Talk:Who Am I? (Pale Waves album)

Reviewer Comments
The following comments have been copied here because they were disruptively removed from the front side.

Album released
The album has now been released so meets the requirements for notability. 5.151.93.160 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Album released comment
The album has now been released. A resubmission of this draft by an established neutral editor that includes charting will be considered. Any submission by an unregistered editor will be ignored, and semi-protection has been requested to prevent such submissions. Any submission by an editor who does not answer the question about Conflict of Interest is likely to result in a request for a partial block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been mainspaced by, so no further action needed. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have approved this as a "neutral editor", and the article currently includes charting information from the midweek UK Albums Chart, where it currently sits at number two. But it shouldn't have needed this—WP:NALBUMS explicitly states charting does not mean an album is notable, just an indication it may be, yet AfC draft reviewers act like this is the be-all and end-all and state it as a requirement for them to approve drafts when it should not be. Extensive press coverage like this album has had is already enough to make an album pass NALBUMS. There are six reviews from well-established publications present on the article, and there's probably more out there.


 * Further, am I to seriously understand that, an editor who has been here since 2017 and worked on a variety of topics, was accused of having a conflict of interest and threatened with a topic ban for nothing other than daring to resubmit this draft multiple times? Is this what editors get when they have an interest in a topic and go through the AfC process? What great encouragement for editors to contribute to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. For shame. Do better. Srodgers, I'm sorry you had to go through this, even if you did not particularly engage with it. You deserve an apology from Robert McClenon, quite frankly.  Ss  112   18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it could have been answered simply with "No, I'm not associated with the band or the studio. I am just a fan." AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Angus, they shouldn't have even needed to. Is this a common thing at AfC, that users interested in topics enough to write an article about them are accused of paid editing instead of the normal line of thinking hey, maybe they're just interested in a topic? That is a considerable leap of bad faith, to start a thread at COI and threatening blocks. You can clearly see Srodgers1701 has been here since 2017 and have made a variety of edits to music topics issued by a variety of music labels. It would not be forefront in my mind to assume somebody had been paid off to edit music articles on Wikipedia for over four years, but perhaps that's just me.  Ss  112   04:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Recapitulation of events
User:AngusWOOF is correct, but there is more to it than that skipped over by User:Ss112, and omitted logically and physically by User:Srodgers17. Angus and I declined the article several times because the album had not been released. On the last resubmission, Srodgers gamed the system in a way that shows that they knew what they were doing. They deleted the record of the declines and resubmitted the draft without the declines, although the record says not to remove them. That wasn't a mistake by an inexperienced editor. That was gaming the system, and at this point I did ask about conflict of interest and I did warn them that I might ask for topic-ban.

This would not have happened if they had simply figured that sometimes ignoring an instruction that says not to remove something may not be a good idea.

Before you start lecturing me to "Do better" and saying that I should apologize, you should read the detailed instructions better. Before scolding me, get the facts and the sequence of events straight. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's still an assumption on your part of why Srodgers1701 removed the declines. Anybody could see in the history that the article had already been declined, and surely you don't review that many drafts that you would have forgotten you had declined this article multiple times already. Srodgers told me earlier on my talk page that they aren't experienced with drafts. I'm inclined to assume good faith here that the removal of the declines was a mistake, and I think you should too. I don't need to read anything "better", and I'm well within my rights to (as I think anybody reviewing this situation should) scold you for immediately jumping to assuming bad faith, launching a COI investigation, and threatening a user with a topic ban or block for the crime of...submitting a draft multiple times. For somebody who comes into contact with new editors via AfC who think that is the main way they can get an article started, that is shameful conduct and something that's going to turn away and dissuade a lot of people trying to submit worthwhile topics. I don't think I need to tell you that you should be encouraging and patient if you're going to be at AfC? Otherwise why don't you leave reviewing AfC drafts for those who can handle other users' mistakes and/or not immediately start threatening or assuming paid editing on the part of the users creating them? Obviously Srodgers1701 isn't going to get an apology from you because you feel you've done nothing wrong. You went way overboard here—the amount of bad faith is staggering and anybody can see that. You can keep replying if you wish, but you're very clearly in the wrong here Robert. Not me or Srodgers1701.  Ss  112   04:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's bizarre that the first version of the article was rejected for "not showing notability" when three separate write-ups by NME were written about it. That the second version was rejected is patently absurd.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  17:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)