User talk:ECPPS Think Tank

Speedy deletion nomination of The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Whispe ring 19:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created The Egyptian Center for Public Policy Studies, and I noticed that your username, "ECPPS Think Tank", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Trammel Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", and "WidgetFan87". Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a username change that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 21:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, ECPPS Think Tank, contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ECPPS Think Tank (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

pl_ateuly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

This account was erroneously created with a username not complying with the guidelines, and unfortunately misused to create a page that did not comply with wikipedia standards. Consequentially, this account has been blocked. In order to rectify this issue, we would like to contact the admin who deleted the page in order to ask him for specific advice, thus we need for this account to be unblocked and would like to choose a username that matches the standards. We are an independent non-partisan think-tank committed to promoting the work of civil society organisations in Egpypt. We would like to create pages on current issues in the Egyptian civil society, on networks, associations and NGOs. Unfortunately our first version of the page describing ECPPS did not meet the neutrality standards, which we regret, as it is by no means our intention to actively promote that organisation. We would like to rectify that issue, contact the administrator who deleted the page and ask him for more specific advice in order to avoid such problems in the future. Therefore, we would like for our account to be unblocked under a new name.

Decline reason:

The liberal use of the pronoun "we" in this appeal implies that this is an account accessible by multiple people. Shared accounts are prohibited. Accounts must represent only a single individual accessed only by that individual and not a representative. Also, you do not seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a promotion or publicity medium. Please use Facebook for that purpose. In addition, you do not seem to understand the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Just as people are strongly discouraged from writing autobiographies about themselves, so too are organization representatives strongly discouraged from writing articles about their organization. You may try submitting an article using the procedure described at Wikipedia:Articles for creation where it will be reviewed by a neutral volunteer before acceptance into main article space. You do not need an account for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we need for this account to be unblocked
To edit what, exactly? MER-C 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account is used by me (one person) only, and only privately so. The use of "we" above indicates that I do indeed work for an organisation, which is not the one I wrote about in the past nor one I wish to write about in the near future (for obvious reasons). I do however have a commitment to publish pages on several different issues, institutions and processes within Egyptian civil society, the purpose of which is to increase levels of and access to information, raise awareness and thus contribute to the democratisation process in this country at this crucial moment in history, which I believe should be in line with the general ideals Wikipedia is promoting. I have said this before and do not need to reiterate it. The fact that unfortunately the first page published did not meet the standards does not warrant the accusations made in the above reply. I am a frequent and grateful user of Wikipedia and would like to contribute to its quality and variety; everything I have said remains true. As there is no way for anyone to prove that they truthfully have good intentions when using Wikipedia, I believe what I have said shows that I do. Ultimately it is up to the administrators to decide whether they believe this or not. Second chances should be granted; there is no harm in seeing if someone lives up to their commitments the second time. The ultimate decline of this request in spite of this presentation of my justifications would lead me to consider the decision-making process within the administrative team arbitrary and a willful constraint on the ideals of freedom, variety and inclusivity which Wikipedia is trying to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.161.79.120 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 26 September 2014‎

If you want to make a new unblock request, you are welcome to do so, but you will need to log in first.

Decisions about blocking and unblocking are not arbitrary. Our job as administrators is to ensure the stability of the Wikipedia project and prevent disruption. You were blocked to prevent further disruptive activity that originated from this account, and you further compounded the problem by implying that the account was shared by multiple people, and stating that you would continue using Wikipedia as a platform to 'raise awareness' about issues, which is not in line with our policies and guidelines. The essay WP:NOBLE may apply to your case.

Second chances are indeed possible. That is why we have a procedure for unblocking. I am willing to unblock this account if you agree to the following:

Refrain from any promotional language in your edits
Refrain from linking to your organization in any of your edits
In any article related to your organization where you wish to make substantial changes, propose those changes on the article talk page instead of making them yourself, in keeping with the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Refrain from creating articles in main article space about subjects with which you have an association; use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process instead

Those practices are what the Wikipedia community expects from any editor with a conflict of interest. Can you abide by them? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]