User talk:TheNewMinistry

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

TheNewMinistry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A block was initially issued by User:Daniel Case due to a false COI allegation that I was connected to Buffalo ReUse upon my creation of its page. Since that time, the co-founder of Buffalo ReUse User:Kevin Hayes confirmed I am not tied to the organization and did not author the page on their behalf. Admin User:Star Mississippi then suggested I appeal to an uninvolved administrator to have my block lifted. Before I could do that, User:GPL93 (who I've had problems with in the past with Wikipedia:hounding) moved a new article I created (Erie County Democratic Committee) to draftspace and had Daniel Case block me from the article, citing the disproven COI allegation. There is currently a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard I opened to look into GPL93's conduct. Looking forward to moving past this - thank you for your time! TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=A block was initially issued by [[User:Daniel Case]] due to a false COI allegation that I was connected to [[Buffalo ReUse]] upon my creation of its page. Since that time, the co-founder of Buffalo ReUse [[User:Kevin Hayes]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294761429 confirmed I am not tied to the organization and did not author the page on their behalf]. Admin [[User:Star Mississippi]] then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294823153 suggested I appeal to an uninvolved administrator to have my block lifted]. Before I could do that, [[User:GPL93]] (who I've had problems with in the past with [[Wikipedia:hounding]]) moved a new article I created ([[Erie County Democratic Committee]]) to draftspace and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296311446 had Daniel Case block me from the article], citing the disproven COI allegation. There is currently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive372#h-Request_for_unblocks,_and_GPL93_page_mover_abuse-20250619142000 a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard I opened] to look into GPL93's conduct. Looking forward to moving past this - thank you for your time!  [[User:TheNewMinistry|TheNewMinistry]] ([[User talk:TheNewMinistry#top|talk]]) 03:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=A block was initially issued by [[User:Daniel Case]] due to a false COI allegation that I was connected to [[Buffalo ReUse]] upon my creation of its page. Since that time, the co-founder of Buffalo ReUse [[User:Kevin Hayes]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294761429 confirmed I am not tied to the organization and did not author the page on their behalf]. Admin [[User:Star Mississippi]] then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294823153 suggested I appeal to an uninvolved administrator to have my block lifted]. Before I could do that, [[User:GPL93]] (who I've had problems with in the past with [[Wikipedia:hounding]]) moved a new article I created ([[Erie County Democratic Committee]]) to draftspace and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296311446 had Daniel Case block me from the article], citing the disproven COI allegation. There is currently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive372#h-Request_for_unblocks,_and_GPL93_page_mover_abuse-20250619142000 a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard I opened] to look into GPL93's conduct. Looking forward to moving past this - thank you for your time!  [[User:TheNewMinistry|TheNewMinistry]] ([[User talk:TheNewMinistry#top|talk]]) 03:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=A block was initially issued by [[User:Daniel Case]] due to a false COI allegation that I was connected to [[Buffalo ReUse]] upon my creation of its page. Since that time, the co-founder of Buffalo ReUse [[User:Kevin Hayes]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294761429 confirmed I am not tied to the organization and did not author the page on their behalf]. Admin [[User:Star Mississippi]] then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_ReUse&diff=prev&oldid=1294823153 suggested I appeal to an uninvolved administrator to have my block lifted]. Before I could do that, [[User:GPL93]] (who I've had problems with in the past with [[Wikipedia:hounding]]) moved a new article I created ([[Erie County Democratic Committee]]) to draftspace and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296311446 had Daniel Case block me from the article], citing the disproven COI allegation. There is currently [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive372#h-Request_for_unblocks,_and_GPL93_page_mover_abuse-20250619142000 a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard I opened] to look into GPL93's conduct. Looking forward to moving past this - thank you for your time!  [[User:TheNewMinistry|TheNewMinistry]] ([[User talk:TheNewMinistry#top|talk]]) 03:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The editor has continually POV-pushed shaky corruption theories and accused other editors of being part of them for simply nominating and for someone who generally fails notability criteria for deletion. They have taken me to ANI over this but they also have proven multiple times to not be able to edit objectively over these topics. Best,GPL93 (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93 literally asked me to take him to ANI if I felt his Wikipedia:Hounding problematic. He refused to correct his behavior, and this is what he wanted. It's unfortunate that it had to come to this. TheNewMinistry (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also oppose lifting this block. As I pointed out in the ANI thread, TheNewMinistry repeatedly cited a source for negative content regarding a living person (Jeremy Zellner) in the Erie County Democratic Committee article, despite the source [1] making no mention whatsoever of the individual. This is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. There are clearly other issues with the section on Zellner (starting with the section title), but due to inaccessibility of sources, I've not been able to check it fully. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, Are you sure they didn't just use the wrong URL link? Because this article from the same source and by the same author does directly address and state the information that was used in the article. Silver seren^C 15:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the log still shows my block in place, but that's just weird syntax as it's technically Daniel's that I left pending a TP discussion (mine, Daniel's). I removed the AfD block as moot. As I noted at AN, and the COIN, I recuse from this as admin due to being closer of a different contested AfD and am fine with any action here. Star Mississippi 14:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are successful in your unblock request, do you plan on returning to those articles and editing them? Do you acknowledge there were BLP violations issues raised in regards to the edits you made to the Erie County Democratic Committee article? And if so, can you describe how in the future you will avoid making those same mistakes, when it comes to potential edits about living persons in any article you edit? Thanks in advance if you choose to answer these questions. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have acknowledged in the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion, I intended to rewrite the section on Zellner for BLP reasons, as a couple of the sentences attributed the committee's actions to Zellner himself when they should have been attributed to the committee as a whole. I stand by the sourcing, as The Buffalo News is the city's newspaper of record and has been for over a century. Its website is unfortunately paywalled, but AndyTheGrump and others could easily use 12ft or a similar site to remove the paywalls and verify the content. His technical issues accessing the website of WGRZ-TV are not my concern. I would absolutely be more cautious as to introducing BLP content into the Erie County Democratic Committee article in the future - I firmly believe the past 13 years of the organization should be acknowledged, but that seems like a discussion better suited for the article's talk page. Buffalo ReUse as I authored it, and before it was vandalized by anonymous IP's and page-protected was much, much longer. ScottishFinnishRadish was nice enough to restore most of my deleted content this morning. I'm content with both articles in their current state, but am wary of the anonymous IP's and/or GPL93 trying to remove their content in the future. It should be noted that I was only blocked from Buffalo ReUse after asking Daniel Case for page-protection, which he denied, and then blocked me from editing instead. And after that, the vandalism I was trying to prevent became a major issue. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that TheNewMinistry is continuing to spread conspiracy theories about me because I nominated their page for deletion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Erie County Democratic Committee article is currently the subject of discussion elsewhere, and alerting the group over at the Administrators' Noticeboard that you nominated it for deletion is relevant given your name being brought up by another user (not myself). Factual information is never conspiratorial. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]