Editing Eurovision Wiki:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (section)

== Dispute regarding sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics (2025) ==

I am seeking an outside opinion regarding a series of deletions and accusations of "POV-pushing" by [[User:Impru20]] across several articles related to Spanish politics.

The core of the dispute involves the article [[2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]] and related mentions in biographies of figures like [[Yolanda Díaz]] and [[Alberto Núñez Feijóo]].

'''Background:'''

I have been adding information supported by credible English-language media regarding the ongoing scandal  (e.g., Reuters, ''The Guardian''). However, User:Impru20 has:

*Requested the deletion of the main article (Link to [[Talk:2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]]).
*Systematically removed well-sourced content from the main article and related political biographies.
*Accused me of malicious intent and "POV-pushing" in a manner that borders on personal attacks.

'''My Position:'''

I have explicitly stated my willingness to:

* Rename the article for better neutrality.
* Expand the coverage to include the defense of the accused, police actions, and court rulings.
* Include similar scandals in other Spanish parties if sourced, though my current research is limited to English-language media.

'''The Issue:'''

I believe that removing content supported by reliable sources from the pages of government and opposition leaders—who are actively commenting on a scandal that media outlets describe as "shaking" the PSOE—is not justified. While I acknowledge that my addition to the "[[Sexual harassment]]" general article was misplaced (and it has been removed), the deletions on political pages appear to suppress relevant, sourced information.

'''Request:'''

I would like to ask the community to evaluate whether including these well-sourced developments constitutes "POV-pushing," and whether the systematic removal of this information aligns with Wikipedia’s NPOV policies.

'''Evidence (Diffs):'''
*[[Yolanda Díaz]]  ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yolanda_D%C3%ADaz&diff=prev&oldid=1338548286 diff])

*[[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party]]  ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1338310064 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1338354362 diff]) 

*[[2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]]  ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party_sexual_misconduct_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1338353991 diff])

*[[Alberto Núñez Feijóo]]  ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez_Feij%C3%B3o&diff=prev&oldid=1338351388 diff])

*[[Adriana Lastra]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adriana_Lastra&diff=prev&oldid=1338549913 diff)]

*[[José Ramón Gómez Besteiro]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_G%C3%B3mez_Besteiro&diff=prev&oldid=1338549751 diff]) 

*[[Premiership of Pedro Sánchez]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Premiership_of_Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1338310385 diff]

*[[Pedro Sánchez]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1338310367 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1338354546 diff])

-- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
*Important context is being left out by the above editor:
:'''1) Chicken or the egg?''': They conducted most of the conflicting edits mentioned above '''after''' [[2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal|the AfD on the aforementioned article]] was filled, ''not before'' (which one could think by reading their "Background" section). The AfD was '''not''' a result of them {{tq|"adding information supported by credible English-language media regarding the ongoing scandal"}}; rather, and following the AfD's opening, the above editor attempted to enforce links to that article and some of its contents into other articles on topics without any direct and/or relevant connection to this issue (such as [[sexual harassment]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=1338252458 diff], then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_harassment&diff=1338310299&oldid=1338252458 reverted by me]; [[Alberto Núñez Feijóo]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez_Feij%C3%B3o&diff=prev&oldid=1338350954 diff], then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez_Feij%C3%B3o&diff=prev&oldid=1338351388 reverted]; [[Yolanda Díaz]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yolanda_D%C3%ADaz&diff=1338503000&oldid=1336963784 diff], then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yolanda_D%C3%ADaz&diff=1338548286&oldid=1338503000 reverted]; [[Adriana Lastra]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adriana_Lastra&diff=1338502646&oldid=1280596777 diff], then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adriana_Lastra&diff=1338549913&oldid=1338502646 reverted]; [[José Ramón Gómez Besteiro]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_G%C3%B3mez_Besteiro&diff=prev&oldid=1338502418 diff], then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_G%C3%B3mez_Besteiro&diff=1338549751&oldid=1338502418 partially reverted]; and others), while presenting the topic in an obviously disparaging, negative light towards a political party and members of a government without any kind of balance that the sources themselves ''do'' include.
:'''2) Reasons for the proposed AfD''': These are explained in full where due ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]], as well as [[Talk:2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]]), though they involve:
:*A lack of "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" as required under [[WP:EVENTCRITERIA]] (most particularly, a lack of [[WP:LASTING]] and [[WP:PERSISTENCE]]); lack of widespread impact, ''especially'' if also re-analyzed afterwards (allegations on independent sexual misconduct cases were notable for a few days, but media interest has died down so far, together with some judicial proceedings having been archived, with no relevant follow ups at the moment);
:*As per [[WP:VNOT]] and [[WP:NOTNEWS]], the fact that something is verifiable does not mean that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, much less to justify a stand-alone article;
:*The article constituting a [[WP:REDUNDANTFORK]] (as the topic is already included at [[Premiership of Pedro Sánchez#Scandals]] and, to a lesser degree, at [[Pedro Sánchez#Scandals]], [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party#Sánchez leadership (2014–present)]] and [[Next Spanish general election#Background]]);
:*Serious [[WP:POVPUSH]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] issues that question whether the purpose of the article itself is to be used as some form of [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapbox]] to overemphasize [[WP:SENSATIONAL|scandal mongering or gossip]] directed towards some political party or politicians in particular. This includes:
:**Massive [[WP:CHERRYPICK|cherrypicking]] from sources;
:**[[WP:UNDUE|Excessive weight]] being given to cases of members of a singular party, as opposed to no mention being made to cases in other parties that ''are'' explicitly covered by the provided sources (for example, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/11/spain-ruling-socialist-party-sexual-misconduct-senior-men-psoe-pedro-sanchez ''The Guardian''] source the above editor does mention, as well as Spanish media [https://elpais.com/espana/2026-02-08/historia-en-tres-actos-del-acoso-y-derribo-de-una-concejala-popular-de-mostoles.html] [https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20251218/junta-extremadura-cesa-conductor-guardiola-tenia-condena-coacciones/16864368.shtml] [https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20251212/alcalde-algeciras-deja-pp-senado-acoso-sexual/16857116.shtml] [https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20251217/denuncian-responsable-redes-vox-acoso-sexual-menor-edad/16863773.shtml]);
:**[[WP:BALANCE|Lack of inclusion of contradicting views]] (the accused people denying wrongdoings, [https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20260115/juzgado-madrid-rechaza-querella-contra-paco-salazar-por-presunto-acoso-sexual/16895312.shtml judicial proceedings being archived], etc.);
:**Entirely unconnected cases (such as the alleged arrangement of meetings with sex workers by another politician and his aide, which has never been connected to the other cases) being thrown into the article's scope to give the impression of a single major scandal affecting one single party rather than individual multi-party allegations briefly covered in the news cycle in Spain; etc.)
:**[[WP:BLPCRIME]] issues (culpability of those accused is automatically assumed despite no one being convicted and some cases not even resulting in judicial proceedings, as of yet at least).
:In any case, the article's future is an issue for the AfD to deal with.
:'''3) Verifiable information vs. cherry-picked information''': I have never questioned the reliability or credibility of the provided sources. Rather, I have criticized the above editor's POVish selection of information from those same sources. For example:
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez_Feij%C3%B3o&diff=prev&oldid=1338350954 Their edit] at [[Alberto Núñez Feijóo]], in which they openly accused Sánchez of "siding with sexual abusers over victims" in a way that was not even framed like that in the ''Guardian'' source they provided and sounded like some form of soapbox to Feijóo (a political rival to Sánchez and his party)'s positions;
:*Their edits at [[Yolanda Díaz]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yolanda_D%C3%ADaz&diff=1338503000&oldid=1336963784] and [[Adriana Lastra]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adriana_Lastra&diff=1338502646&oldid=1280596777], revolving on passing-by "comments" without evidence of subsequent follow ups nor any justification on why these particular comments were relevant to these people's biographies (over other comments these people have made throughout the years on other issues);
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_G%C3%B3mez_Besteiro&diff=prev&oldid=1338502418 Their edit] at [[José Ramón Gómez Besteiro]] had to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_G%C3%B3mez_Besteiro&diff=next&oldid=1338502418 reworked] because they had created a specific section without any justification why, as well as omitting relevant information (i.e. the accused asserting his innocence), plus the addition of an almost copy-pasted sentence on "the party's political future in the region" that had no relevance there;
:*Some of their edits were entirely misplaced and focused on giving relevance to this issue even within articles where this made no sense: for example, at [[sexual harassment]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=1338252458]), whose scope does not revolve on particular cases in countries and where this was presented as if a conviction or some form of culpability was already established (and directing it at the prime minister of Spain, for some reason). This was so egregious and wrong that they have acknowledged it (for the first time, btw) in this thread.
:And I could go on.
:'''4) My position vs. the above editor's''': It is not true that I have intended to {{tq|"suppress relevant, sourced information"}}; my purpose has been to counter the addition of multiple POVish material everywhere and without any coherency. I have said so multiple times (most notably [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2025_Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party_sexual_misconduct_scandal&diff=1338485985&oldid=1338383186 in this discussion]). Even at this present point, and despite my extensive comments to them, the above editor still seemingly fails to ''get the point'' on what they are doing wrong, being unable or unwilling to admit on the visible one-sided nature of their edits. On top of that, I have always attempted to explain my reverts to their edits in the edit summaries, whereas the above editor has made no attempt to even justify theirs (typically resorting to generic "update" or "add info" summaries, even after they were questioned on their edits' motives).
:'''5) The above editor's alleged good will''': Some of the above editor's claims of good will or apparent lack of knowledge are not coherent with their actions. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party_sexual_misconduct_scandal&diff=1338641495&oldid=1335977393 here] they claimed that they {{tq|"support renaming the article and adding additional information, such as the accused politicians' assertions of innocence, court rulings, or related sexual scandals involving other political parties"}}, and that this was {{tq|"challenging"}} for them, as they {{tq|"don't speak Spanish"}}. Yet this is perfectly stated in [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/11/spain-ruling-socialist-party-sexual-misconduct-senior-men-psoe-pedro-sanchez ''The Guardian''] and other English-language sources ''they themselves added'' to multiple articles, and they still made no attempt at introducing this additional info, the accused's assertions of innocence or other cases (and this despite repeated warnings and reverts). At best, they did not fully read the sources they claim to use as a basis; at worst, it is deliberate. The fact that possible criminal acts allegedly committed by living people are being discussed should have introduced an element of ''extreme care and caution'' in the above editor's edits, as per BLPCRIME; instead, they have exhibited recklessness in the addition of such info and an apparent intent to add it to as many articles as possible. All of the info they added had a very specific POV, and no attempt was made to either acknowledge or correct this, nor to justify why they introduced it in so many articles.
:'''My conclusion''': All of the above + the fact that this mostly started ''after'' the AfD was filled + the above editor's persistence in adding a link to such article in almost every one of their edits, only reinforces the idea that the article itself is being used as some sort of platform to overemphasize scandal mongering or gossip directed towards a political party and/or some politicians in particular. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 15:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

::Please focus on discussing the article content during conversations, rather than editor conduct, in accordance with [[WP:FOC]].

::{{ping|Impru20}} claimed: {{tq|"allegations on independent sexual misconduct cases were notable for a few days, but media interest has died down so far, together with some judicial proceedings having been archived, with no relevant follow-ups at the moment."}}

::The scandal has actually been ongoing for many months, and the situation is still developing. It is probably being reported in the Spanish media, though I don't speak Spanish. Francisco Salazar, a close ally and aide to Prime Minister Sánchez, resigned in July 2025 following allegations of sexual harassment, which were also reported by foreign media. The media is also linking meetings between Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos and sex workers to the broader PSOE sex scandal.

::The scandal escalated further during 2025, with additional allegations of sexual misconduct against high-ranking PSOE officials and politicians emerging. In December 2025, it was widely reported by foreign mainstream English-language media, citing statements by senior PSOE members, members of the Spanish government—including Prime Minister Sánchez—and leaders of the Spanish opposition. Most of these reactions were deleted from the main article about the scandal ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_Party_sexual_misconduct_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1338353991 diff]), as well as from other articles.

::I would like to remind you that, according to [[WP:PRESERVE]], Wikipedia strongly encourages preserving content rather than deleting it, adhering to the principle that articles should be improved rather than removed, as they are a "work in progress."--[[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 11:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Please note that this noticeboard (to which you yourself voluntarily came) is about discussing adherence to [[WP:NPOV]]. I discussed article content, as well as concerns on editor's edits adding or removing such content. If you consider that violations of NPOV should not be discussed, please consider adhering to the NPOV policy in your edits :)
:::So, in your second paragraph you basically acknowledge that you do not even ''know'' whether the scandal is currently being reported in Spanish media, and again come with "I don't speak Spanish" as an excuse? Can you at least provide some examples of ''ongoing'' reports in English-language sources, at least? As commented, the "I don't speak Spanish" excuse does not work for you when it comes to explaining why you repeteadly left out key elements from the English sources you yourself provided.
:::The rest of your reply does not add anything else of relevance to the discussion and seems like an attempt to [[WP:GASLIGHT]] readers from your own actions as have been described (and, again, without the slightlest attempt to acknowledge any wrongdoing from your part, despite many examples having been provided). Please note that PRESERVE encourages preserving {{tq|"appropriate content"}}, but does not work as a barrier for not touching contested edits. When so regarded, I preserved part of your content while reworking it. When the entire addition of the content was controversial, it was removed. The reasons for the revert of your edit in the main article are explained in the diff you provide: once again, there is no inherent right for your edits to be automatically preserved or kept just because you added them. If these are controversial or contested by others, these can be reverted.
:::Finally, you should also understand that, because this noticeboard is about discussing adherence to NPOV, it is ''not'' a venue to contest or circumvent an AfD discussion. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 11:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

::::You completely ignored my point that the '''scandal has been ongoing for months'''.

::::{{ping|Impru20}}: {{tq|"Can you at least provide some examples of ''ongoing'' reports in English-language sources, at least?"}}

::::Here are a few examples after a few minutes of searching:

::::—[https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-rail-disaster-pressure-pedro-sanchez/ Spanish rail disaster ramps up pressure on Sánchez ], ''Politico'', 28 January 2026. 

::::—[https://ground.news/article/salazar-i-have-always-respected-my-companions-as-women-and-as-professionals_45d254 Salazar: “I Have Always Respected My Companions as Women and as Professionals”], ''Ground News'', 5 February 2026 

::::—[https://www.politico.eu/article/trio-of-spanish-regional-elections-spells-trouble-pedro-sanchez-aragon-castilla-y-leon-andalusia/ Trio of Spanish regional elections spells trouble for Sánchez], ''Politico'', 5 February 2026 

::::—[https://en.ara.cat/politics/the-psoe-acknowledges-that-it-has-not-lived-up-to-expectations-in-its-handling-of-the-complaints-against-paco-salazar_25_5583986.html The PSOE acknowledges that it has not been up to par in handling the complaints against Paco Salazar], ''Ara'', 16 February 2026

::::—[https://www.ekhbary.com/news/la-algaba-mayor-under-scrutiny-sexual-harassment-allegations-spark-political-crisis-and-calls-for-ac-197-2.html La Algaba Mayor Under Scrutiny: Sexual Harassment Allegations Spark Political Crisis and Calls for Accountability], ''Ekhbary'', 17 February 2026. 

::::—[https://www.thelocal.es/20260218/spains-deputy-police-chief-resigns-over-rape-allegations Spain's police chief resigns over rape allegations], '' The Local'',  18 February 2026.

::::—[https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/spanish-govt-under-fire-as-police-chief-quits-accused-of-rape Spanish govt under fire as police chief quits accused of rape], ''The Straits Times'', 18 February 2026. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 23:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:The first block of text reads like LLM generated. [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size: 85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 00:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
{{od}}
I did not ignore your point: I repeteadly stated that it is ''not'' ongoing. I did so above ({{tq|lack of "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect"}}; {{tq|lack of widespread impact, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (...) but media interest has died down so far, together with some judicial proceedings having been archived, with no relevant follow ups at the moment}}), at [[Talk:2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal#Removal of "Reactions and impact" section and proposed AfD]] (where I basically stated the same) and at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]] (I literally told you that {{tq|What is the documented, long-term impact of this to justify a stand-alone article}}; {{tq|The sources you had in that version of the article were mostly from 12 to 15 December 2025. That's four days: so where is the "long-term impact"?}}).

On the links you are now adding, I may beg your perdon but: why are you adding links to unrelated cases here? The two ''Politico'' links focus on the [[2026 Adamuz train derailment]] and the [[2026 Spanish regional elections]]; they only make passing-by mentions of the sexual misconduct allegations ''as a recent, but past'' ordeal (see [[WP:GNG]] and, particularly, [[WP:SUSTAINED]]). Equally for the ''Ground News'' source you add, which relates to a Senate intervention from Salazar regarding the [[Koldo case]]: it does not cover the scandal nor depicts it as "ongoing"; and the latest three sources you provide relate to entirely unrelated cases. Why are you mixing these together?

Now, your above reply actually proves my points addressed above:
*Firstly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you keep presenting the topic in an obviously disparaging, negative light towards a political party and members of a government without any kind of balance that the sources themselves do include (I explicitly asked you about this multiple times, some in this very same discussion). Actually, your latest reply ''does'' confirm your attempt at presenting sources and material in such a disparaging, negative light towards a particular side. You omitted the assertions of innocence, and PP's Landaluce case, contained in [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/11/spain-ruling-socialist-party-sexual-misconduct-senior-men-psoe-pedro-sanchez ''The Guardian''] source you yourself provided, rather [[WP:CHERRYPICK|cherry-picking]] the information you wanted to use to POVpush a particular view while discarding others. You also keep ignoring to address this concern.
*Secondly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you deliberately excluded cases on other parties (and keep doing so; why didn't you add [https://en.ara.cat/politics/the-former-pp-councilor-from-mostoles-will-sue-the-mayor-for-alleged-sexual-harassment_1_5640199.html this], [https://russpain.com/en/news-3/scandal-in-mostoles-former-advisor-accuses-mayor-of-harassment-files-lawsuit-385826/ this], [https://ground.news/article/the-pp-of-madrid-pressured-an-edil-to-cover-up-an-accusation-of-harassment-against-the-mayor-of-mostoles-the-amparo-is-because-you-take-any-c this], [https://en.ara.cat/politics/former-pp-councilor-accuses-the-party-of-pressuring-her-not-to-report-the-mayor-of-mostoles-for-harassment_1_5638920.html this], [https://ground.news/article/the-pp-forces-the-mayor-of-algeciras-to-resign-as-senator-following-allegations-of-sexual-harassment-and-embezzlement this], [https://russpain.com/en/news-3/scandal-surrounds-algeciras-mayor-pressure-mounts-on-pp-andalusia-354504/ this], or [https://www.gbc.gi/news/algeciras-mayor-centre-political-storm-over-accusations-sexual-harassment this], to name just a few? Are these also "in Spanish" or are you otherwise unable to read or search for these?).
*Thirdly, because you seem to refuse to explain why you kept adding such material into unrelated articles, giving it an undue relevance in these, following the AfD request on the [[2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal]] article.
*And finally, because your reply further reinforces the idea that you have a clear and persistent intent on 1) mixing up various, unconnected cases into a single major scandal for the sake of it, and 2) ''demonstrating culpability'' of some form, rather than sticking to the sources and balancing them to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines on [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLPCRIME]].

In this regard, thank you for your latest reply for proving all of my points. I sincerely hope you address them at some point. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 00:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:As a side note, I had not spotted that the OP's opening post could be LLM generated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1339112703&oldid=1339112582 as pointed out by another user above]. Should that be the case, we would be discussing a potential breach of [[WP:LLMCOMM]] here, aside of the aforementioned concerns. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 10:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

::It feels like we're going in circles. Alongside new, unfounded assumptions, you continue to repeat the same accusations against me while disregarding most of my points.

::'''Impru20:''' {{tq|What is the documented, long-term impact of this to justify a stand-alone article"; "The sources you had in that version of the article were mostly from 12 to 15 December 2025. That's four days: so where is the "long-term impact"?}}

::Even if the scandal regarding sexual harassment allegations suddenly ended and everything was closed, which is not true, the scandal lasted at least from Salazar's resignation in July 2025 to December 2025, when the accusations and resignations of several politicians and high-ranking members of the PSOE party were reported by foreign media.

::'''Impru20:''' {{tq|On the links you are now adding, I may beg your perdon but: why are you adding links to unrelated cases here?}}

::All the articles I have listed here either fully address or at least mention sex scandals in Spanish politics, primarily related to the Spanish government and the PSOE.

::'''Impru20:''' {{tq|Firstly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you keep presenting the topic in an obviously disparaging, negative light towards a political party and members of a government without any kind of balance that the sources themselves do include}}

::I keep saying over and over that I am open to adding the defense of the accused to the main article and to other related articles, as well as including information about the sexual scandals of other parties. By the way, you are also free to make such edits; I would not delete them. Yet, you keep accusing me repeatedly of not wanting to do so, ignoring what I have already said. It has become difficult to edit anything when you automatically revert most of my changes regarding sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics.

::'''Impru20:''' {{tq|Secondly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you deliberately excluded cases on other parties}}

::As I have already mentioned multiple times, I would not object to renaming the main article to '''Sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics (2025)''' or something similar, since allegations of sexual misconduct have involved politicians and officials from other parties as well, although probably not to the same extent as in the case of the PSOE. 

::'''Impru20:''' {{tq|Thirdly, because you seem to refuse to explain why you kept adding such material into unrelated articles, giving it an undue relevance in these}}

::You still have not reasonably explained why pages about [[Yolanda Díaz]] or [[Alberto Núñez Feijóo]] should not include '''their own statements''' regarding the sexual misconduct allegations that, according to media reports, have shaken the PSOE.-- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 12:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::Since this is going nowhere and, frankly, just going in circles, I am considering [[WP:DISENGAGE]]. -- [[User:Tobby72|Tobby72]] ([[User talk:Tobby72|talk]]) 14:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Firstly, I know my username, so no need to repeat it ''five'' times for no reason.
:::{{tq|"you continue to repeat the same accusations against me while disregarding most of my points."}} You have made no new points. I have already answered all of your points. Now, replying to your comment:
:::1) {{tq|"Even if the scandal regarding sexual harassment allegations suddenly ended and everything was closed, which is not true"}} Can you provide evidence that the scandal is still open? I am also curious on how you are able to say this, considering that most of the sources involving this case are in Spanish and you have acknowledged yourself to "not speak Spanish". How can you make a definitive assertion on whether the case is open or not if you have acknowledged to not being able to understand the main language of the sources covering it? Also, you have been told (with sources) than judicial proceedings on the specific case on Salazar have been closed, yet you still claim that it is still open somehow. {{tq|"the scandal lasted at least from Salazar's resignation in July 2025 to December 2025"}} And this is, at best, partially false. The case was in the media for a few days in July 2025. Then, it came up again in December 2025, in a different fashion (the July story was about the allegations themselves, the December story was about the party's handling of the allegations). It was not in the media ''from July 2025 to December 2025''. You attempt to depict this as it this was some form of continuously developing story, when it was only routine coverage and political reactions for a few days in those months.
:::2) {{tq|"All the articles I have listed here either fully address or at least mention sex scandals in Spanish politics, primarily related to the Spanish government and the PSOE."}} So, you acknowledge the POVpushing here? Firstly, because you have not focused on "sex scandals in Spanish politics" as a whole, but only those "related to the Spanish government and the PSOE". You have omitted multiple other cases affecting other parties (and even the regional PP government in Madrid). At this point, since you have kept doing this even ''after'' you were noted on it multiple times, it must be assumed you do so deliberately. Then, just because something ''tangentially'' mentions something that you think may be used to build some story does not mean you ''should'' do that. [[WP:SYNTH]] is a policy; you cannot just mix a bunch of unconnected cases into a single major scandal just because you feel like it. Many of the sources you provide do ''not'' mix all of these stories together. These are ''not'' connected to each other, neither in time, nor in scope, nor in location, etc.
:::3) {{tq|"I keep saying over and over that I am open to adding the defense of the accused to the main article and to other related articles"}} So, why haven't done it so far and keep ignoring to do it as we speak? You have had multiple opportunities to demonstrate your willingness to do this, yet so far you have refused to do so. All of your edits are focused on the same POVpushing. Also, please note that "adding the defense of the accused" is not something that can be done at your pleasure, but rather, a direct consequence and requisite of [[WP:BLPCRIME]]. You are basically accusing people of committing crimes in your edits and you have cared little to nothing to provide their own viewpoints as reported by the same sources you attempt to use to back you up. This is not just a NPOV breach, but also has potential for causing trouble for Wikipedia as a whole. {{tq|"It has become difficult to edit anything when you automatically revert most of my changes regarding sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics."}} Not a single one of your edits added a single line containing anything other than POVpushing against this political party and the Spanish government and assuming the culpability of the accused. You made no attempt at adding the defense of the accused (despite this being reported in sources), you made no attempt at adding stories affecting other political parties (despite these being concurrent and being reported in sources), you made no attempt at adding different viewpoints (again, reported by sources) than those that matched your own view of the issue, nothing. Please do not pretend as if the diffs on your edits do not exist nor cannot be checked by other users.
:::4) I am insisting on my point that {{tq|"you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you deliberately excluded cases on other parties"}}. You proposing to {{tq|"renaming the main article to Sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics (2025)"}} does not preclude the fact that, neither in your edits nor in your replies in this discussion, you have made the slightlest attempt at covering these. You excused yourself in that you "don't speak Spanish", yet you have been provided English language sources (some of these provided by ''you'') that did cover these. On the arguments for or against the article's existence we already have the AfD; I must insist that this is not the venue to address it.
:::5) {{tq|"You still have not reasonably explained why pages about Yolanda Díaz or Alberto Núñez Feijóo should not include '''their own statements''' regarding the sexual misconduct allegations that, according to media reports, have shaken the PSOE"}} But I did? Multiple times? I repeteadly asked you to explain ''why'' these particular statements are more relevant to these people's biographies than any other statement of theirs. These two people may make dozens of statements each ''per week'' on multiple topics. Why are '''these''' statements, on these particular allegations "that have shaken the PSOE" (this is you, once again, POVpushing a particular viewpoint), relevant to these people? They are not even PSOE members. They have no direct or indirect involvement in these allegations. Why are these particularly relevant there? And, conversely (and taking your own arguments), why haven't you covered the PP cases in Alberto Núñez Feijóo's article, considering than ''that's his actual party'' and that he has been questioned on them? For example, the Spanish prime minister has recently criticized the PP for their different response when it comes to addressing reported cases in the PSOE as opposed to reported cases within their own party. Don't you think that this would merit some mention by you either, under your own arguments?
:::Each new reply from yours only keeps reinforcing the idea that you kept POVpushing a particular story against PSOE and/or Spanish government-related politicians, amplifying their story and minimizing others. I understand that, in light of the existing arguments against you, you prefer to DISENGAGE, though I should remind that it was you who brought us here. Best regards. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 16:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::'''Update''': Note that, due to the AfD having now been closed and the article having been fully reworked as [[2024–2026 Spanish sexual misconduct allegations]], NPOV issues have been mostly resolved. This does not apply to the editor's attempted edits in other articles but, since these have not been repeated, this is a non-issue at the moment. Thus (and since the other editor seems to have disengaged from the issue entirely), this discussion can be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 10:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)