User talk:331dot/Archive 13

Please place new comments at the bottom of the page. If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please do so there. If you are responding to an edit I made to an article, please comment on the article talk page. I welcome talk page stalkers offering any knowledge or assistance they have.

Edit regarding Tao Wells

Hi, I made an edit regarding Tao Wells. I refered to him as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist due to a number of posts he made to his facebook account "Wells Tao" where he referred to scientific modelling of the collapse of the World Trade Center as "fake" and said "If you believe a little plane made this engineering marvel collapse (referring to the World Trade Center) twice, you need to do some research." He subsequently deleted comments on his post which showed scientific modelling regarding the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, and referred to them as fake news. He also posted an article to his blog on May 1st, 2015, entitled 'the visible donut hole in the pancake theory" detailing what he saw as "holes" in scientific theories surrounding the collapse of the world trade center. Mr Wells is, in fact, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and it's in the public interest that the wikipedia article makes that clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.189.216 (talk)

We need independent reliable sources (and several of them) to source such a claim in order for it to be in the article. We can't just rely on your opinion, no matter how accurate it might be based on his internet postings. Please review WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Are his own social media posts not considered reliable sources of his viewpoints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.225.189.216 (talk • contribs)

No, because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about someone, not what they say about themselves. If you have independent sources that report on his viewpoints, that would be acceptable, but not merely his own postings. Using his postings as a source and then saying he is a conspiracy theorist based on that is original research, again, no matter how accurate it might be. Wikipedia cannot determine him to be a conspiracy theorist itself, but it can report on others calling him that. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

now SantaBarbaraArtHistory

Hi. As far as I can see, Sullivangoss has gone ahead and created a new account while still blocked, for SantaBarbaraArtHistory. That was actually the name they requested in their unblock request. They're working on a new draft not one but two Sullivan Goss gallery artists: Draft:Patricia Chidlaw and Draft:Nicole Strasburg. I see these as I have a regular "draft+artist" search. Seems like their interest is solely in promoting their gallery. I will leave you to deal with the socking and block evasion, as my comments perhaps got in the way last time. --- Possibly ☎ 21:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please see this page Pramod Bhagat. Even after protection by Titodutta once here, the IP and unconfirmed users continue to change his birthplace from Hajipur as referenced by many reliable sources to incorrect Attabira, Odisha. Please see it's talk page for further information. This page needs to be semiprotected for few months atleast. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not, at present, in a position to address this. Please request page protection at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedily Delete

I wasn't trying to promote or use as a social media site. I was adding the criteria that nucrash had suggested last year. I wasn't trying to promote my campaign. Can I reupload page if I take the senate stuff out? I'm a little confused.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gena Ross (talk • contribs)

Dr. Gena Ross Please read my help desk comments. My advice is that you not attempt to write about yourself(or enlist a campaign worker or any third party to do so). It's only going to end in frustration and hurt feelings because you don't meet the criteria for an article, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. Once you are elected to Congress, you would then merit an article- and as a representative-elect someone would eventually write about you.

Please read about how a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. If you still want to attempt this despite my warning, you must use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A "YouTube channel" is a website

Please comment at User talk:NWIndianaElevators. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I need some technical guidance. I have helped new editors many times by giving them Wikipedia tutorials in person. I also conduct offline workshop occasionally as there are lack of editors in our state. As due to place and internet availability issues, I need to use my internet connection or laptop to teach them. I refrain from using my connection or laptop due to fear that I might be accused of sockpuppetry in future. Are my fears right? Can I use my laptop or connection to create new accounts for them or teach them? What should I do? --Gazal world (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Gazal world I think the best thing to do (assuming you have the technical means to) would be to create a video of yourself creating an account(or using WP:ACC to request one) that you could then provide to others.

So if you want to create accounts for others, there are two paths available. If you want to be a volunteer who works on account creation requests submited to WP:ACC, you could seek the Account Creation permission. If you want to create accounts for others as part of an event that brings others to the project, you can seek the event coordinator permission. The option involving ACC would probably not help you since you want to create accounts for specific new users, so you would probably want to seek event coordinator permission. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I should apply for 'Account Creation permission' or 'event coordinator permission' anytime soon. I will apply for these rights when I need them. For now, I am tutoring my student-friends from my own laptop. I am not giving them video tutorial because I am currently with them, and I believe tutoring them in-person is more effective. --Gazal world (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly you can guide others in creating accounts, and good luck in doing so. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for bothering you again, but I observed a weird thing. This is because I have no knowledge about technical stuff. When one of my students try to create Wiki account, they receive 'Account creation error' See this image. The person has never edited Wikipedia, never created account. So how did this happen? Is there any solution --Gazal world (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that might be beyond my expertise; I think someone at the help desk may know. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. I will ask someone else. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LuckyDesigns

LuckyDesigns

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (the person being discussed is a notable figure within their industry and achievements )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudz2000 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a question about this deleted article? 331dot (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

23:01:44, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Kim at Partner ESI

• Kim at Partner ESI (talk · contribs)

Hello, I would like to know why the article was rejected twice for the same reason (reading like an advertisement), when the page for Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. is very similarly written. If there is a specific part in the article that reads like an advertisement, can you please explain which part? I'm not sure what else to change. Thank you. Kim at Partner ESI (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kim at Partner ESI Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to pitch in and help us manage the six million plus articles here, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.

The draft is advertising because it just tells about your company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.

I see that you declared a conflict of interest, if you are an employee you must make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I will add that the best articles to use as a model are those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: what is being questioned are my sources? The sources I included are not enough to establish notoriety? I added the paid declaration to my talk page now. Kim at Partner ESI (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Kim at Partner ESI The sources just cite various business transactions. That does not establish notability (not "notoriety" which has a negative connotation) as Wikipedia defines a notable business, at WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article should not just summarize the routine business transactions of the business, such as raising capital or acquiring a competitor, or similar. A Wikipedia article about a company must do as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I always see your work here! You deserve it, at least, I think you deserve it!:) Banzhowen (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle For Dream Island Wikipedia page

Battle For Dream Island is an animated web series with anthropomorphized objects, it was created 3 times, once in 2011, and twice in 2013. It got deleted for not being notable enough, and eventually it got permanently banned to be created by an admin (who is no longer an admin, that’s why I’m not asking him) but this was at the time Jacknjellify the YouTuber who made the animated web series only had around 6k subscribers, which is small. Now they have over 1 million subscribers, and it seems like that’s notable enough, compared to other YouTubers on Wikipedia.

While subscribers doesn’t guarantee it’s notable enough on Wikipedia, BFDI (Battle For Dream Island), created an entire community of object shows with as described before anthropomorphized objects.

Battle For Dream Island was also mentioned on this Wikipedia page on animated series’ so I think it deserves a Wikipedia page now, can you reallow it to be created? Because as mentioned before the admin who banned creating it, is not an admin anymore. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiMakersOfOurTime What matters is if this topic gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable web content. If you have that, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

For your thoughtful comments at the Hakuho ITN nom. I do appreciate them, even though it faces a bit of an uphill battle to get consensus. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Conversational Advertising - Paid Interest

Apologies I was not aware of where to add the paid interest. I have added this to my page as suggested. The wiki page written is sourced and I make no reference to the client. Our intention is just to make a particular type of advertising known, this supports any company that is involved with conversational advertising and is not specific to the client, hopefully this helps. What are my next steps? Should I resubmit? or can you edit and approve?

LucyDigitalVoice Thanks for disclosing. If you are not editing about a specific client, but a general part of your industry, you are probably okay to resubmit. I will say Wikipedia has articles or drafts, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. I would urge you to, if you haven't already, review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! I am a new user, and my name is Peter (in hungarian "Péter"). Have a nice day! Szerkesztő5555 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

My request for an IP block exemption

Via the Unblock Ticket Request System I filed the following request: Hello, I hereby ask for an IP block exemption for the account "Marsupium" on the English Wikipedia per WP:IPEXEMPTCONDITIONS. Today after many times before I've run into a range block, this time of 46.183.96.0/21 while trying to edit from the network of the German long distance train system that I use regularly. I don't need the exemption for editing anonymously via proxy but rather to bypass the range block. For the same reason a global IP block exemption was granted to my account (cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=30718168). A previous request I made in January 2021 expired before it was answered by anyone unfortunately. For any questions I'm available at my talk pages at the English Wikipedia or other Wikimedia wikis or wikimail. Thanks a lot for any help in advance, Marsupium

You've declined that request giving the advice to make the request from my account, while giving the IP address. In the request I gave the IP range "46.183.96.0/21", my specific IP in that case was 46.183.96.17.

When logging in at https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/ under the "For administrators that are here" tab and trying to file a new request this action is aborted with the message "This action can only be performed by users who are not logged in." Now I'm kind of helpless where to make the request from my account. Fortunately, today I'm not reliant on the concerned IP range, but I will be again in the future. Hence, I'd be very happy to resolve the complicated block issue beforehand in order to be able to edit the next time and for any help telling me where to put the request. Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Marsupium You should click on "If you have a user account" to make your request, not the administrator only area. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I think I've done that the last time already. After submitting a message was displayed that the appeal is incomplete and an IP missing or similar, I've edited the appeal, added the IP and I think it was converted into an appeal for a case without a user account. This happened to me this time again, when trying to file yet another one leaving the incomplete state as is the system complained about "spam our system with appeals". I'll try again later and leave a note here. --Marsupium (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thewordoftodd

There are things that you can do on your end to adjust how you view Wikipedia. What things?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think screen settings can be adjusted. Unless I misinterpreted the comment(certainly a possibility). 331dot (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't easy to understand his comments, but are you talking about a hardware solution?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess I thought he could adjust brightness or contrast to achieve what he was trying to. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

More than one, less than two

I actually met Moshe Levi back in the day. He was really nice. And really tall (as advertised). El_C 21:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

BCN3D

Thanks for reviewing the revised article. While I understood why the original was rejected, this is less clear to me. I added several new reputable sources (e.g., El País, Crónica Global, Business Insider España), all of which had substantial stories on BCN3D Technologies within the last year or two. Is the problem that they're Spanish-language publications? Would appreciate any further insight you can provide into your decision. Jhofferman (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Jhofferman The sources seem to mostly be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. A Wikipedia article about a company should not just tell about the company and what it does, but it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage (which does not include interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, etc) choose on their own to say about it. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry for the belated reply (I've been traveling). At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just want to confirm that you properly evaluated the new sources I added to the revised article. Two brief examples: El País article is exclusively about BCN3D, talks about uniqueness of hardware manufacturing in Spain, cites the company's pioneering of dual-head printing, and chronicles recent growth. Author is "a journalist in the Catalan newsroom and writes about economy, innovation and technology." Business Insider article is exclusively about BCN3D, discusses their history and what makes them unique, describes the company as "a benchmark multinational in the sector." Author is a contributing editor who was worked with Business Insider Spain for a year. Of course I understand that BCN3D isn't Apple, but they occupy an unusual niche in European manufacturing, have an interesting origin story, and are a going concern. As always, appreciate your efforts. Jhofferman (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The El Pais piece is based on an interview with the CEO and the owner of the building housing the company. The Business Insider article is largely based on an interview with the CEO of the company and another staff person- even leaving aside that the author worked with them and as such probably is not entirely independent of the subject. Both also tell of routine business activities. These do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Dave Donovan

You deleted the article without responding to my contesting of the speedy deletion, the article did not meet the criteria, as the banned user did not create the page in violation of their ban. The page was created in October 2020, whilst the user was banned in October 2021.

The subject also meets the notability requirements, particularly considering all the other Australian journalists of less note who have Wikipedia articles and thus I have recreated it. --Simba1409 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The user you speak of was a sock of another user. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also urge you to review other stuff exists. It could be that the other journalist's articles you speak of are also inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

-- There is no claim or evidence that the DanJensen account was the sock of another person who was ALREADY banned before the Dave Donovan page was created.

Regardless of other journalists, as the owner of an online media organisation David Donovan is clearly notable. --Simba1409 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Simba1409 Anyone can remove a PROD, so that's fine. I simply restored it since that wasn't why I deleted the article. I reviewed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MickeyViolet. Since you recreated it yourself this discussion is largely academic, but you can challenge speedy deletions at deletion review. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This account above looks like another sock. Ten years inactive and suddenly creating articles from drafts? Come on! --Pete (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Howdy. The meat-puppet is also being a bit of a jerk, by continuing with the "...get over it" bit, in his posts. His apparent refusal to indent his posts, is also annoying. GoodDay (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Tractorsarethecoolest

I put his unblock request on hold. He got renamed, and I think from his request it might work out for him. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Case I might be missing something but I think that they are an employee of Trackless Vehicles Ltd. ("This Wikipedia user is not paid to write content; "unintentional self-promotion") and should abide by COI/PAID with regards to their company and possibly when writing about competitors. That said, if you are satisfied, that's fine with me, I'm not particularly invested in it. :) 331dot (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Piratenation101 article draft "Ginny Favede"

Please excuse my confusion if this is the incorrect place/way to post this. I recently saw your message on the Ginny R. Favede draft, but still feel that several of the sources would constitute reliable secondary sources that establish notability (e.g., https://www.heraldstaronline.com/news/local-news/2020/03/wheeling-university-president-ginny-favede-works-to-reverse-enrollment-decline/). I understand that primary quotes within the article are sometimes commonplace, but there is a large body of newspaper material establishing this woman's credibility from a strictly editorial, journalistic perspective. If perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point about reliability of secondary sources, could you possibly give an example from the following related page (another university president from West Virginia) of a source that I should include instead? Jerome A. Gilbert

Thanks so much again. Really just trying my best to learn the ropes and help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratenation101 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Piratenation101 It's not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. They just tell what she does, not why she is important- and the ones that go into detail seem to do so by quoting her. There needs to be in depth coverage of her personally, not just what she does. I would note that the article you linked to above is also marked as problematic, and has the same issue. The best articles to use as models are those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thanks so much for the helpful resource. I will try to find some sources that fit the mold of what's present in the Good Articles directory.

Out of curiosity, what marks the difference between a problematic article being accepted (as was the case with the Jerome A. Gilbert page I linked) and a problematic article of similar ilk (such as mine) not being accepted? And, do such problematic articles need to be taken down or listed for admin attention? Again, just trying to learn the ropes--you've been most helpful. Piratenation101 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Piratenation101 A completely valid question. Only non-autoconfirmed users are required to submit drafts using AFC; once autoconfirmed, it is no longer required and such users may create articles directly. Some problematic articles also predate the creation of the AFC process- but either way, it's possible to create articles without it. It's still a good idea to use that process until one gets several articles accepted, and gains the experience, even if technically able to create articles without that process. If one creates articles directly, it is assumed they know what they are doing and any issues are treated a little more harshly. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Problematic articles, when detected, are usually marked for attention(just as the Gilbert article is) and given time for the problem or problems to be addressed. If that does not happen, or there is some urgent issue that cannot be resolved, it can be nominated for deletion using one of the available processes. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all of the useful advice, 331dot! Piratenation101 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused with this block you made against عمرو السعدوني:

Who was he a sockpuppet of anyway? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but there is a concerted effort to attempt to create an article about a nonnotable actor. Possibly meatpuppetry more than socking. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspect MEAT

As user User:Shahp67 who joined today, has started editing at the same article as User:Hillary1900, and with similar kind of edits, I have asked for a disclosure at their talk page. Jay ^(Talk) 06:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that another user (existing) with a COI with the subject has been ignoring repeated requests (here and here) to stop editing the article, and has been removing maintenance tags. Jay (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

rollback on Great Molases Flood

I see on why I was wrong, but I should not have been rollbacked by the previous editor and given a vandalism warning. That was messed up. 69.174.145.125 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You weren't given a vandalism warning, but a message that the edit appeared to be unconstructive, with encouragement to discuss it with the editor if they were incorrect. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:52:45, 9 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Rami9610

• Rami9610 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MyQ Solution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello 331dot, I just saw the declined submission post and your comment on my talk page. Regarding your comment, although I can agree with annoucements being insuffecient to fully constitute a reference section of a Wikipedia article (hence, of the 13 there are 2, of which are used solely to reference dates and no other information), I would have thought that press-realeases are classic examples of secondary sources and could be used as stand alones for atleast a stub-class article. The ones that I used are well-known or atleast, just reliable, industrial analys/news firms within the imaging industry (2 are international, 2 are Czech-focused).

I would just like to state that I am inexperienced in creating articles on here (as you might have already surmised if you browsed though my talk page). I would just like to humbly ask you on how I can improve on chooisng the type of sources that can stand as adequate references or maybe what other types of reliable, seconday sources that would atleast be needed to supplement what I have used. (My apologies in advance if I have not written this message in the proper format)

Thank you, and have a good day!

Kind Regards,Rami9610 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Rami9610 Press releases are not secondary sources because they are written by the subject, even if someone else published it. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject- that means no materials put out by the company, including interviews. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Trance Fury page confusion

Hello 331dot,

I'm so sorry about the confusion of my page. I selected paid promotion by accident as there is no paid promotion. I did, though, state that I'm the creator of my page and I've marked that as such which I believe is in the wikipedia terms. How do I remove paid promotion? I'm trying to do everything by the book. This site is not easy to navigate ;-)

---MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt at TFR Records (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Matt at TFR Records Your username is "Matt at TFR Records" and you are writing a draft about a musician which states their label is TFR records. If you work for TFR Records in any capacity, you are a paid editor and must make the required declaration. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:CityofLakeCharlesOfficial

The two separate warnings are from an edit conflict. I added a COI tag, along with a text message below it, but only the COI warning got through...on top of your warning. Weird. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A thought

Your comments here have raised some eyebrows, which then got it brought to my attention. I do not believe that the OUTING policy allows for us to dox users ever, even if they say "sure, go ahead and air my dirty laundry". Additionally, I'm genuinely not sure giving the specifics of the information leading to the block (which I have seen and support) will do anything other than make a direct connection to an off-wiki location; they'll still likely deny it. I guess you have your own game plan and idea of how this will work out, but I guess I'd just like to encourage caution and not go further than absolutely necessary when divulging information. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Primefac I appreciate your comments. I've seen that sort of thing done before, but I'm happy to not do so. I agree caution is called for. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Was this brought to you privately? (I'm just curious, I don't need specifics) 331dot (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was sent to me directly. Primefac (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_update_the_following

I don't understand your answer to that question, which was the only posting to WP in the last eight years by the IP you responded to. Maproom (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The IPs were close enough that I think I thought they were the same. I've removed my comment. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Block denial

That's fair I suppose, if kind of annoying! :) Thanks for reviewing. Zerbey (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Zerbey As I said, if you have a privacy concern, you can request an exemption. Somone with your editing history could probably get one. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

331dot, I think it'll be easier to just proxy off my real IP for Wikipedia edits. Opening up the entire NordVPN class space is just going to open up people who want to abuse Wikipedia and that's not worth the hassle it would create for the admins, unless there's a way to make an exception on my username and I don't think that's technically possible in MediaWiki. Zerbey (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm requesting help

The draft "Nima Bank" was rejected and I understand that, but I have a question here. Can the page with the same name ever be created? or Is it only me who can't create this page? I made significant changes to the rejected draft and created very valid citations to back it up (since that was the reason it was rejected in the first place) but it just seems to me that you never read the article and deleted it because it was previously rejected. Hey and I hold no grudge here, you're doing an amazing job and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooz1370 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Rooz1370 Rejection does not mean that there can, for all time, never be an article about Mr. Bank(regardless of who creates it). What it does mean is that there cannot be an article about him right now, because of the reasons given by the reviewers. I did review the article and I happen to agree with what they said.

If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer that rejected the draft, you will need to appeal to that reviewer.

And even if you are technically able to create articles directly, it's a good idea to have the experience of getting drafts passed through AFC anyway first. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello 331dot and thank you for your response, as per your suggestion, I did try to communicate with the reviewer who rejected the article in the first place. But since they are not answering, I was wondering if there is a way which I could notify them? and since I have made changes to the article, could you please review the article Draft:Nima Bank and let me know if you think there are changes that still need to be made? Thank you again.Rooz1370 (talk

Rooz1370 You may communicate with any user directly by posting to their user talk page, as you did here. There is a link to the reviewer's talk page in the message rejecting the draft. Reviewers do not necessarily watch the AFC Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are right I did try to reach them by posting on their talk page but the reviewer is not answering. But again I understand. This is the correct way of approaching this matter. Thank you.Rooz1370 (talk)

Motive for removal

With all due respect, this is not helpful if no reason is provided. Going by consensus is an important policy, but it doesn't mean users get to veto based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there is strong support for inclusion in several WP policies and no support to suppress information in any policy, then one cannot just blanket revert by claiming lack of consensus - that would be nothing short of a veto. Now, you and others may have valid arguments for removing the information, in which case it should be presented on the talk page. Jeppiz (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz If you are the one seeking a change, it is up to you to obtain the consensus for it. You seem to already be in part, at least, aware of the reasons the article is the way it is currently- that we are waiting for formal charges due to WP:BLP. Newspapers/media may publish what they wish, but we have a policy regarding the information at issue. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)