User talk:Valereee/Archive 47

Crumbl Cookies - Response
Hello Valeree, I wanted to message you about an article you reviewed a while ago and one I also recently worked on this year - Crumbl Cookies. I was going to write this on the talk page, but I took an unexpected wikibreak only to find that the article had been deleted. So I decided to talk to you directly about it.

First off, before you assume otherwise, I don't have any COI with the company nor did I intend to promote them in the slightest (I even deleted a revision from a user with a COI because it seemed unencyclopedic). I only worked on the draft because I saw sources about them on Google News from reliable outlets and thought their concept seemed interesting for an encyclopedia. I see reliable sources that talk about a topic, I believe it’s notable enough for Wikipedia.

I understood that the draft had been rejected due to a lack of notability-granting sources; it seemed that in 2021 it was clearly too soon for the company to merit their own article. However, a year had passed and more sources had spawned. I figured maybe it was time for the company to get their own article. In order to make sure it didn't seem promotional, I asked user Cunard about the draft to see if the sources established notability and maintained a NPOV. Cunard seemed to agree that the sources met NCORP and moved it to mainspace with a few edits, before you tagged it with multiple issues and proceeded to remove a large portion of the article, including claims properly attributed with reliable sources.

Look, I understand that as an administrator it’s your job to make sure that articles on various topics not only meet notability guidelines, but also remain verifiable and neutral. I appreciate editors like you who are vigilant on the uptick when it comes to this. But with the edits you made to it, and I say this with 100% good faith… I believe you went a bit too far this time.

I'm not going to question your authority on these decisions because I assume you also used good faith judgements when editing the article as well. However, it does make me wonder if you made sure to read the sources entirely before removing content. For example, I saw that you removed the claims of them being cited as the "fastest-growing cookie company," even though it was attributed to reliable outlets. Sources such as ABC News, Business Insider, Deseret News, Dallas Morning News and Today among others actually did assert that claim, explaining that Crumbl Cookies' growth came primarily through social media:


 * ABC News: "Gain over a million TikTok followers and become the fastest-growing cookie company in the nation – that's exactly how the cookie crumbled for cookie company Crumbl."


 * Business Insider: "Crumbl Cookies was founded in 2017 and gained a cult following with its weekly new flavors through the social media platform TikTok as people shared videos of trying new cookies each week, Utah Business reported in 2021."


 * Dallas Morning News - "Crumbl's rotating menu surely has something to do with its fervor. And so does social media… Crumbl's flagship TikTok account has its own celebrity, too, with some videos getting over 2 million views."


 * Deseret - "White quartz countertops. Sterile touchscreens. Millennial pink branding. This isn’t a makeup counter or a West Hollywood boutique; this is Crumbl Cookies — the fastest-growing cookie franchise in the nation…" "Crumbl's success accelerated as it developed its iconic pink cookie box and it became one of the fastest-growing restaurant chains in the nation."


 * Today: "Fans eagerly anticipate 'flavor drops' each Sunday on the brand's social media, which boasts more than 7 million followers across Instagram and TikTok..."

If it were just one source or a press release from the company themselves, then that claim wouldn't be valid to include at all. But seeing as how multiple reliable sources have stated this claim, it's not only verifiable, but a credible claim of importance that belonged in the article. I take it that you deleted such info because you perhaps thought a company gaining popularity through social media was inherently promotional and/or some form of advertising, and I understand. Companies have used Wikipedia for promotional interests all the time, and as an encyclopedia it's important to maintain objectivity when it comes to information like this. However, in this particular case your rationale was (in my eyes) a bit misinformed. Reliable sources HAVE objectively noted that their popularity comes through their usage of social media, akin to the example #3 on "Neutral, factual tone" of WP:PUFF.

I felt that instead of outright deleting the info, you could've perhaps taken the time to verify the sources first, then rewritten the material if you still saw it as promotional. I say this because there was more than enough information in those sources that you could have expanded on to maintain a NPOV (and I would've done such a thing had I not needed to take a break).

TL;DR: While I appreciate your efforts as an admin, I felt that your edits to the Crumbl article left a bit to be desired. The info you removed wasn't promotional nor unverifiable, and belonged in the article because it established their notability as shown through reliable sources. Regardless, thank you for your edits on the article anyways. I'm going to contact the user who deleted the article later on. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, PR! The article hasn't been deleted. I trimmed it to remove a lot of content that felt very promotional. This is something that probably is best discussed at the article talk; open a section there and feel free to ping me to discuss your concerns. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

About Fourthords
Do you think we should take him to ANI? It seems like he won't stop deleting uncited "claims" no matter how many times we try to explain to him that it isn't the best solution to his problem. I'm trying to reach a middle ground on his talk (see section above yours) but he just wouldn't understand that he should try to resolve his problems without destruction. 2001:4453:5F7:6400:D401:B75E:4313:6C83 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Valereee
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
 * An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news
 * The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
 * Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous
 * You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
 * Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
 * Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back to the admin team. You are right: it's important to look after yourself first and foremost. WP is a hobby and volunteer activity. If it feels like pressure, something's not quite right. But I'm glad that after getting some perspective, you are back on the team.  Schwede 66  08:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Valereee (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I will be leaving Wikipedia many months to forever, but I think you are a great admin
This is User:Yleventa2. I have scrambled my password and removed my email, so there is no way to access my account. I just have too much going on to be able to deal with knowing that my edits are being tracked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yleventa2&oldid=1102329696#Log_in (Hopefully, this is not socking because I declared myself).

I remember when you volunteered to watch the Jonathan Mitchell (writer) page, where I have a COI and way back when I was User:Ylevental. I highly appreciate that! On your userpage, I see that you recognize that Wikipedia has a liberal slant. That is also good to hear. Also, I now definitely oppose Trump, though there was a while back in 2015-2016 when I strongly considered voting for him, but never did thankfully. 2620:8D:8000:1054:4767:C338:209C:DB3 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2022
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 01:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Valereee, I have just learned that you have had a rather serious wiki-break and am glad you are back. To eventual unpleasant moments I might have been involved I'd like to apologize. I have experienced your efficient and sound judgement repeatedly and I see you as an efficient sysop. Thank you for bringing order to wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, PC! And certainly no apology needed, we're good! Valereee (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion RfC moderator appointments
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

and are appointed as co-moderators for the discussion. The co-moderators will jointly exercise the responsibilities assigned by the 2 August 2022 decision, which remains in full effect. The panel of three closing editors will be announced on a later date.

will serve as their committee liaison. The committee liaison will facilitate communication between the co-moderators and the full committee to ensure the process is carried out efficiently.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the co-moderators for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @L235, on it. Valereee (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Also, my condolences. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Even when you and I have disagreed you've been unfailing civil and productive, which is exactly what a discussion like this will need. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you and Xeno going to appeal? :-) Levivich 01:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: 

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
Go ahead and remove my proposal, if you wish. Sorry about jumping the gun. - Donald Albury 16:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Donald Albury, not at all! Happy to have an initial set of issue/solution proposals (which I consider definitely helpful), and I would have added it to the draft the same way you did. I just want to be an intermediate step to editing the draft itself so it doesn't end up turning into the actual discussion in some obscure bit of userspace before we move it to WT space and announce to the community. Valereee (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK! Thank you! Donald Albury 16:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For those playing from home: User:Valereee/draft and associated talk. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Crippled
Vanamonde 00:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Frances Ryan
Vanamonde 00:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter



The new [] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)) 00:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks, HouseBlaster! It should be a fun ride! Valereee (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, and  will be co-moderating these discussions.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

The Signpost: 31 August 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
 * An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news
 * The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
 * The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration
 * An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
 * The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous
 * The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
 * Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal at mass creation
Hello. I've added a 14th (!!) issue and solutions at that pre-RfC, with the aim of getting something that approaches a compromise/balance/fluffiness in there. I think I'm OK to have done that, but obviously do whatever you need to.

And thanks for taking this on. I don't know how pleasant it'll be, but I appreciate you doing so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex
I understand your request of "asking for unaffiliated reliable sources", but please use the right tags (if exist). The instructions on Third-party (focus on whether the sources are reliable such that the content is verifiable and neutral) and Cleanup (focus on non-content-focused issues) cannot lead to the solution of this issue. -Hijk910 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What about 'I'm done here' are you not understanding? When I said don't ping me again I didn't mean come to my user talk and continue the argument. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

 * To be perfectly honest, I don't understand the other perspective at all. I don't understand why anyone would be so full-throated defending affiliated sources if there are unaffiliated RS available, and if there aren't unaffiliated RS available -- if literally no one else is discussing it -- why we would think a bit of information is even important.
 * The thing is, I strongly suspect the info is important and someone out there somewhere is indeed discussing this -- which is why I wasn't asking for the info to be removed, just the sourcing to be improved -- but apparently the editors at this wikiproject not only don't think unaffiliated sources are better but also are averse to tagging so maybe someone else will go find those sources. But apparently that's how they roll. I gave my opinion, others disagreed. I can move on. :) Valereee (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Creation at scale under SNGs
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/Article_creation_at_scale&diff=1108474687&oldid=1108471563 this edit]: just a minor editorial note—the heading made me think the subpoints would be related to article creation and subject-specific notability guidelines. 1d and 1e seem to be deletion related though and none of them seem to be directly discussing subject-specific notability guidelines. None of this matters of course regarding the questions you are asking regarding having an order between multiple RfCs. I only raise it since although you didn't specify what the different RfCs would be about, the natural assumption is creation and deletion, and so the heading was a bit confusing to me as I thought it would align accordingly. However others might not have the same expectations. More generally, I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts in shaping the next steps. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the problem: these would need to be somehow separated out into two separate questions if we do it all in one RfC. That is, 1a+1d&e would have to be one, 1b+1d&e would have to be a second. If we did it in two RfCs, we'd know which (if either) we were asking about. Is one enough better than two RfCs to do that? I have zero idea. There are downsides to a second RfC. People are going to be sick and tired of it by the end of the first. It's a pickle! :D Valereee (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I should refrain from responding too much here, outside of the word limits of the pre-RfC discussion... However the prolonged engagement during the 2021 requests for adminship review discussion has made me a bit more optimistic about keeping interested editors engaged. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Statistics for mass creation

 * 1) Editors who have created more than seven articles in the past week, including lists and disambiguation pages
 * 2) Editors who have created more than seven articles in the past week, excluding lists and disambiguation pages
 * 3) Editors who have created more than ten articles in June
 * 4) Editors who have created more than ten articles in July
 * 5) Editors who have created more than ten articles in August
 * 6) Editors who have created more than 100 articles in the past year
 * 7) Editors who have created more than 100 articles in the past year, by month
 * 8) Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2021, by month
 * 9) Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2020, by month
 * 10) Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2019, by month
 * 11) Editors by number of articles created in the past five years

Notes:
 * 1) None of these contain redirects that were converted into articles by the listed editor, but they do contain redirects that were converted into articles by other editors. I'm looking into fixing the latter; the former can be fixed for smaller datasets, but is too intensive for larger ones.
 * 2) External links counts can be suggestive about the quality of the article, it can also be meaningless - a low number may be because a large number of offline sources were used, while a high number may be because a template that provides links to a large number of database sources was added.


 * 1) Articles by editor by day over one year (1138 editor-days exceeded 10 articles; 163 exceeded 25)
 * 2) Articles by editor by week over one year (922 editor-weeks exceeded 20 articles, 150 exceeded 50)
 * 3) Articles by editor by month over one year (640 editor-months exceeded 40 articles, 123 exceeded 100)
 * 4) Articles by editor by year since 2020 (1156 editor-years exceeded 80 articles; 407 exceeded 200)

Note that these do attempt to exclude false positives from editors converting redirects created by the original editor, but some still exist, and this attempt does result in some false negatives. This is also the reason why a hard technical limit will be difficult; we will need some way to identify editors converting redirects into articles, and count those articles towards their count rather than towards the count of the original article creator. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Copied back to WT:ACAS in its own section. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibilities
Figured I'd put this here to avoid complicating things further. It seems to me it's worth considering the other approach to a complex problem: instead of combining/synthesizing a large number of questions to determine a solution, get buy-in for a specific solution which gets refined later. For some big RfCs we've had with lots of questions, some have been helpful, but some have also resulted in contradicting/incomplete results and a lot of additional drama. On the other hand, I'm remembering something like the NCORP rewrite, when someone did a big overhaul and rather than have RfCs to get buy-in on its various components, we had an RfC about whether to implement that whole version. This seems like one of those times when it may at least be worth considering.

So, for example (and I realize this differs from what I've written so far), something like below. If enough people think it (or something like it) is a good starting point, maybe a lot of the confusion can be avoided? Certain elements likely to attract a range of opinions, like the number of articles to set as a threshold, could be replaced with a variable to be determined through the RfC (but at least that separation in the RfC has no potential to produce difficult results). Food for thought. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A process
So you want to create a bunch of articles.

Does this guidance apply to you?
 * 1) Are you planning to create more than 50 new articles in the span of a month or 500 in the span of a year?
 * 2) Are those articles on a similar topic, similar theme, or do they based on the same set of sources?
 * 3) Will the articles be created manually, rather than through use of a bot or tools like AutoWikiBrowser (these must go through the Bot Approvals Group)?

If the answer to all of these is yes, this guidance applies to you. (Note that even if the answer is no, if an uninvolved administrator has determined your editing fits within the spirit of these requirements, you will still be expected to follow them).

You must post a notice to [new venue to be created] with the following information:
 * 1) The approximate number of articles you will create
 * 2) The approximate time frame for creation
 * 3) A description of the overall topic/theme
 * 4) Which notability criteria you will be using, and how you will demonstrate that each article meets the criteria

[some additional work on how long these discussions stay open, who approves them, etc. could be added here or deferred to a separate RfC on process for that new venue]

Mass created articles must include sufficient sourcing to show notability, and cannot be based only on simple statistical databases. While there are no firm requirements about the level of quality an article must reach when created, many in the community have a strong preference for mass created articles to be more than one- or two-sentence stubs.

If articles are created after [date this goes into effect] that do not comply with these rules, notice should be posted at [the new venue] for review. An uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion, and with feedback from the community, speedy delete the articles under [criterion TBD, but it should be one that allows refunds], draftify/userfy, or in unusual circumstances even keeping and requiring they go through AfD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, @Rhododendrites! So this would be maybe a way to later refine the 'creator-at-scale' idea?
 * (Sorry if I've completely missed your point, major unexpected event IRL has sucked 25 hours out of each day for the past few and is requiring ongoing work at a lower level, feeling a bit frazzled and having a hard time paying close attention/giving critical thought to stuff here.) Valereee (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There are a couple elements to what I wrote in my "proposed solution" that aren't in the process above, certainly. One is a user right and the other is a hard rate limit. I reconsidered the hard rate limit because, on thinking about it more, I think it would be hard to find a balance between [a lower number] satisfying those who want to restrict mass creations and [a higher number] for those who create a lot of articles but not necessarily on the same topic/theme/sourcing. The user right makes sense if there's a hard coded limit, especially to give to people who, again, create a lot of articles but not on the same theme/topic/sourcing. Without a coded rate limit, it may indeed still make sense to have documentation that someone can be trusted to mass create articles responsibly and thus doesn't need to seek out permission, but that may not be necessary to include in the original design. Sorry for confusing things about with different versions/ideas here. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to setting any kind of limit to how many articles an editor can create in a given time period. I think it much better to aim at requiring some minimal level of quality in new articles. I think that will naturally brake the rate at which someone can create articles. Donald Albury 23:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Except for that archiving mishap lol... :) Thanks for the kidn words! Valereee (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

SNG/GNG
@Vanamonde93, can you suggest wording? (I don't want to discuss the proposal itself in that section, as I'm really trying to get at whether we need two RfCs there, but I'd love to hear your suggestions on how it could be tweaked.) Valereee (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking something like change to 'Creations at scale under SNGs (other than NPOL and GEOLAND)? Valereee (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd tried to get at something like that with 5.1, but of course I bound another issue in there, that of differential standards. I'd suggest: "Creations at scale under SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG, must include [content about sources etc]". However, my preference would be for a blunter proposal; "Creations at scale are not permitted under SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG." Some folks will complain, as it comes close to obviating some SNGs, but there's a deep self-contradiction in many SNGs, and we can't avoid getting at that. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's my current draft, which doesn't deal with the fact we either need to separate these for 1a and 1b or run 2 RfCs. Does it address your concern?
 * Creation at scale under SNGs that do not confer notability
 * 1a. Clarify at WP:N to make explicit when an SNG confers notability and eliminate contradictions. Require all creations at scale under SNGs that do not confer notability to have at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG.
 * 1b. Clarify at WP:N to make explicit when an SNG confers notability and eliminate contradictions. Require all creations at scale under SNGs that do not confer notability to have at least two sources which would plausibly contribute to GNG.
 * 1c. Create a speedy deletion criterion for articles created at scale that clearly fail to have source(s) sufficient to meet this requirement. An assertion that the source(s) supplied meet GNG is sufficient response at talk; repeated such assertions that subsequently fail at AfD are a conduct issue.
 * 1d. Allow articles created at scale that clearly fail to have source(s) sufficient to meet this requirement to be nominated for deletion at any scale
 * 1e. Creation of articles at scale that clearly fail to have source(s) sufficient to meet this requirement may be nominated for deletion without an expectation of WP:BEFORE..
 * (Above combines proposals 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, issue 16) Valereee (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two queries and a point to make:
 * Qry: how long would people have to object to the CSD? Given that I can see examples of where thousands of articles are tagged in one batch.
 * Qry: wrt the BEFORE - would they have to check, where possible, the sources in the article? i.e. actually click on non-paywalled link?
 * Point: I, obviously, strongly support ATD as a way of preserving content, sources and attribution where it can be shown that "articles like these" can often be developed to meet GNG. I guess that might be dealt with some other way, but to lose that entirely would be disappointing. I'm more than happy to provide examples of the sort of thing I mean. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BST, I would assume a CSD would fall under the same rules as other CSDs. They usually get deleted as soon as an admin comes along and agrees that yes, this falls under that criterion.
 * W/re BEFORE and the sources in the article, I'd assume that certainly the person coming along first would check the sources. Once they saw there was, for instance, a single source to a database that provided only a bare mention, then they wouldn't be required to check the other hundreds of articles created using only that same database to see if by chance article #59 had a longer entry that constituted significant coverage. I think what you're saying is that while the person creating the articles might be indiscriminately creating them for every entry rather than assessing each entry for actual notability, but that some articles might actually be for notable subjects and we'll be throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Unfortunately that's what got us here. Personally I blame WP:NOA. :D
 * I'm all for ATD (I often !vote merge/redirect) and I think it's definitely worth including in this RfC. And I'm happy to look at examples if you like! But realize I'm not the one who needs to be convinced, as I have to keep my own opinions out of this workshop and the RfC, won't even be !voting. Valereee (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This wording generally addresses my concern, thank you. I do think you need "SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG" or at least "SNGs that do not directly confer notability" in place of "SNGs that do not confer notability". FWIW, I think this is also addressing pieces of issues 13 and 19. An anal-retentive suggestion with respect to structure; mark mutually exclusive proposals differently from independent proposals. So in your list above, 1a and 1b are mutually exclusive, and should remain 1a and 1b, while the rest are independent, and should be 2, 3, and 4. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Answering at speed due to various, forgive: 1a and 1b aren't mutually exclusive, though? You could support both, one, or neither? Valereee (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but with respect to implementation they are mutually exclusive; they cannot both become policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, one of my concerns with this question is that most people might support requiring at least one source that meets GNG. 40% of people think we should require one. Another 20% think we should actually require 2, so they oppose requiring one and support requiring two. The other 40% are opposed to requiring any. Now we have 40%S/60%O requiring one and 20%S/80%O requiring two, and we end up with no consensus to require anything when actually most people think we should require one or two. Is there a way to word this so that a support for requiring two is also a support for requiring one? I'm actually wondering whether we should include requiring two at all...I'm thinking it's unlikely to have broad enough support. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable concern. I think omitting the two source requirement is one way to handle it. But also, if !votes play out the way you envision, a reasonable close would find consensus for requiring one source. Even if those wanting 2 sources oppose the 1 source proposal, I think very few of those would actually prefer no requirement over a 1 source requirement. If you were willing to handle more bureaucracy, you could make it a forced ranked-choice system; !voters have to rank A, B, and C, where A is no sources required (ie status quo), B is one, and C is two. Presumably those supporting C would still place B over A. Does that make any sense? Vanamonde (Talk) 08:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect sense, yes, and I think it's a good idea! Valereee (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: I would suggest allowing users to endorse or reject solutions for your proposal 17; you can't very well have it as an RFC question, and consequently this is your only chance to get feedback. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to hold off altogether. I don't think we need it for creations, and I think it'll be much easier to define for noms at AfD. Valereee (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ring theory (psychology)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)