Hi, a few days ago I pinged you on my talk page. I'm not sure if you have notifications enabled or if you just didn't reply to the discussion? Anyways, I had concerns about a specific U5: User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 13#Question from Bristlepaddy (12:02, 21 October 2024). I hope this is just an oversight but if so, please be more careful. Speedy deleting article drafts as U5 can be bitey. Courtesy ping to GPL93 as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clovermoss. This looks a lot like a promotional piece/resume for a non-notable individual created by an SPA with the sole purpose of increasing this individual's SEO visibility. If I'm wrong in this instance, I'd love to know why, but it's worth noting that I encounter dozens of similar attempts every single day. I don't think Bristlepaddy has the purest of intentions here. -Fastily 19:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that you said you see dozens of similar situations to this one every day. Are you saying you delete all of these as U5s? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. But I'd love for you to tell me why this isn't SEO spam. -Fastily 19:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's assuming the worst faith possible and this looks like the average draft of a random newbie. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's utter nonsense and you know it. This has nothing to do with assumptions of good or bad faith. Have you examined the sources on the page? And ironic that you're advocating for this page given that you yourself have doubts about the subject's notability. Sounds like you have trouble discerning between constructive contributions and spam, which I find troubling given that you're an admin. Like I said above, please explain to me how this isn't a thinly veiled advert. If you can't (or won't admit to your mistake), then please kindly get off my talk page. Regards, Fastily 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily, I don't see why you need to be so harsh here, since I don't see any open-and-shut indications that the account is a SPA. I'm really conservative when it comes to use of U5/G11, and really only tag when there’s clear indications that there’s something going on with the user page. Unambiguous signs that you’re probably familiar with would be having the same username as the subject stated in the draft, external links to social media and marketing headshots. Sure, the draft has links to primary sources, but there's an outside review for one of his plays and a ref to a book. There also isn't any clearly promotional language. This page is not unambiguous spam, and userspace is allowed for drafts. I probably would have declined a CSD myself. Either way, accusing another editor of bad faith by saying Ok that's utter nonsense and you know it. when they came to your talk page with concerns about one of your actions, and asking them to leave your talk page after saying that it was definitely a mistake is very dismissive and not a constructive way to discuss things. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we interacted before? Very convenient for you to show up here, presumably at the behest of Clovermoss. I've given ample opportunity for OP to explain why this isn't an advert/SEO improvement and thus far they have failed to do so. I don't see why they need to you to come to their defense. Based on years of experience chasing down UPE's and keeping WP clear of spam/abuse, I can confidently say that this example above contains all the characteristics (albeit subtle) of SEO spam. I think I've made my position clear. Both you and Clovermoss have been around long enough so your inability to understand the issue is not my problem. This has been a waste of my time and I won't be participating any further. -Fastily 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not canvass Fathoms Below. You should probably assume good faith more often. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily for you to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). Should the petition reach 25 extended confirmed signatories within 30 days, you may initiate an RRfA during the next 30 days, and if you do not initiate an RRfA within a reasonable time frame, bureaucrats will have the discretion to remove your administrator privileges. An RRfA has a threshold of 60% for an automatic reconfirmation and 50% for a bureaucrat discussion. Before the RRfA begins, you may opt to run in an administrator election if one is occurring within 30 days. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily, the template above didn't provide the following information: You can provide a statement by editing the page's code and removing the comment markup around the Response section above the Discussion section. I have now added this information to the template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an improvement over the pages you removed? Tavantius (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tavantius. The title I deleted was merely a redirect to the actual page content which is located at Draft:Trent Horn. I don't get involved in AfC reviews, so I won't get into the merits of the current version of the draft. Regards, Fastily 17:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]