioral issues, it was basically a content dispute but one editor mistakenly took it to Arbcom. I’m not going to be disingenuous, the sequence of events (starting with the acceptance phase) after that is the most astounding misfire I’ve ever seen at Arbcom. And, again, I’m a very strong believer and supporter of Arbcom as an institution. I saw this as the result of a combination of many factors including (in roughly decreasing order of importance)

• A very large amount of wiki-clever work by “editor X”
• Some bias on the involved topics and the totally unrelated topics that editor X was able to bring in.
• A content dispute mistakenly brought to and accepted by Arbcom. And once that happens, Arbcom has nothing for content disputes, and only a hammer (for the “nail” of behavioral issues) so the only choice is to discuss nails.
• A challenge at Arbcom is when there is a large number of editors involved, it’s not possible to give each individual the depth of research and analysis that is needed.
• A Wiki-savvy person can manipulate Wikipedia drama areas. There a zillion things involved in this skill. For example, by misusing the diff process.

In my opinion. Editor “X” was POV warrior, very Wiki-savvy, intelligent and wiki-clever, and a part of what they did was to pursue deprecation of editors which they have disputes with by mis-using Wikipedia systems. They were also very willing and able to spend a large amount of time on such efforts.

I made my first edit in 2009. At that time I made lots of newbie errors. In any area where wiki-rules are different that just good normal non-wiki behavior, in those first few months of 2009I made lots of those errors. One of those was occasionally accidentally editing while logged out, where it was very obvious that it was me editing. My internet provider was my local phone company so it was dynamic IP addresses shared by at least thousands of users. Editor X looked years back at those early times and saw the IP address(es). Then they looked back at the history of those IP addresses from before I was even an editor and saw that they had had and been blocked for some types of activity on some contentious political or culture war type articles. Some of those were in areas where I had done some editing after I became an editor but which were not the subject of the Arbcom case. Editor X put a huge, clever misleading construction together (of course with mis-use of diffs) between my work and whatever those IP editors were doing. Again, these were dynamic IP addresses of a major carrier shared by thousands of people. And they were in areas that were totally outside of the area of the Arbcom case. Astoundingly Arbcom not only let them do it but bought it. So, it was for mis-use of editing while logged out during a time period which was years before the case and prior to what was clearly when I started editing, and left the impression that that ancient behavior by other before I was even an editor was my behavior. They gave me topic bans in those areas unrelated to the case, plus the area related to the case and also a total/ban/ block. I was so disgusted with what happened that at the time I decided to never come back to Wikipedia. I thin changed my mind and was able to come back and then after that get the topic bans lifted. Despite what I described above, I wiki-learned and wiki-evolved from this immensely, and changed how I operate in many wiki areas. I gave an overview of many of these in my answer to the standard questions above. I also try to make sure that unfair stuff doesn’t happen to other editors. Between this, and being an advocate for carefulness, thoroughness, expertise and good analysis if you watch wp:ani and wp:an you may have seen me do this many times. I think that this is a big plus for an admin. Several have asked whether not bringing this up in Q3 was unresponsive (IMO it was not for that specific question) or that I should have pro-actively brought it up. Regarding the latter, for a bunch of reasons I decided to wait and the response if someone asked. One was degree of relevance. The newest block or topic ban was 11 years /about 70,000 edits ago. Also most would view the short version I gave above with some skepticism which would necessitate creating this very long medium length version which is a lot of material about 11-12 year old events. I had some time limitations …off the grid for 3 days during the nomination process and then the three days which ended this morning are the ~3 days each two years that I can see my grandkids who live overseas. So, until today I just handled shorter questions. Finally, this inevitably forces me into a a lot of difficult discussion regarding editor X which would have been better avoided if possible. IMO the above experience and evolution has for me emphasized carefulness, thoroughness, and expert review an analysis, particularly when involving an editors, all important qualities for an admin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Mox Eden

9. By "new areas", do you mean areas that you haven't explored or areas that were created recently?

A: Thanks for my easiest question! I meant areas that I do not currently work in due to not being an admin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from BusterD

10. Thank you for putting yourself forward as an administrator candidate. In what situations, if any, do you believe an administrator should invoke ignore all rules when justifying the use of advanced permissions?

A: I'm a strong supporter of WP:IAR's influence and have been active on it's talk page. Taken literally, the wording of WP:IAR includes scenarios of ignoring something that a clear cut policy clearly stipulates that is clearly applicable. IMO in practice, IAR is not used for that for even editing much less meeting the higher bar for use of admin tools. So my answer for those is "Never". IMO its common actual use is in influencing (sometimes silently or when only briefly mentioned) edge case decisions as a counterweight to wikilawyering and gaming. In those cases it is a secondary factor and would not be the a basis for meeting the higher bar of using admin tools. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

11. Since the last admin election, the community has authorized and established a recall process. How has the addition of the recall petition affected your choices when choosing to run for the mop?

A: No it has not influenced my decision at all. On a completely separate note, I have participated in discussions regarding the recall process. both during it's formation and also recently. I've said that IMO it needs some tweaks. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from CosXZ

12. How would you address a good faith editor who made a honest mistake?

A: That covers a zillion possibilities. So to narrow it down, let's say that it's one where I've made sure that it was certainly a mistake and it's a simple edit in article space that clearly should be reversed. I'd probably simply revert it and provide an edit summary like this "Thanks but..... (and explain) and make an offer to discuss it further. I've done this many times. For a second case, I like informally mentoring newbies (and have done that many times) including ones that have run into trouble while thinking that what they were doing is Wiki-OK. Usually it's because they don't understand the alternate universe of the Wikipedia ecosystem, policies and guidelines. With these I enter into more complex helpful engagements to explain the wiki-area(s) involved and what they did wrong with respect to that and try to help them resolve their issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Ahecht

13. You seem to have spent a lot of time discussing notability guidelines and our verifiability policy. How do you see the interaction between SNGs, WP:GNG, and WP:V, and, in an ideal world, what changes would you like to see in how Wikipedia determines article inclusion?

A: Thanks for the question on some of my favorite topics. Where I could spend a year writing a whole book with the responses. Regarding close relationships between top level policies and guidelines wp:ver and wp:nor have a large amount of relationships and overlap between them, and I'd put WP:Notability (I said it that way rather then WP:GNG, the SNG's and WP:Not in a separate interaction group, with a lot of interaction between them.

Regarding WP:Ver, IMO it would be better if emphasis and wording were shifted to follow the actual practice at WP:RSN regarding individual content questions. Including it's emphasis that everything is context-specific. More specifically to highlight that:

• More controversial, and incredulous and questioned statements require stronger sourcing and vice versa
• The metrics for strength of a source is it's established objectivity and expertise with respect to the text which cited it.so it is context specific, and a matter of degree.

Regarding WP:Notability (the topic, not just the page) IMO I think I've figured out the grand unification view of how it actually works. The explicit official interaction statements (between the main policies and guidelines) are in the top half of the Wp:notability guideline. it includes Wikipedia's meta statement of the main criteria for existence as a separate article which includes compliance with WP:Not and meeting either GNG (the bottom half of that page) or an official SNG. Regarding how the Wikipedia notability ecosystem works, I believe that I have described it at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. One of the main tenets there is that the degree of enclyclopedicnes weighs in on notability decisions. Wikipedia Notability works pretty well, albeit few can fully understand it or clearly explain it or acknowledge it. Which in turn, prevents progress in the few areas where it doesn't work well. So I would not like to see fundamental changes but rather acknowledgement, knowledge. and communications of how it actually works. Step 1 would be to create a new class of pages. Right now the main ones are just policies, guidelines, or being one of a zillion essays. We need a new class which is a small amount of highly vetted information pages. These would be couches as observational rather than dictating anything. And I would make the abov3e linked page one of them. This knowledge and acknowledgement would enable / lead to numerous smaller changes and evolutions in the SNG's to help on currently unsolved problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from Rutebega

14. One thing I've noticed in a number of your comments and edit summaries is a request for "strong sourcing." I'm hoping you can explain what this term means to you and how you might apply the concept as a closing admin. For example, are statements like these ( ) questionable based on "weak sourcing" as you understand it, or did you object on other grounds, like WP:NPOV?

A: There are many things in policies and guidelines that relate to this, some some them interpret-able in opposite directions for a given situation. The main principle which I had in mind in the example that you gave (and others like it) is that the more extraordinary and controversial/ questionable a statement in Wikipedia is, the stronger the required sourcing. And doubly so for a BLP. And vice versa. These are my comments trying to help as an editor, usually when summoned by a bot. As a closing admin (which implies an RFC) I would not be applying those principles.....that would be a supervote. I would be closing based on the responses to the RFC. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

15. You have expressed skepticism of sources that you characterize as "political opponents" of a person or organization (see ). I'm wondering how you conceive the proper role for these kinds of sources. Is an "unbiased" source always required for establishing the relevance/notability of a fact or allegation? Or is there another test you would use to decide when it is acceptable to include information from a source not aligned politically with the subject?

A: Thanks for that question. If I may start by separating out two items, and then move on to what I think in the main question. One is to clarify that wp:notability relates to existence of a separate article on a topic and then there the sourcing requirements vary with the topic (via the various SNG's) with Wp:GNG being the the gold standard. For most of them independence (from the article subject) is required in the wp:notability-establishing sources but not being unbiased. The other meaning or real-world "notability" is wp:weight related and is covered in my following answer to your main question. The third small item is that while I'm an advocate of including degree of relevance in content inclusion decisions (I created WP:Relevance out of a redirect), there is unfortunately no specific relevance requirement that needs to be met.

Going from there, on to which I believe is your main question. While admin actions really don't involve interpreting whether sources meet those criteria, let's say that I was informing somebody on what the policies and guidlines have to say about that. My answer would be that they do not require unbiased sources and that biased sources are explicitly permitted to establish meeting those criteria.

As an editor helping make editorial inclusion/exclusion decisions at an article, I advocate that the strength of a source is measured by the established objectivity and expertise with respect to the text which cited it. And extraordinary, incredulous and controversial claims should get stronger sourcing to be included and vice versa. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Just one point of clarification if you don't mind, are you saying that your contributions "as an editor" are not reflective of how you will behave as an admin? —Rutebega (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy to. To try to use a bit of a metaphor, the policies and guidelines are like the guardrails and driving withing within those guardrails is editors discretion operating to create quality informative articles. So discussing and administering the guardrails (my admin answer) is a completely different task than driving a car within the guardrails (my "as an editor" answer). The guardrails do not require an unbiased source but a driver might prefer sources with less bias as a way to create more informative article content. Happy to answer further if that would be helpful. North8000 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from Grorp

16. How might you deal with editors who are causing disruption due to advocacy/ownership behaviors?

A: First, if I were an admin just landing there or was approached with the above description, the first step would be to thoroughly learn and evaluate the situation. Lets say that after that it proved to be the situation and significant. Although ownership is a description of the overall situation and a driver for other improper actions, that actual "offenses" in situations like would be other things....disruption as you noted, and probably some other things such as edit warring, failure to discuss etc.. If all of the above was the case, I'd start out with a discussion with the person. If it persisted, then a warning, and then if it persisted further gradual escalation after that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

17. How might you deal with editors with fixed ideas who refuse to conform to established consensus?

A:That would be a brief general description of the situation. It could describe anything from some very benign things on the talk page to severe policy violations. I were an admin just landing there or was approached with the above description, the first step would be to thoroughly learn and evaluate the situation. Plus to ask the initiator who gave that description for more specifics. Lets presume that the specifics turned out to include some significant policy violation. For example, editing clearly against the results of a recent RFC. I'd start out with a discussion with the person. If it persisted, then a warning, and then if it persisted further gradual escalation after that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Carrite

18. What is your perspective on Artificial Intelligence (AI) as it relates to Wikipedia?

A:I think that it has the potential to do both harm and good for Wikipedia. Right now my list of "harm" is bigger than my list of "good" but I don't yet have an overall opinion. It's pretty safe to say that disclosure of AI use would help the overall situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Let'srun

19. How would you handle a situation where a user accused you in good faith of being WP:INVOLVED?

A:If they haven't already given the specifics of their basis for saying that I would ask them to do so. I would then read that, ponder it and then respond. If it appeared to be totally without basis, I would tell them my opinion in a friendly was and invite them to take it to Administrative Action Review if they felt otherwise. For such an important rule I don't think that I would ever make a blatant violation. But I've seen edge case and accidental edge case situation. For example, closing an RFC where a few years back they weighed in on that topic. For those situations I would either reverse my action and leave it for another admin to handle or ask for my own action to be reviewed at Administrative Action Review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

20. Your history includes a one-year site ban, which was successfully appealed. Can you explain what factors of temperament contributed to that ban, and how your learning from the experience has contributed to your qualification to be an administrator?

A.I put my main answer to this (which was asked in several places) underneath TarnishedPath's question. Let me know if you'd like further information or clarification.Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

21. Your discussion of previous conflicts over editing in Q3 does not include the conflict that led to the site ban. Is there a reason why you have chosen not to include that in your response to Q3?

A.For this one too I put my main answer underneath TarnishedPath's question. Let me know if you'd like further information or clarification. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Aaron Liu

22. You mentioned WP:FramBan in your Q3 response, and unfortunately I didn't understand the following sentences well. Could you clarify how you dealt with this situation involving conflicts with other editors?

A:I intended it as being an illustrative example in my answer to "cause me stress" and not under "conflicts with other editors." I saw the move (from a process view) as a major threat to Wikipedia and that caused me stress even though I had no involvement and no conflict with other editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

23. Hot topic: Below, multiple participants express concern over the characterization of your past sanctions as the products of "weaponization". Would you like to clarify what you meant by that?

Several have asked regarding that particular case..to cover it somewhat in depth and avoid repetition, I put the overall answer as a response to TarnishedPath's question. On my general intended meaning for the term, I see "weaponization" as mis-use of Wikipedia systems to "get" other editors to serve purposes rather than to solve the ostensible problem. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Gamaliel

24. In 2012, a now-inactive administrator considered topic banning you and another user (now inactive after being topic banned from US politics by ArbCom) for battleground behavior and personal attacks in a charged conflict over a then-current US political topic. Your pointy response was to propose desysoping this administrator. Now 2012 is a long time ago, and we've all changed and grown since then. What is your current reflection on your behavior in those editing conflicts and interactions with this administrator? How have you changed as an editor since then and how does that make you qualified to be an administrator? What would you do now if you were that administrator you proposed desysoping and were faced today with that behavior you exhibited then?

A:I wanted to answer this one quickly because respectfully the wording of the question leaves a couple of wrong impressions. My post that you linked was a response to a group of 9 topic ban proposals,with mine being 7 proposals back within that group and so my response was not specifically to the proposal regarding me. I did not support any of the 9; even for the 2 editors who I felt had the most issues I just said to issue a warning instead. I thought that with my "As long as we're getting crazy, this is not any wilder than the other stuff proposed" I had self-identified my proposal as absurd or absurd overkill (and so not serious) and as a being a way to shift the conversation and make a statement about many of the 9 proposals were in that same category.

Regarding the editing conflicts, I will address this situation in more detail in my answer to the big question. The same where I'll expand on a different approach already described in my answer to Q3. I short, I no longer get that deep in on trying to fix articles with that type of issues/situation which I was trying to work on with the TPM. The first step in this transition happened 12 years ago when I confined any big activity on those to the talk page. Now I don't get that deep in on these even on the talk page. So now, the subject conversation regarding me would have never happened. Now for a answer to the rest of your question. There are many many things in the 12 year old exchange that I would not do now:

• Regarding that admin, I never had any acrimonious interaction. They are a nice person. I think that they handled several things badly and that it was probably and edge case regarding being involved. Even more edge case because their role was really using the admin imprimatur rather than the tools. I think that they made a good faith effort to handle this. Now I would have had a better understanding of all of these things vs. being a semi-newbie under attack at the time. Now I would have opened up a friendly dialog with them to both work through this and have the fun of developing another wiki-friend.
• I would not use such a hyperbolic conversational tactic in any serious discussion.
• I would not use such a strong proposal (even if self declared as being absurd) that had an individual as it's subject unless it was rock-solid serious and justified.
• I would never be as conversationally wild in any discussion on any serious matter.
• I'm able to see things structurally, can write structurally, and often rely on people doing the same to interpret what I write (as I did in this case). This is poor communication on my part, an issue I'm still working on. I've improved on that but am still working on it. And example is my Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works which started out as an abstract structural analysis and now been evolving it to better explain / communicate.
• My arguments would have been much more detailed. Probably starting with asking for a specific justification for the proposed actions.

Now for your "if I were in their shoes" question; I (as that admin) would have suspected that it was not a serious proposal and then asked me to clarify whether or not is was a serious proposal. If my (North's) answer was "no" (which it would have been, and I would have added an apology) I would have asked me to explicitly state that and after I did that, I'd consider that to be settled. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Huggums537

25. How has your past experience and growth from the previously discussed past restrictions which you've personally overcome given you a uniquely qualified perspective on restrictive policies considering your tendency to help others avoid being treated overly critically, harshly, or unfairly and what role, if any, do you plan to play in the molding of future restrictive policies and/or blocking decisions? Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 18:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

A:

Optional question from Dclemens1971

26. National Beach Soccer League appears to consist almost entirely of LLM-generated text, was produced by an editor who has racked up numerous warnings for creating pages using LLMs, includes close paraphrasing from the subject's own website, and has precisely zero independent sources. Can you describe your thought process in marking the page as reviewed with a comment "nice work"? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and happy to. In some cases I need to include the "rationale for the rationale" and so this will be a bit long and I'll probably answer it in stages with multiple posts. I'll sign the overall post when done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've done several thousand NPP reviews and don't remember this one specifically but answering as if first saw it today I think is a good description of what I would have done/ did then.

First I'd like to give the rationale for three other rationales. Restating the obvious in a different way, Wikipedia has a process which reviews screens new articles to decide whether or not an article on that topic is allowed to exist in Wikipedia. New Page Patrol's core mission is to keep that process functional and in place by doing reviews for that criteria. Without this Wikipedia would be flooded into uselessness by billions of advertisements, resume/CV's and other unsuitable articles and "articles". Keeping this process functioning is the ONE job that only NPP can do. There is a danger of that process going away/collapsing. NPP's current backlog (not counting redirects) is at over 14,000 articles and rising. Every other article problem is NOT unique to new articles, and something that the other zillion editors can also handle. There are practical time constraints that are a necessary part of this effort. NPP is dependent on it's short list of then-active reviewers to each get many article per day reviewed is their available Wiki-minutes. So when I'm in active NPP mode, I strive to do my part in that. The three rationales that derive from this rationale are:

• I do review only for "whether or not an article on that topic is allowed to exist in Wikipedia" and not some of the other issues which you listed. And in this case that main question is wp:notability
• There are time constraints on my review process. I take plenty of time to review what is actually in the article. In this case time constraints come into play regarding in-depth review of sources I find in my search for other sources not included in the article. Instead I'd make a quick assessment against community norms for this type of article.
• Both for time constraints and also relevancy, I would not look into the background of the page creator for things like warnings which you describe. I do see and look at what is shown in the curation software which would include current blocks.

(ec with followup question) A quick assessment leads to seeing that wp:notability in the main question in this case. And for a sports article, the current prima facie standard for this is GNG. I always try to learn and follow the community norms. Since I'd guess that ~95% of sports articles don't meet a strict application of GNG if you include only sources present in the article (and I'd guess that that drops to ~80% if you include non-present sources) this process is a necessity. I've written an observation of the structure of this at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and also note that at AFD, for a multitude of reasons, and as I have learned the hard way, the de-facto application standard for sports articles is even lower. After doing a look at the included sources, and since the GNG standard is the existence of suitable sources, not the presence of them, I do a search for other sources and a general assessment of the attributes, scope and visibility of the topic. I find some sources which appear likely to meet the community interpretation. I also see that it is an organization which has been in existence for 6 years and is widely referred to in it's field. And that it is an inherently broader topic. Whether an edge case or over the bar, I mark it as reviewed. Since Wikipedia can be a rough place for creators, on this I like to leak a quick positive note for them (which also gets to their talk page). Some common ones might be "thanks for your work", "nice work" or "good start". The latter is intended as just one of these and not an assessment of the article. In hindsight I probably would have been more likely to use "good start" because the article needs a lot of work (including addition of sources). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Followup question: Since the sources in the article are not independent, what sources did you rely on to determine that the subject met an appropriate notability guideline? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict; your followup question came before I completed my response to the question. The completion of my response describes my process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the full response! Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)