Talk:Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992)

Untitled

1) I am about to make some grammatical edits. The current text has such poor grammar it looks like a possible machine translation from another language. Someone might want to research copyright questions.

2) Revolutionary Communist Party (UK) is distinct from the contemporary party of that name and the article should make that clearer. -- Jmabel 10:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the reference clarifying that "Revolutionary Communist Party" is not the contemporary RCP founded by Bob Avakian. They are small, but reasonably well known in left circles, and a reference in a contemporary document to the "Revolutionary Communist Party" without this qualification would be reasonably be presumed to refer to them (it's what I thought when I read an earlier version of this article and wondered why they were being described as Trotskyist. That's what got me to start editing this article in the first place.) Our article on them is at Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, but they are not specifically a US party: I met people from the UK chapter in the Nineties, at a broad-left conference here in Seattle. They put out a magazine called Living Marxism which, I gather, folded after a lawsuit. -- Jmabel 22:35, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:Warofdreams now informs me that the Living Marxism folks and Bob Avakian's organization were actually separate from one another, two unrelated RCPs besides the precursor to the Militant Tendency, not one. -- Jmabel 19:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

• (cur) (last) . . 13:22, 20 Feb 2004 . . Jmabel (revert to last version by Warofdreams: an anon removed content without any explanation. I'm restoring; discussion welcome. Deletions need justifications.)
  
• (cur) (last) . . 07:40, 20 Feb 2004 . . 81.138.53.73
  
• (cur) (last) . . M 05:27, 8 Feb 2004 . . Warofdreams
  

If this had been an edit by a named contributor, I'd just have asked for explanation instead of reverting. (I'll try the IP's talk page, for what it may be worth) A few phrases were deleted. The deletion might have been a removal of bad information (I'm not expert on the Socialist Appeal group), but it certainly needs an explanation and some indication of what sources say the previous apparently reasonable information is wrong. -- Jmabel 21:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

founder and theoretical leader

Just to make clear that the Militant was founded by a committee led by Jimmy Deane, and not even Grant's selected works suggests he was the founder. In addition, from a purely NPOV, although Grant's role after the second world war was important, and whilst the Militant regularly lionised Grant practically until the split, (who did not object - indeed, he ocassionally modestly pointed out his role), theory in the growing Tendency was developed in discussion on the various bodies of the Militant Tendency. The expulsion claim is also disputed and not documented. I broke up the big para.

I think also the para begining "The split was due to ..." can go. the only thing its adds is that the Majority dispute the expusion claim, which I added, but it is not important.

Andysoh 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a newspaper?

This article seems to put the socialist appeal as a newspaper first, when, having read their website, it seems to be a political organisation first and foremost that also publishes a newspaper. Rewording needed? Jamzze (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The Political organisation is organised around the newspaper rather than being an organisation that happens to publish a newspaper Z.Dearg (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Name Change?

The party seems to have renamed itself to Revolutionary Communist Party. The title of the article should in some way reflect this? 2.30.180.253 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

it hasn't done so just yet. I believe this was planned to be done in May? Genabab (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please decide if this is a new party or simply Socialist Appeal 2.0

I've gone through and drastically reduced the article's contents, as it was little more than copy-pasting from the Socialist Appeal article. If this article's focus is so indistinguishable from the former organisation than the question needs to be asked if the new "party" is notable enough to have its own article afresh or if it's better to simply retool the Socialist Appeal article itself with simply the section about its namechange. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

agreed, I see no reason for the new article. As far as I can tell, this is just a rebranding. RedAuburn (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s worth having this page. SA was an organisation, not a political party, whereas this is a party. It’s an important distinguish that one was a political organisation whereas this is a party. Helper201 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 I don't disagree there is a difference between the two concepts. But the question needs to be if there's enough new notable information to justify this article, or if it's better to "move" the Socialist Appeal article to the title of the new party and then add anything post-refounding as a new section of that article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need for a new article. and stop deleting valuable Information Splits 'n' Fusions (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not deleting "valuable information", it is preventing duplication of the Socialist Appeal, which goes against wikipedia guidelines. If people want this article to cover Socialist Appeal, then it's appropriate to instead merge the two. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You are deleting history part. because it tells the same story, go delete then half of the history part on Russia article because it tells the the story about ussr and russian empire. we need to restore it. and stop deleting it UnixBased (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am deleting it because it's a word for word duplicate of another article, which goes against guidelines. Comparing this situation to that of a summary of a nation that is nowhere near identical of a more detailed "history of Russia" one is ridiculous and you know it.

In fact this entire problem exists because of your actions, given originally the Socialist Appeal article was moved to the new name meaning there was no duplication only for you to go back, remove the redirect, and restore the old page.[1] Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

They're clearly the same organisation.

It's the same reason SWP and the International Socialists are one article, for an example.

I'm sure there are other examples of organisations renaming themselves that didn't get a new article. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:38DC:DB59:FE30:E6A5 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I can say with some inside knowledge of the party that the members and leaders generally consider it just a rebranding.

To my understanding, party announcements use the phrase "launching a new party" because the RCP is intended to be registered as an electoral party and participate in elections and such, as opposed to Socialist Appeal which was a newspaper and a section of the IMT.

Article by the international using a description more in-line with the continuation interpretation:

https://www.marxist.com/britain-revolution-festival-2023-the-communists-are-coming.htm#:~:text=For%20this%20reason%2C%20Rob,the%20Revolutionary%20Communist%20Party.

If the notoriety of the RCP far surpasses that of socialist appeal in the coming years, it will be most fitting to rename the original socialist appeal page to RCP and then have in the page a mention of when the name swap happened. But those are just my thoughts. Jojobigbobo (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Over reliance on first party sources

it looks like almost every single source here comes from the IMT or from Socialist Appeal itself. Surely this goes against Wikipedia's standards. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6129:FB9A:B0EF:B0C5 (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The party relaunching is something that would be hard to find coverage about from the BBC or some big source. I believe I've seen statements by other communist parties (like the CPGBML) that noted the change and proceeded to criticize the party, but I'm not sure if that's really raising the bar for sourcing standards. Jojobigbobo (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's standards but if the only sources for a political party's existence come from the party itself does it even warrant a Wikipedia page? 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6129:FB9A:B0EF:B0C5 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

like, if we allow this degree of first-party sources then at what point does wikipedis go from an encyclopedia to a directory of Trotskyist parties? 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6129:FB9A:B0EF:B0C5 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You can propose that the articles be merged. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Should Socialist Appeal (Britain) be merged into this article? Why or why not? Wellington Bay (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This article appears to have been initially "moved" from Socialist Appeal. A now blocked user then recreated the old article meaning we have one for each. Given that RCP is a merging of SA and another group I think the current situation is probably the best for now. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If there was a merger than I'd agree but there is nothing in the article about this. What is the group that SA merged with? Wellington Bay (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"The party was founded out of predecessor organisations, Socialist Appeal and Revolution, in 2024."

It's in the lead, and on the subject's website. It's a combination of two IMT groups/publications to form a political party. It's a notable enough shift to warrant its own article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What is/was Revolution? The Scottish section? Something else? Is there a link about this? Wellington Bay (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Revolution wasn't a separate organisation it was just Socialist Appeal's Scottish newspaper. According to the Socialist Appeal (Britain) article: "Following the Scottish independence referendum in which Scots voted to retain the union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the International Marxist Tendency launched a separate Scottish periodical called Revolution, which analyses events in Scotland, and puts forward a Marxist position in relation to the Scottish independence movement. Revolution's masthead carries the slogan "For a Scottish workers' republic and world socialist revolution!"" - so if there's a merger it's only a merger of the two publications but not of two separate organisations.

I can't find any reference on any IMT website about the RCP being a "merger" of two organisations. Unless there is one calling this a merger is original research. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"so if there's a merger it's only a merger of the two publications but not of two separate organisations."

Whether it's a merger of two organisations or two publications, or one organisation and an until then distinct publication, it's still unique enough to justify a new article. There is no source present to confirm that Revolution was a part of Socialist Appeal, only that both were separate members of IMT (it is common for there to be separate organisations between England & Wales and Scotland).

"I can't find any reference on any IMT website about the RCP being a "merger" of two organisations."

You yourself found one for Socialist Appeal and then used it to suggest Revolution was a part of them funnily enough:

"The new paper sees a merging of the forces around Socialist Appeal in England and Wales with those of Revolution in Scotland, in the fight for the overthrow of capitalism across these islands and worldwide."[2]

That right there is an explicit existing separation between the two groups/organisations/newspapers/whatever-term-you-find-apt Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"There is no source present to confirm that Revolution was a part of Socialist Appeal, only that both were separate members of IMT" and there is no source for them being separate organisations - particularly as the Socialist Appeal article has always been titled Socialist Appeal (Britain) rather than "Socialist Appeal (England & Wales). Wellington Bay (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There's literally the quote above and I've re-instered that it's a merger with new sources to add confirmation. It doesn't matter what Socialist Appeal was titled, there is evidence it is two groups. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The IMT is opposed to Scottish independence the same way they are opposed to Quebec independence. Hence, even though they have or had Quebec and Scottish publications Scottish members of the IMT were members of Socialist Appeal and Quebecois IMT members were members of the Canadian Fightback group. But we are getting into the weeds and even though this actually is how the groups functioned internally this has been obfuscated in their literature so there's little point in my arguing it since barring the group becoming significant and attracting scholarly or journalistic study what I'm saying can't be verified by published citations - so I'll agree to the pretense that these were separate organisations. But for clarity the article should say these were the English/Welsh and Scottish entities respectively. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly Socialist Appeal's geographic boundaries aren't clear. It wouldn't exactly be out of step with the mess that is far-left organising for there to be an all-Britain group like SA and then a Scotland only organisation/publication/two people in a house somewhere group called Revolution. For now it's best to just leave specificity in the body that Revolution is a Scotland only group (as that's clear) and leave Socialist Appeal vague.

And frankly the geographic specificity doesn't matter too much, you did (without discussion) move this page to "(UK, 2024)" from "(Britain)" even though IMT support Irish Unification and Northern Ireland was therefore part of the IMT Ireland group (Irish Marxists IIRC). Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you check this page's history you'll see someone initially moved Socialist Appeal (Britain) to Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) but that was reversed as premature. It was later moved to Revolutionary Communist Party (Britain) presumably because a non-admin couldn't move it to Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) since that was now a redirect. Someone then subsequently recreated the Socialist Appeal (Britain) article post-move (which really shouldn't have been done without a discusion). I requested a move from Revolutionary Communist Party (Britain) to Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) for the sake of consistency with the articles on previous organisations with the same name. If you wish to move it to Revolutionary Communist Party (Britain) you can put in a move request. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay This page clearly serves a purpose.

Socialist Appeal was an entryist group within the Labour party, synonymous with the newspaper of the same name.

the RCP is an open political party with a noticeably different political identity. the two groups employ different methods.

The Revolutionary Communist Party will also see the merging together of the forces previously organised around the paper Revolution Scotland (revolution.scot) and the forces previously around SA. it's a different entity.

the content of the two pages is also different. one deals thoroughly with the history of the Militant split etc, whereas this one is mostly about the party's very recent history.

I think a merger of the pages will only confuse people. Tedgrant1917 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That being the case, can I ask why you changed the name of the Socialist Appeal article and usurped it into an RCP article, instead of just creating a new article off the bat for RCP when - as you say - "the RCP is an open political party with a noticeably different political identity"?

The edit history of these articles is an absolute disaster zone.Hemmers (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmers because I'm not a wiki nerd and I don't understand all this procedural bs haha. it's not that deep Tedgrant1917 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tedgrant1917 Not sure the procedure is that deep. If you want to create an article about a new organisation then that's what you do. You don't repurpose an existing article for a sort-of-historically-related organisation/publication and then rebrand it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . You can have an article for the old thing and also the new thing without having to overwrite the old thing. EDIT: It would also be helpful if you could create your user page and declare your connection to RCP for transparency, since you appear to have a connection to the organisation, which would would present a Conflict of Interest (for which we nerds also have a policy). Hemmers (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2024

Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992) → Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) – I think it's time. Charles Essie (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I attempted moving this earlier but it got reverted because of the previous AfD, that as far as I can tell only existed because someone tried to awkwardly split Socialist Appeal and RCP into separate pages. As it stands it seems the only reason its "controversial" is because of that awkward AfD'd attempt, otherwise keeping the title as "Socialist Appeal" is literally just forcing this page to be outdated for no good reason. Iostn (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a bit more than that. The AfD did not exist because "someone tried to awkwardly split Socialist Appeal and RCP into separate pages.".

What someone did was flatten (blank) this page including all historical references, rewrite the entire article about RCP so that it read like a press release (WP:PROMO) and then moved the article to RCP - probably because they knew a new RCP article would not pass NPP (lack of notability). This involved the removal of many citations and was basically gross vandalism. Another user then grabbed the previous SA article from the last unadulterated version and recreated it (but of course this was a "new" article and the entire SA edit history was buried under the RCP article).

The AfD basically unwound this blatant promotional attempt (by users who seem to have undeclared COI) and reinstated the long-standing SA article. It's probably worth remembering that until December 2022, the article was actually about the newspaper, not the party (or loose organisation of people surrounding the paper). So... y'know, there's a bit of a schizophrenia thing going on where it can't decide what it should be.

So there's a question really of whether the new RCP is in fact a rebrand or a new organisation claiming a spiritual continuation... in which case, they would definitely be in a new article.

Since the rewind, the article has continued to be usurped in service of the relaunch/rebrand/whatever it is. The general consensus was that Socialist Appeal is historically notable enough that it deserves it's own article. The relaunch may be different enough that the two entities are not really the same - therefore if RCP is deemed notable, it would get it's own article. Not just obliterate the SA article.

This is actually somewhat backed up by an edit comment from TedGrant1917 in 30 January 2024 "Reverting back to a previous version. Contrary to what user 'UnixBased' claims, the organisation 'socialist appeal' no longer exists as far as the group's website and social media suggest. Continuing to call the group Socialist Appeal can only serve to confuse the public."

If Socialist Appeal no longer exists, then the page should be tidied up and effectively parked. If a successor organistaion (like RCP) gains notability then it can have it's own article. Hemmers (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that the RCP has gained notability. It has featured in the national press and television multiple times in the past month. MauriceDumighan (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of whether or not the RCP is a replacement of rebranded party, both organisations are notable enough to have separate articles - the RCP having been founded in 2024. Alexaxton (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That may well be the case - it certainly wasn't when the AfD was being discussed and the article had effectively been replaced with the "About Us" page from their website, supported by 90% primary sources amidst talk of "will be launched at an upcoming congress"! As I mention - lots of edits from seemingly involved and COI contributors.

As you say, if there is now notability then they should have their own article. Albeit a couple of month's coverage following launch is a bit tenuous under WP:LAGGING. Are they actually notable yet?

The key point however, is that under no circumstances should THIS PAGE be moved. The AfD established WP:consensus on this point. If RCP has notability then make a new article for it.Hemmers (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Charles Essie agreed, this should happen now Tedgrant1917 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Charles Essie I am indifferent as to whether a separate RCP article is created or not. I think there's quite clear continuity between SA and RCP to warrant a single article with a shared history. but either way, its obvious that this page needs to be moved to Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) MauriceDumighan (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This article should be renamed, but not with (UK,2024) in the title as the organisation does not cover Northern Ireland. The party's paper, The Communist, (Issue 8, 15 May 2024) in "What we fight for" (page 2) says " We fight for world revolution: for a Socialist Federation of Britain, linked to a Socialist United States of Europe and a World Socialist Federation, in order to plan resources internationally for the benefit of all." The party therefore covers Britain but not the United Kingdom - which would also include Northern Ireland. Meanwhile the relevant Irish publication of the IMT is Marxist Voice. It's autumn/winter2023 issue stated on page 3 "The fight for a united Ireland is the fight for the socialist revolution. Those Irish comrades have now formed the Revolutionary Communists of Ireland: https://www.marxist.com/revolutionary-communists-of-ireland-hold-founding-congress.htm So the Socialist Appeal article should be renamed to Revolutionary Communist Party (Britain, 2024). Hewer7 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Charles Essie (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 agreedz this sounds fine to me MauriceDumighan (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your position on a separate article for the RCP? Charles Essie (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Charles Essie I don't mind either way. I think you could argue that there's enough continuity to warrant a single article, but at the same time the organisations are somewhat distinct. my main concern is that the current article title is unfit for purpose and needs to reflect the new name asap MauriceDumighan (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I was previously in favour of having two articles, one for Socialist Appeal, another for RCP. But looking at WP:PAGEDECIDE, and as including text about the organisation's history would help readers to understand the organisation, I think it may be better to just have one article, at least for now. Hewer7 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The groups Socialist Appeal already barely met the notability guidelines as set out on Wikipedia to begin with. Given the frankly confused (and in my view deliberately obfuscating) set up of the IMT as an organisation it's been hard to establish whether this is simply a rebranding exercise, a change of function, a merger of multiple GB-based IMT groups, or just Alan Woods in his shed.

This "Revolutionary Communist Party" should be required to meet the GNG on its own merits, which at present it very much doesn't given the basically non-existent coverage in RS.

This article, should be effectively left to only cover the events up until the RCP founding conference, and beyond that I am considering that the page protection be increased because this topic keeps repeatedly attracting low-edit accounts that are quite blatantly linked to the RCP as a group and wish to see Wikipedia as a way to advertise the group. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler in the past few weeks, the RCP has went viral online for debating a former Tory minister, and been publicly attacked by another Tory minister. it has been mentioned in the national press several times, and has been on national television several times.

would it be unreasonable for me to suggest that you are motivated by political opposition to this group? MauriceDumighan (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Brief moments of "virality" are not establishing of noteworthiness. The only places brief searches of the group reveal coverage in are non-RS minor Far-Left publications but most predominantly self-reporting on "In Defence of Marxism" (one of the many obfuscating attempts by the IMT where they operate several websites to create the impression of wider support) which is definitely not allowed for the establishment of articles.

You can suggest I'm only following the guidance out of "political opposition" all you like, but the reality is you are a brand new account with only 13 edits and all are to do with pushing the RCP to be on Wikipedia with no evidence to support it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Light Oppose - I think there is need for two separated pages. Because one is a tendency within a party and another is an independent party. Plus the recent media (they are almost daily on GB News) coverage and standing in Elections in Stanford and Bow is serious grounds for complete separate page! 2A02:8109:B511:9F00:4C6F:D88F:767F:A01E (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It has actually already been created. Charles Essie (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

And now it's gone. Charles Essie (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

opposition from user with non-disclosed conflict of interest, collapsed for readability

GB News which ran the debate between RCP member Fiona Lali and Suella Braverman is definitely not "far left". GB News own YouTube video of the debate had over half a million views in 8 days. I understand that is many more than most of that channel's output. The In Defence of Marxism website is run by the international organisation that the RCP is part of, so there is nothing odd about that being a separate website. Hewer7 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) GB News isn't a Reliable Source (it's an opinion channel), the viewcount of a video it uploaded means nothing (and Youtube videos are not considered reliable sources in almost all situations regardless), and you just further re-confirming that In Defence of Marxism is self-reporting isn't the rebuttal you think it is. Come back when you present evidence that RCP actually meets notability guidelines for its own article Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Both the UK goverment website and the Telegraph newspaper mention the RCP. It plainly meets the requirement for notability. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/27/jacob-rees-mogg-chased-off-campus-pro-palestine-activists/ https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/secretary-of-states-speech-on-anti-semitism Hewer7 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) No, they clearly don't as very clearly outlined in two of the requirements for GNG, namely sources need to have "more than a trivial mention", and sources need to be "independent of the subject". Neither of the sources you're suggesting are suitable at all, given the first is a single reference in a Telegraph article to the group's existence and the other is a transcript of a minister's speech on the government website which is also a trivial mention at that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) I dont think those are trivial mentions. The following two are more in depth: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/66095/revolutionary-communists-are-plotting-a-comeback [Edited for the correct website] https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/amp/back-to-the-future-revolutionary-communist-party-gets-cambr-9361089/ Also GB News is an "opinion-orientated news television and radio channel" - so it's still a news channel and quite enough for notability on its own. Hewer7 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) You literally just relinked the same transcript of the same speech from the same website, that still doesn't make it suitable. GB News is an opinion channel, even its Ofcom designation is that it's an "editorial" channel[3], and one that has been repeatedly investigated and found to breach broadcasting rules which is easily demonstrated with actually reliable sources [4],[5],[6]. All you have found in hours of very obvious googling of "Revolutionary Communist Party" is a single local newspaper. This is no way meets the GNG no matter how often you demand otherwise. Given your low edit count and strange level of insisting this group have its own article despite no evidence of notability I can only conclude you have a conflict of interest that you are failing to disclose. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) I have edited my previous post to the correct website. Just because GB News breached broadcasting rules does not mean that the debate it covered with an RCP member somehow vanishes from existence. It, and the range and depth of coverage plainly makes the RCP notable. Hewer7 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC) No it doesn't. GB News isn't a reliable source, and the frequent run-ins with the media regulator covered in reliable sources demonstrates that. All you have managed to come up with are two links. One of which is a local newspaper article that is clearly low-quality with frequent mis-spellings and the other is an opinion publication talking about the group's founding. Wikipedia requires substantial reporting of the subject across a range of reliable sources for a subject to be covered by an article, as written out in the GNG. This has not been met. You repeatedly stamping your feet and demanding otherwise doesn't change this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Yet you have previously in a topic above, said the following: "The party was founded out of predecessor organisations, Socialist Appeal and Revolution, in 2024." It's in the lead, and on the subject's website. It's a combination of two IMT groups/publications to form a political party. It's a notable enough shift to warrant its own article. You appear to be arguing the opposite, in relation to notability, of your previous view. Hewer7 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC) It's a notable enough shift to warrant its own article. The event is notable enough to mention on this page as it's the end of this organisation as an entity. However notability is not inherited and an article on the "Revolutionary Communist Party" requires that the new article meets GNG on its own merits. The current consensus that there is no notability for an article on the RCP was established by the AfD discussion in March linked at the top of the page (one that you took part in). At some point maybe notice how few Reliable Sources actually exist in this current article on Socialist Appeal despite it existing as a group for thirty-two years, with it barely meeting the GNG criteria set out under Wikipedia's policy. Also notice how there's no article for that IMT group called "Revolution", because it itself didn't meet GNG either. Unless a substantial coverage on RCP emerges and establishes remit for an article under GNG the consensus will not change. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) You seem to be presuming that what you say is therefore consensus. I don't believe it works like that. Others may have a view on whether or not the RCP's existence is notable. Hewer7 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC) What you "believe" is irrelevant. Consensus was established in March in the AfD that there is no notability to create an article on RCP. You have demonstrated no reason for that consensus to change. Drop It. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC) This topic is a discussion about whether "this article title be changed to Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)" according to the panel at the top of the article. The consensus arrived at in a previous discussion occurred before the RCP had been founded. Consensus on the current discussion needs to be established. It appears that a majority of those commenting on this topic so far are in favor, in general of renaming to RCP. Hewer7 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Consensus not a vote, and a chorus of quite blatantly conflict of interest accounts demonstrating zero evidence of general notability isn't going to change the consensus. Drop It. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." You are raising concerns about whether a new page should be created or not. But the proposal is for something different, that the current Socialist Appeal page be renamed RCP. Your concerns are not proper in relation to that proposal. Hewer7 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC) The discussion at the AfD (which you took part in) established consensus that this article should cover the campaign organisation Socialist Appeal and should not be renamed to cover the political party RCP. No general notability for covering RCP has been established. Drop It. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) The AfD you refer to had a broad range of different views expressed, including that it was too soon for mentioning the RCP as it had not been founded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_(UK,_2024) The first comment in that discussion complains that the only sources were linked to the RCP - that is plainly not the case now - I have cited 5 different independent sources above. Hewer7 (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) The AfD was specifically closed with the instruction of "I leave it up to interested editors to Watchlist this article and make sure it isn't hijacked" which you and a number of clear COI accounts are attempting to do. You have not cited "five independent sources", you have cited at best two, which as per notability guidelines isn't enough to establish notability for the new subject. The established consensus from March is that this article should not be moved to cover the RCP, you have demonstrated nothing to change this consensus. Drop It. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) The decision of the AfD was 'Keep and revert' AT THAT TIME before the actual foundation of the RCP. There was no decision that the article should forever be preserved as it was. Even if your claim that the many sources mentioned are not enough, logically, as socialist appeal was notable (no one proposed deletion on the grounds of it not being so in the AfD discussion) and its change to RCP is notable (as you yourself had said) then the existence and actions of the RCP are notable. The only sort of circumstance where that would not be the case would have been if there had been a majority rejecting the change to RCP, and there is absolutely no evidence of that. So, logically, EITHER this article should have its name changed OR a new separate article should be created for the RCP and this one should remain for Socialist Appeal. The proposal of this topic is to rename this article. You have not made a suitable case against that. Hewer7 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC) There was an AfD in March that established a consensus this article should remain for Socialist Appeal regardless of the official start date of the RCP. You have presented no evidence as to why that consensus should be changed other than you demand it. Drop It. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) You have presented no evidence that the AfD decision was intended to be permanent regardless of the official start date of the RCP. Hewer7 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Drop It. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given that this was more famous and notable under the old name, and the new entity appears to be barely meeting GNG as a separate thing thing, it makes sense to keep under the old title.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Fiona Lali (RCP member) debate with Suella Braverman on GB News had over half a million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pThJBLscn1Y If you search for it on google you will find many other videos with significant viewer figures covering that debate. There is now also her debating on Talk TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF3zHuB_NSE from around 30.30 to 45 with 25k views. I believe that already makes the RCP more famous than Socialist Appeal. In total that is now 6 independent citations I have mentioned, so I would dispute your depiction of the RCP as "barely" meeting GNG. The original poster of the suggested change is not a new user as Rambling Rambler claims many advocating the name change are. I am a supporter of the RCP, but am not a new user, just one who hasn't done very many edits till recently. Hewer7 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't claim Charles Essie was a new or singular topic user. However the others here pushing for this are:

  - Yourself, where you have failed until now to disclose you are in fact a "supporter" of the RCP with what is assumedly a paid membership to at least receive their newspaper given the quoting of it, which is likely to be viewed as a conflict of interest but is definitely WP:ADVOCACY.

  - MauriceDumighan, a month old account that has only edited to turn this article into one on the RCP. Suggests WP:ADVOCACY or a COI.

  - Alexaxton, A two month old account that decided to draft an article about themselves detailing that they are an official within the RCP. A definite COI.

  - Tedgrant1917, a year old account that has only made edits to do with the RCP and named after one of Socialist Appeal's founders. As @Hemmers has also noted this suggests a likely COI.

  The fact there's a sudden combined push to move the article to a new title without any solid basis in reliable secondary sources, especially so soon after consensus was established to not do this, but instead just forcing it via weight of numbers is a classic sign of meatpuppetry. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  You are seeing a "sudden combined push", however its quite likely that anyone who is familiar with the RCP (including members) seeing this article would think that its title was ridiculously out of date and might attempt to change it. In the short time since its creation it has been mentioned by a senior government minister and at least 5 other independent sources. Its public activity has been seen by a very large number of people, so it is already more famous and notable than Socialist Appeal, carrying, as it does, all of the notability of Socialist Appeal forward with it in its history. Hewer7 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I am not, as you claim a new or single topic user. Hewer7 (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at the page view graph for this article, I see that views have doubled since the Lali/Braverman debate on 17 May. Rather than the advocacy you allege, the reverse is happening: the RCP's fame is bringing more readers to this article. Hewer7 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Update on citations for notability

  1. The GB News debate linked to above
  2. The Talk TV debate linked to above
  3. The GB News debate has been covered in the Middle East Monitor: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240518-pro-palestine-student-calls-suella-braverman-a-war-criminal/
  4. The GB News debate was also covered in UK national daily newspaper the Daily Express: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1900492/suella-braverman-gb-news-palestine-debate
  5. The national daily newspaper the Telegraph covered activity of local RCP members in Wales (countering a claim that the organisation is just websites in Alan Wood’s shed) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/27/jacob-rees-mogg-chased-off-campus-pro-palestine-activists/
  6. Also reporting on local activity, this time in Brixton, as well as on the launch of the RCP is: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/66095/revolutionary-communists-are-plotting-a-comeback
  7. A newspaper in Cambridge also reports on local activity as well as the national launch of the RCP: https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/back-to-the-future-revolutionary-communist-party-gets-cambr-9361089/
  8. Gov.uk has a transcript of a senior government minister, Michael Gove, claiming that the RCP is antisemitic (which the RCP refutes): https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/secretary-of-states-speech-on-anti-semitism It is claimed that this is a trivial mention, I disagree.

  Hewer7 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  9. International coverage on Al Jazeera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzT7bT2lays Hewer7 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  1. The GB News video is a self-published video by a Fox News-esque outlet that wouldn't considered a reliable source. It isn't a suitable source for notability on Wikipedia.

  2. The TalkTV video is a self-published video by a Fox News-esque outlet that wouldn't considered a reliable source. It isn't a suitable source for notability on Wikipedia.

  3. The Middle East Monitor (an outlet of unknown reliability) "article" is a link to an instagram post that's cut from the GB News video. More than likely not considered to be a suitable source.

  4. Daily Express literally has a specific tag because of how unreliable it is and therefore unacceptable to use (WP:DAILYEXPRESS).

  5. The Telegraph article makes a fleeting singular reference to the RCP, it's not an acceptable source to establish notability as per WP:SIGCOV

  7. The "Cambridge Independent" has a singular short piece in a non-national outlet full of errors that is effectively "some people from RCP stood in the city centre for a couple of hours". Likely to be questioned in its use as a reliable source for establishing notability.

  8. Government transcript of a singular fleeting mention by a minister. Non-independent as per WP:GNG so not acceptable as a source.

  So all you have is a singular article in Prospect and an Al Jazeera clip of a GB News broadcast. That's nowhere close to meeting the thresholds established underWP:GNG and that's not going to change no matter for how long you demonstrate WP:ADVOCACY with a likely COI by shouting "look at the viewcount". Youtube video views don't count for anything on Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Amakaru, who I presume is the Admin that you asked to intervene, appears to differ, pointing to the relative fame, as well as notability of the RCP compared to Socialist Appeal as a criteria for deciding on the best title for this article. In view of your claim of meatpuppetry, Amakaru may be to be trying to find a way to use facts as a deciding criteria. You appear to be taking a formalist and overly strict approach to notability and are not considering the citations as a whole; have not addressed Amakaru's suggested criteria; nor addressed the point I made that all of Socialist Appeal's notability is carried forward into the RCP. Hewer7 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Notability" on Wikipedia specifically means the ability to provide reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage of a person/event/organisation/etc over a sustained period of time. That's why Amakaru also makes reference to the GNG that you steadfastly refuse to adhere to.

  "You appear to be taking a formalist and overly strict approach to notability"

  What I'm doing is following Wikipedia's policies on demonstrating evidence, meeting notability requirements, and adhering to existing consensus unless it is changed via good, high-quality evidence. What you and others here are doing is advocating, demonstrated by the endless citation spam of low-quality, unsuitable, and in cases long effectively banned sources, which is not acceptable.

  Nor addressed the point I made that all of Socialist Appeal's notability is carried forward into the RCP.

  Actually I did some time ago. Notability is not inherited, and the RCP is a new organisation made up of all elements of the IMT in Great Britain (of which there were at least two). It is not simply a registering of Socialist Appeal as a political party but has been deliberately created as a new organisation, which in multiple articles on its own website it makes clear[7][8][9]. That's why nearly every non-COI account on this talk page has stated it would need a new article that needs to meet GNG requirements on its own terms. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  The "nearly every non-COI account on this talk page" who you say stated a new article is needed is just you and Hemmer. This topic was started by someone who you seem to accept is not COI. You allege that everyone else, except the admin you called, is COI. I and one other appear to be, but you have presented no solid evidence for any of the others. As I pointed out before, its not surprising if people think this article is out of date and try to 'correct' that in their eyes. Nor it is unusually for people with few edits to 'be bold' and make edits that more experienced users groan at. That inevitably is going to happen due to Wikipedia's Be Bold policy.

  You still have not addressed Amakaru's apparent suggestion of using fame as well notability as a deciding criteria. You appear to have made the call for an Admin's intervention - are you rejecting it? I have proposed two separate objective measures of fame - views on youtube of relevant videos and views of this article. It seems to clear to me that both of them indicate that the RCP meets Amakaru's criteria of being more famous. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. I don't believe you have been able to find any.

  You are the one who asked for evidence that the RCP is not just websites run from Alan Wood's shed. I have presented three different sources showing RCP activity in different locations and you are now just nitpicking about them. Even if some of the sources I mention that you don't accept (which I of course contest) the extent of coverage shows the fame of the organisation. There is a broad range of national, international, local and government sources all mentioning the RCP. The Daily Express for example, is, I would agree, not to be relied on for detail. But the link you gave shows that it is 'generally unreliable', but it is not deprecated. I am using it to establish the fact of the RCP's existence and notability in that it has come to the attention of a wide range of sources. Similarly for GB News and Talk TV, I think your typifying them as fox news style is probably about right. Again I wouldn't use them for detail, but they provide evidence of notability. I notice that you don't dispute the Telegraph as reliable - it's mention of the RCP is brief, but, again, taken in the round with all the other sources it indicates overall significant notability.

  Your link 7 to the RCP website does not say anything about the RCP denying its heritage or its foundation by Socialist Appeal. Neither does your link 8 - one section of which states "At the start of 2023 we had just one branch in Wales’ capital city. One year later and we’re up to four." What were these branches of? As this was 2023 before the foundation of the RCP these were obviously Socialist Appeal branches, which will now have become RCP branches. Again, with your link 9: it's clear that this is a new party - it will stand in elections which Socialist Appeal never did. But again there is no statement that this is not also a continuation of Socialist Appeal in a new form. You have not made you case here with any relevant quotes, as they don't exist. Therefore the notability held by Socialist Appeal carries over into the RCP.

  Am I advocating? You might say that I am advocating for this article to be renamed to RCP and that would be correct. I was previously in favour of having two articles, one for Socialist Appeal, another for RCP. But looking at WP:PAGEDECIDE, which says that including text about the organisation's history would help readers to understand the organisation, I think it may be better to just have one article, at least for now. A separate RCP article would necessarily need to duplicate almost all of the Socialist Appeal page, which seems overcomplicated. Hewer7 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  All you are doing is endlessly arguing against Wikipedia policy with blatant WP:ADVOCACY, to the point you're now accepting the low-quality, unreliable sources you keep spamming are as such yet then, still against all policy, insist they should be used to support your baseless argument. That is you admitting there is no grounds for the change you're demanding.

  it's clear that this is a new party - it will stand in elections which Socialist Appeal never did. But again there is no statement that this is not also a continuation of Socialist Appeal in a new form..

  Right, so you accept it's a new party, thereby a new organisation, and as suitably sourced on the article itself there are at least two different IMT entities that have been merged to become part of the RCP. Therefore it requires a new article, and notability is not inherited so RCP requires meeting GNG standards.

  RCP having "heritage" from Socialist Appeal (which no one has denied) doesn't mean you can just hijack this article, in the same way the article on Militant wasn't turned into the article for the Socialist Party despite it having emerged from that prior group.

  You still have not addressed Amakaru's apparent suggestion of using fame as well notability as a deciding criteria.

  Except I have. Maybe if you weren't so blatantly selectively quoting as part of your advocating you'd notice that said editor has stated they opposed the change in question because of the GNG criteria not being met, and your endless walls of text isn't likely to change that. Funnily enough "youtube views = famous" isn't taken as evidence around here no matter how many times you scream about it.

  I and one other appear to be, but you have presented no solid evidence for any of the others.

  You don't "appear to be", you are editing with a conflict of interest. And regarding the others the complete absence of editing outside of a single extremely-niche political organisation is a pretty typical instance of WP:DUCK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  "you're now accepting the low-quality, unreliable sources" - No. I don't generally accept them for detail as I said. I'm using them to indicate a broad notability across a range of sources.

  "you accept it's a new party, thereby a new organisation" - No. That the organisation is now a party with the intent of standing in elections is a distinct difference. It is more than just a rebrand. But less than an entirely new organisation. It has the same branches, members, leadership and essential ideas as Socialist Appeal, but it operated differently. Both of the organisations that formed it were part of the same International Marxist Tendency.

  You say that I want to "hijack this article". I'm doing no such thing - I'm going through the process of discussing and putting forward my views that appears to be wikipedia's way of deciding such matters. Militant was a different case as there was a major split as part of that.

  "You still have not addressed Amakaru's apparent suggestion of using fame as well notability as a deciding criteria.

  Except I have." - No he has clearly written a view that the decision on the title should include consideration of fame as well as notability". Saying that I am 'screaming' about it doesn't present any evidence that Socialist Appeal is more famous than the RCP.

  "you are editing with a conflict of interest." - Other than some edits that I did before I was aware of the conflict of interest policy I am not editing the article. I am supporting the idea that the article should be renamed with facts and logical arguments, and I have declared my interest so people can consider that.

  "Duck" is not a clear accusation. I presume you are repeating your allegation that almost everyone commenting with a different view to you must be CIO because they haven't edited before. I've already set out my views on that above. Hewer7 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm using them to indicate a broad notability across a range of sources.

  They are unreliable, low-quality sources and therefore can not be used to establish notability as per GNG.

  No. That the organisation is now a party with the intent of standing in elections is a distinct difference. It is more than just a rebrand. But less than an entirely new organisation. It has the same branches, members, leadership and essential ideas as Socialist Appeal, but it operated differently.

  Notice how three times in that section you've admitted that it isn't simply Socialist Appeal changing name. It requires a new article as per GNG.

  Except I have." - No he has clearly written a view that the decision on the title should include consideration of fame as well as notability". Saying that I am 'screaming' about it doesn't present any evidence that Socialist Appeal is more famous than the RCP.

  You keep failing to accept they've stated they oppose the change for the reasons listed. You endlessly twisting their words doesn't change it. Burden to change consensus is on you, which you are failing to provide reliable, high-quality sources to support that.

  I am supporting the idea that the article should be renamed with facts and logical arguments, and I have declared my interest so people can consider that.

  Alright Ben Shapiro. You've not provided any facts and certainly no logic, if that was the case you'd be able to evidence it with reliable, high-quality citations. All you are doing is endlessly advocating that it must be changed because you want it to be changed because you're a likely member of the group.

  I presume you are repeating your allegation that almost everyone commenting with a different view to you must be CIO because they haven't edited before

  Nice strawman you've got there. I've never accused Charles Essie of having a COI or being a meatpuppet because they're a long-standing user with thousands of edits going back a decade. I've specifically listed and named the multiple accounts pushing for this move who are new accounts with a singular purpose which is a typical WP:DUCK situation.

  Now unless you actually start providing some high-quality, reliable sources as per Wikipedia's definitions and policies to demonstrate substantial reporting on the RCP over a long period (and not simply the first results on google) I suggest you stop because you're clearly not convincing anyone. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I never said you accused Charles Essie of CIO. My wording "almost everyone commenting with a different view" was pretty clear on that.

  It's also clear that we are not going to agree and seem to be the only ones continuing the discussion. So any greater level of consensus than exists already (if any) is unlikely to develop? I think it might be appropriate to end the discussion? If you agree, and don't wish to make any additional points that I may want to respond to, I presume you are familiar with the process and might close the discussion? Hewer7 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Discussions are typically closed by a non-involved admin a week after listing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  The new Organisation in now far more famous. Because of the media coverage on GB News and Al-Jazeera and because of the participation in the Elections. 2A02:8109:B511:9F00:4C6F:D88F:767F:A01E (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Far more famous" rather misses the point.

  1. "Far more famous" is not a reason to move a page. Socialist Appeal is (historically) notable enough to be the subject of an article. If RCP becomes notable, then it gets an article. RCP does not get to usurp the SA article. Consider that the Liberal Democrats (UK) emerged from the remains of the Liberal Party (UK). The Lib Dems are now much more "famous" than the Liberals. That does not mean we obliterate the article for the Liberals and replace it with the "rebrand" of the Lib Dems. They are both notable, therefore they both get their own article.

  2. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). As above, this means Socialist Appeal doesn't get brushed away by the new shiny. Moreover, the fact that RCP has launched just before an election and made some noise in certain corners of the media does not necessarily imply sustained notability (WP:SUSTAINED). Wikipedia is a WP:LAGGING indicator of notability. We don't set up articles on the basis of "well there will be lots of coverage in future. Trust us". Plenty of single-issue candidates will run as a "party" if not as an independent. We don't give all of them articles. If RCP does hit notability, then it gets it's own article.

  Debates on YouTube are tangential to notability. GB News is not considered a reliable source - it's basically a republican-funded blog for edgy blowhards like Fox and Tice, although it can certainly be said to be independent of RCP! The Al Jazeera coverage was just reporting the GBN debate, and only because Braverman was on the couch. RCP were not really the subject of the reportage. The headline was "Activist calls Braverman a war criminal". Being an RCP activist was tangential at best. Hemmers (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Far more famous" - addresses a point made by an Admin who introduced the concept of fame as a criterion for making a decision on the title of this article "Given that this was more famous and notable under the old name, and the new entity appears to be barely meeting GNG as a separate thing thing, it makes sense to keep under the old title." Since the time when they made that comment, I have updated the number of independent sources to 8.

  The Liberal and Democratic party merger is a different case. They were completely separate and unlinked organisations before the merger. Socialist Appeal and Revolution were and remain part of the International Marxist Tendency and have not changed their membership, leadership or political views. The main changes are names and way of operating.

  Socialist Appeal is not getting brushed away, it has become the RCP and the RCP's history is that of Socialist Appeal. All of the relevant information about Socialist Appeal currently on this page should remain. WP is already lagging in a topic that has had double the number of views of the article since 17 May increased the RCP's fame and notability.

  As you note GB NEWS is independent of the RCP. Not only that it is politically hostile to it. As are many of the other 8 sources I have cited above. That a broad range of media, including many hostile to it, have recognised its existence and impact, indicates notability. That they are unreliable sources for detailed information is not relevant in this context. Hewer7 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment - This move request appears to be subject to widespread meatpuppetry by new/singular topic users with obvious links to the organisation in question they have not disclosed who are pushing for the move to proceed, and I have asked an admin for advice on how this should be best dealt with as a result. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the clear, undeclared (although now documented) COI of several users and possible offline coordination, I have requested a Sockpuppet Investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tedgrant1917.

I'm not sure they're necessarily sockpuppets in the single-user sense, but I do get the strong impression of meat-puppeting so hopefully the issue will get some scrutiny from an experienced checkuser. Particularly since this article has already seen one puppeteer banned this year (User:UnixBased). Hemmers (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have commented on that investigation, which appears to be naming people without contacting them. Hewer7 (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)