Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 → Archive 40

AFC & CSD - unplanned behaviour?

A couple of times today I've received AFC reviews for pages I'd tagged for CSD. On investigation I find that {{Userspace draft}} loads the page with {{AFC submission/Substdraft}} which includes the code

<includeonly>{{subst:submit}}</includeonly>

This loads the page with

{{subst:submit}}

which, when I tag the page for CSD, or presumably ANY editor performs ANY action, becomes

{{submit}}

I can't see this being anything other than a booby-trap for the next editor of the page after the {{Userspace draft}} has been added. Could someone with more knowledge of what's the desired behaviour check it over please? Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

For those of you watching at home, it's stuff like Special:Diff/834017830. That certainly is odd, let me look into it. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Cabayi, I've looked into the diff above as well as User:Lilaclilybelle/sandbox (which only admins can see). In both cases there was a {{subst:submit}} inside of a malformed <ref>...</ref> set (in the first diff you'll see it's //ref> instead of </ref>). Thus, there are templates inside of refs and they're not properly transcluding (there are also the {{void}} templates there). My guess is that TW ends up transcluding the templates even though they're inside the refs, which causes you to be the "owner".
In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with {{userspace draft}} and everything to do with TW and GIGO issues. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, thanks for taking a look. Hitting the same issue twice in one day seemed a bit... broken. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I can imagine. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC Daily stats

User:Espresso Addict and I are interested in the daily submission counts. Last I checked the submissions did not really drop after ACTRIAL ended - even though they jumped up during ACTRIAL. Darn if I can find the link to the stats now though. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Stats from Oct-present:
It's a bit hard to see, but March sees a fairly large decrease compared to all but December (which I suspect is lower due to the holidays). And yes, the daily submissions did drop, from 299/day in Feb to 245/day in March. January saw 277/day and more than 1k more submissions than March (8600 vs 7500). Primefac (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but... Is it my eyes or is that hard to read??? Are the data tabulated somewhere public? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes there was some drop post ACTRIAL but I was talking about not seeing a drop back to pre-ACTRIAL levels. I wanted to study that a little better.
I've been attacking the que by seeking deletion on hundreds of inappropriate page (some of which had already been or likely would be resubmitted) and accepting the good and notable but not perfect, often pages that have been declined repeatedly before. I have not lost one of those accepts yet to deletion, though I'm willing to accept occasionally pages will get deleted for various reasons. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

March only - ACTRIAL ended March 14?

Submission rates are obviously highly variable. There is a big decline in the days before ACTRIAL ended for example - and I'd not expect most true new users to know it was running or not or when it would end. Serial new account creators might have figured out the dates. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There looks to be a weekly cycle going, with a lull at the weekends? I'd be surprised if true new users had any visibility of ACTRIAL -- I only realised it had been turned off when the speedy A7 backlog briefly went through the roof -- though that quickly seemed to calm down again. More admins on speedies or just all the vandal editors who'd bothered to set their calendars to mark the end of the trial? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Th 332, F 233, Sat 220, Sun 234, Mon 315, Tu 297, W 332, Th 356, F 280, Sat 239, Sun 211, M 308, Tu 282, W 324, ACTRIAL ends Th 217, F 242, Sat 177, Sun 183, M 249, Tu 237, W 230, Th 249, F 210, Sat 262, Sum 160, M 207, Tu 246, W 208, Th 170, F 210, Sat 175 Yes its a weekly cycle lighter submissions on weekends when the paid editors are away from their desks? Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Probably just people with very boring jobs, and kids at school. The weekends are probably going to have better-quality submissions on average. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the submissions are new pages or counte resubmissions. Either way I expected a bigger drop on March 15 on than occured. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a downward trend towards the end of March, but not what I would necessarily call a statistically significant decrease day-by-day, but month-by-month I would very much argue that there was a decrease in daily submissions. Regardless, it doesn't really matter how many drafts are submitted each day, it matters how many drafts are submitted in relation to the number of drafts reviewed. For example, in January (our "heaviest" month with 8600+ submissions) the backlog actually decreased, because we did about 9300 reviews. Conversely, in February submissions outstripped reviews by 30/day, leading to a 900+ increase in the backlog. And now, in March, we saw fewer submissions (~7600) than reviews (~8000). As long as we have more reviews than submissions, the backlog will go down. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There looks to be a significant decline starting around day 160. Also a big dip around day 80 (Christmas?). But as the switch looks set to flip this way again, it's likely to recover in a few weeks... Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Not to state the obvious but Day 14/15 shows a huge spike - the start of ACTRIAL - and Day 194 is the end of ACTRIAL. The small drop after ACTRIAL is much less than the huge spike at the beginning. That's what I noticed in the raw data too and why I made the statememts that lead to this discussion. I can't explain why we see that result - maybe it is seasonal? Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Helpdesk entries 1-4 April

These seem to have been deleted. Could somebody restore them. I'd do it myself, but I may be missing something. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Something went haywire with Yrarendar's edit, but I believe it's now fixed. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Idly wish we had a "Pre-1950?" button for drafts

Not that this is going to happen, but if we had a button submitters could click for "my draft is about something that pre-dates 1950" I'd just hover over that queue since the acceptance rate would be easily 5x higher for those articles. If something happened over 60 years ago and somebody is still interested in it, there's a much better chance its Notable.

I just approved Sister-books within minutes of it hitting the queue, since historical articles are generally Notable and tend to be well-written. And for whatever cultural reasons Military History articles are often really well written and cited, so anytime I see "battle of X" drafts I swoop in and have a 75% chance of just approving them right out.

*Sigh* I like the easy ones, breaks up the trend of YouTubers, garage bands, and Bitcoin startups... MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a button for drafts on any subject pre-dating 2010 would probably eliminate 90% of the dross, but I'm showing my age. KJP1 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
By my observation, there is a significant WP:RECENTISM problem at WP:AFD and since AfC acceptance criteria is based on what is likely to happen at AfD, I think you'd be surprised by what the community considers acceptable new article material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
User:MatthewVanitas - Well, I mostly agree. Any draft on someone who lived in the nineteenth century is an easy one; if they are still remembered, they are worth noting. I'm always glad to see one on someone who lived in the nineteenth century, or a species of plant or insect. I did a few weeks ago ask someone who was submitting multiple species of bamboo to start submitting them directly to article space, because he obviously knew what he was doing. I see a few authors on NPP who submit multiple species of insects. They may have adopted a taxonomic family of insects and are entering all of them, which is useful. After all, if there is a paper saying that the species exists, that is notable. Any rule about 2010 or 1950 or 1900 has to do with people and companies, not with species. Any species has existed for a long time, regardless of whether it was identified in 1758 or 2008 or 2018. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Potential AfC process improvement with Community Tech team

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH at WMF. As Danny previously mentioned on this talk page, as part of the follow-up to ACTRIAL, the Community Tech team is going to have some bandwidth over the next couple months to take on an improvement to the AfC process. I've been following along with the conversation on this talk page and here to learn about the biggest challenges facing AfC and the ideas for improving it.

Though I’m new to this process, I’ve attempted to summarize AfC’s challenges, goals, and ideas for improvement. I hope you don’t mind that I’ve posted it as a subpage for this WikiProject. I’m sure I haven’t done a perfect job because of my lack of experience so far with AfC, but hopefully it is an improve-able starting point for a conversation. Of the ideas brought up so far on this talk page and others, some of them seem better suited for WMF to get involved with, and some are better left to other members of the AfC community. Just to set expectations, we'll have small amount of bandwidth for this, on the order of a typical Community Tech project. Keeping that in mind, I hope you can all check out the linked page above, help fill in gaps of things I’ve missed, and be part of a conversation of what sort of impact Community Tech can make during April and May.

One other note -- as Legacypac suggests, I would love to try out the AFCH script, but I am not quite yet at 500 edits (I have 244 in my personal account -- Cloud atlas). Is it possible to list me here so I can get started? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Great to have some help. Any Admin can add you to the protected list. The 500 edit limit is a purely arbitrary to filter out inexperienced users. We can create a dummy draft for testing the script on if you like. Draft:AFC testing perhaps? Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Marshall, I'd be okay adding your regular account to the AFCH list if you're willing to only use it for "test edits" (at least at first); as much as I appreciate the WMF's input into the process it doesn't look like you have the required experience (which isn't just the "500 edit" minimum) to fully participate in the AFC process. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac and Primefac -- thanks for the quick response and for the discussion on the other talk page. I totally understand that I should only be making test edits for now. I'm happy to create my own dummy draft (unless the AFCH script won't let me review my own draft). Thank you for adding me and I'm looking forward to trying out the script. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I was using the collective "we". You are able to review any Draft or userpage submitted to AfC including pages you create yourself. I'm even fine with you actually declining some pages from the feed that are obvious problems. Look in the 0 days list. Until WMF does AfC its really hard to understand how to fix it. Would you redesign a car having never driven one? Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: and @Legacypac: -- I wanted to check in about being listed as a reviewer so I can try out the script. Let me know! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Only an Admin can added you to the list ping User:TonyBallioni as another opinion in case Primefac is not around Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Cloud atlas and MMiller (WMF):, I've added the account to the list, but I request that you use it only for testing purposes. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Add WikiProjects

Is there an easy way to add WikiProjects to a talk page of a draft? There was an article related to spaceflight that I would have approved of a month ago if I knew it existed. I like using Enterprisey's tool; but if the pages are not tagged, it loses a lot of its usefulness. I would be willing to run through and tag a bunch of pages, but I would like to have some assisted way of doing so. Anything exist already? Kees08 (Talk) 06:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I remember some tool that did that, but it didn't work for me. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Enterprisey/draft-sorter is the easiest tool for connecting drafts to WikiProjects. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Lifesaver. Thank you! Kees08 (Talk) 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Too many Football bios

There are many football bios by User:Das osmnezz in the unreviewed list. This editor has over 700 page creations but has been placed on a restriction requiring AfC review. [1] He has User:Das_osmnezz#List_of_drafts_created which a qualified reviewer in Football could run through quickly. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I looked at three. They are beyond WP:STUB, contain meaningful prose, and are sourced. I think they should be immediately accepted. Very likely, many could be merged due to marginal average individual notability, but that is a content management problem, one that is greatly facilitated by the pages being in mainspace, with functional mainspace categories and the WhatLinksHere functionality. I know nothing of the reason behind the ban, it could be serious, involving copyright, or a history of lesser quality pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    For the record, we should not be "fast-tracking" someone's drafts simply because there are a lot of them. Much like SvG and a few other cases recently, if a user is restricted to creating drafts there is a definite reason for it, and if anything means more scrutiny should be given to the pages. If you don't know anything about the ban, then you shouldn't be saying "let's ignore it." Primefac (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    Primefac, I sure never said fast track because there are a lot. The ones that are beyond WP:STUB, contain meaningful prose, and are sourced should be accepted. I am suspecting that there is hesitation due to a fear of football bio permastubs, and that should be resolved in mainspace, not at AfC. This was a quick response, I guessed, consistent with the comment below, that the problem was something like copyright, which should be considered carefully before accepting, although copyright violations in DraftSpace are not necessarily better than copyright violations in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    If the issue was the creation of substandard articles, then moving all of the drafts to article space to "resolve" the issue is actually going against the restriction itself. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't mean to suggest wholesale accepting and moving, which would be a de facto overturn of the ban. I mean that at least some are clearly well-enough sourced, well enough passing WP:STUB, to be accepted, on a page by page basis, subject to the copyright concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    No worries. No apology required, I could be clearer to start with.SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I linked the ban above. It was for poor sourcing issues not copyvio. As far as I can see he as been addressing the problems that lead to the ban. I don't do WP:FOOTY because I don't know anything about the topic. I raised it here because I'm tired of finding all these FOOTY drafts and I'm hoping someone that is comfortable with them can clear them away as a project. We don't have any fasttrack process - its all random anyway. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to SmokeyJoe's comments more than yours, for what it's worth. Indented to make it a little more clear. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Also raised here because reviewers need to be aware of the issues that lead to the ban so we can check for them carefully. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm involved with WP:FOOTY. Most bios are clear cut for notability as they are professionals who pass WP:NFOOTY. The main issues involve there being enough sourcing, proving that these players have in fact played professional games for the club (sourcing isn't always very clear on if games played were friendlies or not), and some.of these are for coaches and the like which are much harder to quantify. Is it not possible for members of the wiki project to review these types of articles, and help the backlog in cases like these? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your last question, Lee Vilenski. Why would we not be able to review the pages? Primefac (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Primefac, I think I mispoke. When we get a user who is forced to create articles through AfC due to a ban, or block, would it be adventageous to ask the advice of the corresponding WikiProject? So, in this case, would it make sense to show this backlog to the FOOTY WikiProject (as it is 700 pages). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Extra assistance never hurts. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, in that case, I'll post on the talk page. What is the policy of users from outside AfC moving an article from draft space? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The list is here User:Das_osmnezz#List_of_drafts_created. Any user in good standing can move the Drafts to mainspace. If you apply for the AFCH tool it is more automated, facilitates categorization, project tagging and notifocations. Just request to be added at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants talkpage. And thank-you very much. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The list of football drafts by this one creator not marked done has grown to 134 which is over 5% of the pending drafts. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a modification to the related editing restriction here [2] of Admin User:Ad Orientem who I'm pinging here for background. Legacypac (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the ping and I apologize for putting any strain on AfC. There were three principle reasons for my imposing the editing restrictions on Das osmnezz (talk · contribs)
    • Repeated creation of articles about non-notable football players.
    • Repeated claims of fact not sourced.
    • Persistent use of unencyclopedic language.
The user has been repeatedly blocked on WP:CIR grounds and the editing restrictions were imposed in lieu of an indefinite block. I am not insensitive to the added work load here but I am not sure that shifting it to a wiki project is the right idea. Maybe we need to gently apply the breaks and limit the number of drafts they can create over a given period of time. I should also note that there is nothing malicious about this editor. He is a well meaning content creation work horse. Unfortunately he has a long track record of producing mediocre to sub par articles that were driving other editors crazy trying to clean up after him. [Side note: I am going to be quite busy over the next few days and won't be online much. But I will try to check in when possible.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy ping The Drover's Wife. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank-you for the response User:Ad Orientem. AfC is a Wikiproject too - so my question is which WikiProject is best equipped to handle these football drafts? I'm suggesting the subject matter experts. It's great if he wants to create 1000 drafts we just need to manage them most effectively. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It isn't great because the drafts he's submitting are rubbish - and because if anyone declines with feedback on how they could be made not rubbish, he starts arguing with them over football notability criteria instead of ever making useful fixes. They're only breaking AfC because he's the only submitter I've ever come across who takes this attitude towards the reviewers and he never learns. A mini-stub on a player with a long list of local clubs who played one game for some professional club in some far-flung country which doesn't even mention the one game in the text of the article, or which throws in some random anecdote in lieu of explaining the claim to notability so that readers know he played that one game, is useless. No amount of feedback or mentoring will stop him aggressively creating crap articles - and the solution to that, as with other editors in the past, is a ban. He is taking advantage of the extraordinarily lax sporting notability criteria to justify his crap articles - were he to write on literally any other subject, every single article he creates would meet speedy deletion criteria without a doubt. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
If the lax sporting guideline fits his stubs, then he is doing nothing wrong. If this is a notability battle, bans are not the answer. The answer is AfD, or RfC, or a number of essays on what you should do when you don’t like what’s going on. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue is not the notability of his articles. The issue the mass-creation of seriously crap articles (and zero interest in changing his behaviour), which is why he's already under a significant sanction. It helps to know what is going on before trying to patronise people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Decline as duplicate of mainspace

I've just declined a submission because I belatedly realised that the editor had double submitted it to mainspace. The capsule decline reads "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Gloria+Mark instead." but obviously the article is at Gloria Mark. This is likely to be a common problem, can someone who understands the coding help to fix? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  •  Fixed the script allows you to select which article the draft is a duplicate of Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why does everything need a templated solution. Why not Speedy redirect? The redirect communicates more clearly and succinctly than any collection of words. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes a merge or even a history merge is the better solution. If the draft has significant content that is not also in the mainspace version a merge is usually the best option. A copy paste from draft to mainspace is only ok if the page has only one author and was copy-pasted by that author. A copy paste move that has multiple contributors must be history merged to preserve attribution - a legal requirement of the CC by SA license. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. At mfd we see a lot of copy-paste cleanup attempts where the nominator ignores the attribution requirements. Copy-paste errors are best history merged because that leaves a clean simple attribution record for future users who look for it. Null-edit attribution notes I think are usually a fiction, details lost when the page is downstream reused. Speed redirect is great for when the new draft is obviously inferior in all ways to a long pre-existing mainspace article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Read NPROF

Reviewers seriously need to read WP:NPROF. I just happened accross the teahouse, when I saw someone asking about a draft they had on a clearly notable academic, Jan Lexell. This draft was rejected four times on notability grounds, with not a reviewer apparently knowing anything of the fact that NPROF gives notability from influence (of which was in fact described in the article) (see this revision). This notability I was able to see from merely searching scholar.google.com, which is what I do everytime I see an academic at AfC (and what I think all reviewers should do); while people may consider mere citation looking/NPROF itself to be dubious, that article would indeed get kept by a large distance at AfD, which is what we're looking for of course; easily most professors with article with say > 500 cites would get kept, honestly (whatever you want to say about that). I think perhaps the SNGs should be higher up and explained in the reviewing instructions, especially NPROF, with its standard that doesn't require GNG.

Also this is case where the "three-strikes" could've helped, by directing it to MfD where it'd quickly be sent to mainspace; but even then, this should've been accepted in the first review - not every submitter is going to be this persistent. And so would giving a button and a nudge for the page creator to bypass the reviewers and move it themselves. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've accepted not a few PROFs incorrectly declined. A review of the Declined Academic category may be productive. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not just notability; I noticed Draft:Reinhard Bachmann this evening, declined as like a resume, when it could be fairly readily purged of overenthusiastic wording. ETA I think there's a problem with the instructions that require sources for the person, when for academics and creative professionals of all types, sources about their works are what is actually needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict:--If this was G11-tagged in mainspace, I would've declined and it's more than sufficient for me to mainspace.Notable and by a mile.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 05:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric. As a newbie here, I didn't like to unilaterally overturn three declines, at least one by an admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Two things. First, the people who might need a refresher about PROF might not be reading this page (they should, but they might miss something). A helpful note on a talk page ("Hey, just a note, remember that PROF is a little different from the other SNGs" etc) will go a long way.
Second, and this is more directed at Galobtter specifically for this case but I've seen it happen before (hence why I'm not posting it on their talk) - this is a little bit silly - if someone moves an acceptable draft to the article space, just remove the AFC tags with an edit summary along the lines of "yeah, this is fine, so I'm removing the AFC tags". No need for five subsequent moves. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: A revival of the project newsletter, as proposed elsewhere, might be useful? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, twas a bit silly; just noting that the author self-reverted - had he not, I'd definitely not have moved back or anything like that (thus only two extra moves; it'd be nice if the AfC script allowed moving over redirects..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I was complaining about this sort of thing on ANI about 5 years ago. Plus ca change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Submissions Category page

I don't have time to look at it deeply right now, but on Category:Pending AfC submissions, if you click "next" it takes you to the last page, and on the last page if you click "previous" it takes you to the first. There is no way look in-between. I am experiencing this problem on multiple computers and in different browsers. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

78.26 I'm not sure why pressing next takes this to the last page, but pressing "previous" sends me to the page before, and continuing to press previous brings up more pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Really odd. I can now go back two pages, but get stuck at [3], at which point it won't take me back further, but keeps dumping me on the same set of entries. This is way beyond my technical expertise. sigh. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is likely to do with our sorting algorithms - we sort by submit time and not by name.
To be honest, I think that particular category is relatively useless (I always go via sub-cats), but I have no idea how to fix the next/previous issue you're experiencing. Maybe put in a phab ticket? Primefac (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Template:WA botmark for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Template:WA botmark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Template:WA botmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Choices on AFC Submissions - Concern

I would like to call the attention of editors here to recent discussions at the Miscellany for Deletion talk page. Sometimes AFC drafts get tagged for Miscellany for Deletion if they have been repeatedly resubmitted, or if they are completely hopeless. Drafts are the main business at MFD. A concern that has come out of the discussion of some of these drafts is that an AFC reviewer has two choices, Accept and Decline, but Decline, regardless of why the decline, contains the saccharine wording that the editor is encouraged to improve and resubmit the draft. Some of us at MFD think that this wording is responsible for some drafts being resubmitted three, five, or ten times; some of us think that resubmitting three, five, or ten times is tendentious, but we still think that it shouldn't be necessary to encourage the submitter to improve and resubmit.

I think that this is a case where the rule not to bite the newbies has become a dogma, and that the rule does more harm than good because it ties editors in knots to be sufficiently nice to fools (and some new editors, although not all, are fools), but that is only my opinion.

The consensus at MFD is that there needs to be a version of Decline that has more or less the flavor of Reject, and that encourages the editor to help us with the five million articles that we already have rather than getting one new one accepted.

What is the next step in getting the AFC decline language changed so that there is another version that doesn't encourage tendentious resubmission?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you should propose a criteria that we would use to identify WP:TE in these cases. There was a proposal to nominate drafts for deletion after n declines. I don't think we got consensus on that proposal but there was a lot of support so perhaps it could be modified to trigger saccharine removal instead of deletion. I'd probably support that. ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
information Note: The proposal mentioned can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 144#Three Strikes Rule for AfC submissions and reviews. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that as the original proposer, I don't really think that the three-strikes rule is the best idea anymore, as I think that the MfD discussion will use as much or more time than the extra reviewing. However I absolutely support giving reviewers more options for decline templates when declining a draft. In particular, a decline template for hopeless drafts that contains stronger wording (i.e. "not suitable for Wikipedia"), and without a resubmit button. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps under the section that I just added on the topic: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/AfC_Process_Improvement_May_2018#Decline_templates_and_the_comment_system_(comments_by_Insertcleverphrasehere). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Acknowledged. User:Insertcleverphrasehere - I will point out that "NOT suitable for Wikipedia" is one of the decline criteria at present, but that it is also followed by the wording that encourages improvement and resubmission, and, in a few cases, that may be appropriate. I want to clarify that the need for a stronger decline wording is not primarily related to the "NOT" decline. Those are two separate dimensions. There are about 25 decline reasons. There are currently two actions by a reviewer, Accept or Decline, but Decline gets the encouragement to improve. There should be about the same number of reasons for the decline, but the reviewer should have the option of a Decline that is encouraging and a Reject that is discouraging. Much of what gets submitted at AFC is crud, and we don't want to encourage more work on the crud. Do I need to explain further? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I am in total agreement, see my point about a 'hopeless' template at the page I linked, which would be an implementation of your 'Reject'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Insertcleverphrasehere - Agreed. Both the Decline and the Hopeless/Reject should also involve a choice of reasons, although the reasons are more important on Decline. I also think that the Hopeless/Reject should have some way to resubmit anyway. For instance, the originator may have submitted only one sentence rather than two paragraphs, or the originator may provide the English after the Portuguese has been declined as foreign. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I am a little concerned that some editors don't understand that there are multiple dimensions both to sort-of-good submissions and to crud, and we need as many options as we can get. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd still like to see a check box that the reviewer can click to remove the resubmit button (with appropriate advice that it should only be used in the worst of cases). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Whilst I think we need to discourage work on obviously flawed drafts, is being aggressive and telling them their work is worthless the way forward? Should we not be telling users that there is NO chance of their draft being accepted, due to it's subject, we should be still encouraging them to work on/look for subjects that ARE notable. We shouldn't really be chasing Wikipedians away simply because they didn't understand WP:GNG the first time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No, really, you do need to propose a criteria. Even if we go with the idea of adding a non-saccharine checkbox, we need to explain to reviewers how they should use it. I personally don't think we should be making reviewing more subjective and complicated than it already is. If there's some way we can do this automatically and if we're convinced that it will be a significant help, let's do it. I know that futile resubmissions are annoying but I don't think they actually take that much time to deal with. ~Kvng (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


I really strongly oppose this. The reason being is that in the history of Wikipedia, there are hundreds, thousands of articles that were at one time rejected by other editors for not being suitable, but over time were able to become good articles. This kind of proposal, while well meaning, is simply giving far too much power to the AFC editors to reject draft articles for good based on their subjective opinions.

This isn't really what Wikipedia is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be a place where the view of one person can decide what is suitable or not. It's supposed to be a place for collaboration. It's been brought up by many people that reviewers at AFC can be bitey, and often decline drafts that have minor problems that would be better cleaned up by the community, rather than forcing new editors to submit perfect drafts. This kind of proposal would mean reviewers have more power.

How would there be any accountability here? A reviewer tells a new editor, "nah, this will never be an article, stop working on it, I'm going to delete it for you" How does that editor get checked they are doing the right thing? Worse still, what if the drafter actually can improve it, but when find out they can't resubmit, or that other reviewers are biased because of the previous "REJECT" stamp.

There already is a method for reviewing submissions, and as I mentioned, it's been criticised for being too centralised and too bitey. More policies that increase these two things aren't needed. Egaoblai (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The way I understand this is going, is that a reviewer will be able to slap a “Rejected” tag on the draft, but that the draft will NOT be deleted except via G13 if abandoned for 6 months. Any other editor in good standing is free to reverse the “Rejected” tag, and even move it to mainspace. The accountability is in it all being open. A reviewer who habitually rejects non-hopeless submissions will be seen to be doing this, and chastised. WP:BITE? We should be kind to the newcomer, but speak plainly and accurately to the submitted draft. Rejection primarily reflects the topic, not the author. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • There's no need though. There's already a decline option. It's up to Editors to decide when they feel like they want to stop working on something. I get that rejection reflects the topic not the author, but wouldn't you agree that having ONE person decide whether to reject something isn't really an accurate way to see if something belongs here? Isn't the whole idea of Wikis that it's a communal process?Egaoblai (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Many draft submissions are patently unsuitable. Any competent editor can tell a patently unsuitable topic when they see it. It is not kinder to mince words and suggest that some improvements could make a difference. Perhaps you will like to review the Rejected submissions? Reviewing of reviews is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • What SmokeyJoe says.We seriously need to design a decline-template that does not include Saccharine-coated advice for resubmission.And, whilst you may feel that the tool can be abused, Somokey is absolutely correct, when he comments that Any competent editor can tell a patently unsuitable topic when they see it. I've tried doling out such harsh advice, in a few cases and the results have been satisfactory.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

How about successive decline templates

Many of the template user warnings are graded, getting stronger and more clear about consequences as they go. For example template:uw-unsourced1, [template:uw-unsourced2]], [template:uw-unsourced3]], template:uw-unsourced4

Right now there is just one Template:AFC submission/declined:

Submission declined
You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

So what if we had:

declined1

Submission declined
Please see notes at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements addressing those notes by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

declined2

Submission declined, second time
There are remaining issues, as discussed at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, but please be aware that successive submissions without addressing the issues will lead to the draft eventually being deleted. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you don't understand the issues, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

declined3

Submission declined, third time
There are still remaining issues, as discussed at the draft and its talk page. You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, but please be aware that if you submit the draft again without addressing these concerns, the draft will be subject to deletion. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you don't understand the issues, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Something like that? Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think banner blindness will win the day. I honestly cannot compare the three examples because I can barely make it past the first sentence before my eyes glaze over. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I mean, seriously, I've been trying to find the differences and all I see is bold text and then I lose my place... Primefac (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I added some underlining, perhaps that will help. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Banner blindness! I like the term. It may not be exactly on the mark, but something, like that. If you lose the reader in the first sentence, you’ve lost the reader. “Submission declined 3rd time” is meta text, why do you think the reader needs that in bold. What is the information the reader needs? Put that upfront. Strip the bloat. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The underlining makes it worse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The entire message is bloat. It doesn’t say what the reader should do, and it doesn’t say why. Strip it back to “declined”, and link to the explanation on the talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Metrics?

--Gryllida (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

For promotional drafts, put the onus on the author to supply the best 2 or 3 sources

For promotional drafts, which I would define as:

  • (1) About a for-profit currently trading company, including single person unregistered companies such as bands and YouTubers, or
  • (2) About a product of the above, or
  • (3) About the owner, founder, or CEO of (1) above,

That the author must supply 2 or 3 sources that are all of: independent, reliable, secondary source, and comment directly on the topic for at least two flowing sentences.

Otherwise, the page is to be deleted. I.e. “undersourced WP:CORP draft” is an explicit reason for deletion (at mfd).

2 or 3 sources, because the best 2 sources are sufficient, and WP:Reference bombing does not help, but in fact makes review extremely tedious. If the author supplies more than 3 sources, we shall take it that the first 3 are submitted to be the best, and ignore all others following.

When we agree that this is a reason for deletion, the new article instructions will be modified to state this.

For non-promotional topics, it will remain the case that the page is not deleted until Wikipedians make the case that no suitable sources exist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • So... skip the review process entirely and just jump straight to MFD if the submitter doesn't get it right the first time? With all the talk of confusing and biting the newbies, one would think a suggestion as this shouldn't even be made... I know that UPEs and COI editors often don't care about "our rules" but even good-faith creations should be given an opportunity to find and improve a draft if there's a shot. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. AfC is way too soft. To start an article, you should start with suitable sources. To start an article on a self-promoting company (or product or CEO), you MUST start with suitable sources. Make it a rule, and it is only a rule if it has teeth.
Primefac, the author doesn’t get it right first time? You mean they have just regurgitated a blurb from a non-suitable source? YES. Delete. Repeat the advice, you must start with a couple of suitable sources, for self-promoting topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • If there’s a shot for improvement (are we talking TNT?), then we can rely on nominator judgement and reviewers at mfd. this is not a suggestion for speedy deletion, but an enabling clause to discuss at mfd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I presume this concept would be explained in the decline templates? Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • No, in the new article instructions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • NB, if you can’t agree here that this failure is a reason for deletion, how are we supposed to agree at MfD that it is a reason for deletion? Is the failure to provide evidence of passing WP:CORP a reason for deletion, or not? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Go through the Article Wizard like I did recently to create a Draft. One has to actively ignore a whole bunch of direction and advise to put together an A7 worthy page. If they used the Article Wizard, we already told them VERY clearly. If they just type a page directly that's a different problem. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I’ll do it again, but I did it before. I remember a kaleidoscope of colours and different fonts and graphics, like a cartoon, and I found all the words inviting to ignore and jump to the biggest button. But let me get this straight, Legacypac, you are not agreeing that a promotional topic new draft without any suitable sources should not be allowed to be subjected to a mfd discussion to have it deleted? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. See Draft:Legacypac widgets. As I remember, mind numbing TL;DR text, but very easy to follow, nose-leading instructions if you skip the paragraphed text. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, G11 gets the worst of them, but drafts made by proven COI accounts should not be allowed to hang around. It's entirely fair to give a draft some time to improve, but spam is spam. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Proven COI accounts are out of scope of this proposal. Let’s assume fresh new account, propensibly newcomers, UPE DUCK detection notwithstanding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe where would you ever get the idea that I do not think non-notable topics should not be taken to MfD? Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your failure to agree to this proposal, and instead propose that I go on a pointless goose chase. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely people ignore the instructions - so how will more instructions help? Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thus is not about more instructions, or even better (more concise) instructions, it is about immediate mfd-ing a for-profit promotional article that has just been built without proper sourcing, where there is a bright line on an assessment of the first 2-3 sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to refine and clarify. As I pointed out - the instructions are already very clear not to create the pages this would apply to. We just need a path to deletion worked out, not better instructions to justify it. See Draft:Sara Dalton as an example that went G13 but has been restored. An MfD or a different CSD would have kept it deleted. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This is my problem with G13. It leaves no indication of the quality of the draft. You don't know if it was serviceable content and just needed some work, or if it was irredeemable trash. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You do know it is abandoned by the creator. G13 actually surfaces the occasional useful page because it pushes at least two people to look at everything 6 months unedited. We save the best of the abandoned. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, we do save them. The problem is, so much usable content has to be refunded because it was deleted by G13. Think about all the decent content we must have lost thus far. The fact that any draft can be deleted if it hasn't been edited in six months, regardless of quality, is a problem. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Jjjjjjdddddd - I've CSD'd thousands and thousands of G13 stuff. The useful pages are few and far between. Half the time you think you found something good its copyvio or copied from mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess, but it would be nice if admins added why the abandoned draft is not suitable as a topic, beyond the default G13 message. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Sara Dalton is indeed the sort of profit promotion Bio I have in mind including. She is running a sole business selling her writing, promoting her writing. She should have to meet WP:CORP, not just WP:BIO OR WP:BLP. And I think we need to be, should be, a lot more aggressive rejecting for-profit promotion. I’m not concerned about promotion of beliefs, philosophy, religion etc, unless they link to something for sale. Yes, if newcomers read the text thrown at them, which I suggest few do, they are told about minimum sourcing. Therefore, there is no justification in saying let them submit it three times. The other big thing is WP:Reference bombing, which makes reviewing hard work, and itself proves that the submitters don’t understand what’s required. Delete because the first three sources were not suitable, and subsequent sources were ignored. If they come back, they will pay attention the second time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The idea is tha when you come to a submitted draft, 1st consider speedy deletion, 2nd consider mfd deletion per this criteria, and only then, review it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    No, you follow the Reviewing Instructions and the workflow. There's a reason we have it. You don't go in with the expectation that you'll be deleting the page, you go in looking to evaluate the quality of the page. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    For drafts that are on promotional topics, as I defined above, drafts that start out reference bombed with no good sources, the AfC workflow is completely lacking the appropriate response. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it promotional and not reliably sourced? Not reliably sourced I see in the diagram, but “reliable” is too narrow, sources must be independent, and secondary, and covering the topic in depths. For promotional drafts, the response needs to be quicker and harder. If reviewers are going to stick to that flawed workflow, I am going to blame the reviewers for the outcomes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Reference bombing is a problem but my good-faith assumption is that it is done because authors don't have an in-depth understanding of wikipedia notability requirements and what constitutes a reliable reference and so on. It seems obvious to us and reasonable to ask authors to highlight their strongest citations. It is not obvious to them and they won't be able to do this successfully. I think the best solution here is if you don't like submissions you deem promotional and especially so where they have a long list of references, skip those, don't review them. ~Kvng (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I personally prefer to ask the authors to provide references as well as metadata about the references (when and where and by whom they were written) as this is something the authors may do very easily but it may speed up the review dramatically. Rather than visiting each reference and reading it in depth because the URI does not say anything about whop the author is, the reviewer gets an opportunity to write a review comment in which he or she says which sources are primary and which are independent, and spend time evaluating independent sources and providing a review comment on that. In my opinion this is a good way to reduce the reviewing load while providing the draft author with a task that is relatively straight-forward and in their interests to accomplish. (It also teaches the draft author to care of who the author of the reference is, which is an important thing to pay attention to. (I ask via a comment, not via a draft rejection. In some cases the response to the comment is timely and useful. I am yet to evaluate the percentage of cases in which this works well - work in progress.)) --Gryllida (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Request to be added to participants list

Can I be added to the participants list please? I'd like to use the script to automatically review drafts. I've done some manual reviews but it's not very convenient and I regularly watch the new pages feed to review if articles should be kept or not, and sometimes the pending submissions to accept or decline drafts. I don't currently meet the requirement of having a 90-days old account but I do have more than 500 edits and requesting to be exempted from the requirements per admin discretion. Thanks. KingAndGod 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the admin who usually administers these permissions but I'd say 90 days was an absolute minimum. I've been around north of a decade and still find reviewing hard to get right. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
KingAndGod, thank you for your enthusiasm but I would ask that you wait until you meet all of the requirements, including the "age" of your account. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
KingAndGod, are you a member of any WikiProjects? They help you gain editing practice and determine your areas of interest. Reviewing in a topic area that is very familiar to you may speed up reviewing enormously, and participation in a wikiproject may help you gain editing practice by revising the articles from the new pages queue or from the todo list provided at the wikiproject page. Gryllida (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a member in any WikiProjects but I usually edit/review music-related articles. KingAndGod 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

New decline template

One of the main criticisms that have been raised against this project is with the decline template, and how it encourages people to resubmit even if it's a garbage draft. I have created a sandbox version where the "You are encouraged to make edits..." line has been removed. Is there anything else in particular that should be changed based on the decline rationale? We can hash out which specific rationales will trigger this effect later, but mostly I want to start working on a new decline template. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • remove the blue "RESUBMIT" button and remove "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again" text. (I see versions there like that). Replace with "The page will be deleted shortly"
  • change "ask the reviewer that declined your submission" to "discuss the draft on its talkpage" and make it a simple link back to the talkpage rather than all the complex instructions and markup that is there now. We should change that everywhere. Way better to centralize discussion for the benefit of other reviewers, future NPP or MfD people etc. If Robert asks about a COI and Primefac reviews the draft next Primefac should not need to check discussion on Robert's talk. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The other main criticism of this project is that we have a low acceptance rate for notable subjects. If it is not easy for authors to resubmit after fixing issues, acceptance rate will go even lower. There really is no way to quickly distinguish garbage from diamond in the rough and for quality control of reviews, is good to have multiple reviewers evaluate a submission. Do not remove the resubmit button and do not delete failed submissions before they G13 expire. ~Kvng (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No offence, Kvng, but I'd like to stay focused just on the template for the moment. We can deal with "improper reviews" and low acceptance rates in another thread. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I will support the removal of that ostensible "Resubmit" button for all the obvious reasons; but what's the alternative, how can they resubmit? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think one can generally distinguish between "diamond in the rough - this has potential and we want to encourage further work and resubmission", and "garbage - this is hopeless". Would it not be possible to have a template structure that allowed for either route? KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes we should have a section of garbage decline reasons and a section of "please improve". Any competent reviewer can tell pointless garbage from edge cases and notable. When reviewing we should either:
  1. Tag with a garbage reason (no resubmit button, no encouragement) and either immediately CSD or leave for periodic cleanup. No point waiting for G13 (currently we decline and encourage) resubmission
  2. Tag with decline but encourage fix and resubmit (edge cases same as now)
  3. Accept if notable and verifiable (may need to search to confirm) and not G11/G12 or otherwise CSDable in mainspace. (Currently we decline many of these because they need work)
Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't - that's a possible gap here. Some drafts are factual and not promotional but fail to meet inclusion criteria. Lots of profs fit that bill for example. We just decline as not notable and let the page die G13? Do we encourage resubmission? I don't know. It's not hard to tell an associate professor is not notable but a nice non-G11 bio can usually be written off their university profile. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think maybe this is an ok approach for hopeless topics, with a tick box next to the 'invite to teahouse' and other options in the tools (i.e. "remove resubmit button (for completely hopeless drafts only)", by default the tick box should be unticked. If we are redesigning the template I would also like to see a message indicating that AfC is optional and that users are free to move their submission to mainspace themselves, with a button "move to main" or similar added to the base template. This text would be wrapped in span tags so that it would not display to non-autoconfirmed users and we could have this message not appear on the 'hopeless' version of the decline message that doesn't have the resubmit button (thus avoiding abuse by the worst submitters). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure removing the ability to resubmit is completely the way to go forward. Are all sourceless articles going to be treated this way? A user may create a draft about a borderline notable topic, and not source it. Are we simply going to reject, and destroy the chance for the user to fix the article? I'm all for deleting articles after they have been reviewed a couple times, and it's clear that the user isn't getting the message, but I fear we will alienate users who (quite rightly) don't know wikipedia's policies. Should we not limit deletion to articles that have been reviewed at least once prior, or already fit into our deletion criteria. After all, there is very little difference from draft space and user space. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
How often are declined then resubmitted drafts accepted? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Quite often would be my guess, though the real answer is "often enough". The point I think is that the check box should only be used for hopeless drafts (i.e. drafts on clearly non-notable topics, or drafts that would have to be fundamentally completely rewritten). A message accompanying the check box should make this clear for reviewers. In this case re-submission doesn't matter. If they don't do a fundamental rewrite, then we don't want it resubmitted, and if they are willing to put in the effort for a fundamental rewrite, it is essentially a new draft and they probably will just add a new template, or else submit directly to main space (they will likely be autoconfirmed by that point). Either way, no harm done, and good for the wiki and AfC on all counts. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Actually, the better question would have been "how often are resubmitted hopeless drafts accepted?", where hopeless is the subjective opinion of one reviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
A decline by one reviewer often ends the process until G13. A decline and CSD gives the page another look from an Admin who might disagree. That is better for the submitter in some ways. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It might be worth cultivating some admins with experience in deletion to look at declines for relatively minor problems. I don't know how this could be managed but I'm worried at how few pages emerge through the front door of this project; I think only 21 yesterday, and the pool of reviewers who accepted was very small. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
​Writing a new article is hard. For a new user, doubly so. I'm not surprised by the low number making it through the wikiproject, but my suggestion above to give them a button that they can click to move the page to mainspace themselves (bypassing review) is probably the best way to avoid the situation where reviewers are being too strict. We will end up with a few more submissions running through NPP, but we can cope with a few more so long as ACTRIAL passes (which seems to be pretty much assured at this point). I still like the idea of giving the reviewer the option to remove the check box, but also giving some guideance that it should ony be used where the draft is completely unsuitible as a wikipedia article (test submissions, wrong language submissions, stuff that would be A7able in main space, etc). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: The ACTRIAL RfC heading for passing is what drove me to wade in here... I haven't really examined enough reviews to comment authoritatively, but I'd say the standard upheld here is WAY higher than in mainspace, and while some reviewers are happy to try to help hands on, many (most?) are not. I'm wondering if to some extent it's a cultural hangover from drafts being personal sandbox items where wading in might be inappropriate? I would love to change the culture here from primarily gatekeeping to primarily workshopping new material and mentoring new users. (That might need the gatekeeping to be done early and decisively by finding some way of extending A7 to drafts to avoid wasting everyone's time on clearly non-notable topics.)
I'd be unhappy about removing the review button given that I think that at least some reviewers are giving wrong decisions about some articles. (Academics in particular.) Though I suppose a persistent clueful editor should work out that s/he can move a page into mainspace him/herself. Maybe change "review" to "appeal decision" which puts it in a different queue? That would mirror speedy where one editor tags and a second (admin) reviews & actions. Just thinking aloud here... Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Was this such a sensible and non-controversial idea that people ran out of things to say? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fix common errors

When reviewing newly approved drafts, there are a couple of errors that are really common. In order of perceived occurrences:

  • Section headers capitalized wrong
  • Punctuation and references not correct
  • Sections are bolded
  • No reflist

Three of the four of them may be solvable with a script. Maybe we could add it to the cleanup work the bot already does? Unbold section titles, fix the punctuation around references, and add a reflist if one does not exist (and if one is needed due to inline citations being present).

Section headers we maybe could add to the tutorial somewhere, that says they should be sentence case? That is the one that I do not think a bot could easily do.

This would save some cleanup work, and then I (and others) could focus on other work like expanding citations, adding content, etc. Kees08 (Talk) 04:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Might run into some CONTEXT issues if there were a bot, but from my own personal/anectodal experience, fixing section headers/bold/reflist errors takes hardly any time, and while I do realize that doing it on hundreds of drafts is a time sink I find myself doing it fairly rarely. I think the most time that I spend on drafts is when the refs are badly formatted (or hand-built with 1 nonsense).
That being said, we should make attempts to fix such simple errors when we find them, since (as mentioned elsewhere here) formatting should never be a reason to decline a draft, but a poorly-formatted page (again anecdotally) tends to receive less positive reviews (especially when seen by NPR). Primefac (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would add to your list, boldface of the first mention of the subject in the lead. But my observation is there are WP:GNOMES who seem to enjoy this sort of work. Reviewers shouldn't feel obligated to fix these issues. ~Kvng (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I tend to leave a comment asking the author to fix the formatting of their references. This means they get an opportunity to pay attention to who the author of their reference is. This also means that I follow up afterwards and provide feedback suggesting which sources are primary and which are truly independent and what information is missing. In my opinion this may make the learning curve easier to overcome.
Personally I prefer semi-automated scripts like Refill which provide human oversight over the change. Gryllida (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gryllida: This is fine so long as it is clear that the formatting gripes are not the reason for any declines. I see a lot of drafts where these tips are given to authors and they fix them and resubmit and are surprised when I have to decline them again for larger issues. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't decline on formatting

Can I just quickly remind everyone not to decline articles on notable topics, particularly where there are reliable references present, for formatting reasons, please. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Also dont use the 'inline citations reason' when there are citations to reliable sources in the article, even if there are no inline citations present. You can comment or tell the page creator how to fix it, but don't decline based on this, its BITEY and such articles really should be promoted. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There are 869 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes declined in the last six months. I've never investigated this category. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Inline citations are required only per WP:MINREF. Formatting is not even mentioned in the workflow. Reviewers must work according to the workflow, if you get to the end of the flowchart without finding a valid reason to decline, you are required to accept the draft, no matter how it looks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Here's one page: Draft:Manoj_Tibrewal_Aakash.That had a decline that reads "Tighten up the language. Also, remove external links for dynamite news and India Today magazine." The page was edited and then resubmitted and then received the dreaded "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability..." copy and paste decline that to me has always seemed like a lazy decline in that it doesn't give any advice or standard for the writer to achieve, just tells them it isn't good enough.Egaoblai (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
This is problematic. I should note, however, that the helper script does have an option for rejecting an article for the reason of not having sufficient inline citations. Would removing this option allow us to reduce the number of times this reason is used for rejecting articles? Acebulf (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with that but I doubt you'd find consensus here. A high proportion of reviewers seem to want to decline BLPs on grounds they are not fully sourced even though mainspace only requires a single (not inline) source supporting a single fact in the text. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
If we keep the ILC decline it must be used strictly per MINREF only. But the MINREF conditions hardly ever occur in draftspace. When last has anyine seen a draft with a legitimate "cite needed" tag? I believe MINREF compliance on drafts can be achieved by posting a review comment, declining is overkill. So my !vote is to remove the ILC decline from the menu. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Claims of significance that might reasonably be disputed require a source. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Egaoblai:--Whilst Dial's decline reason was pathetic, I wouldn't much blame GSS.Anyways, check my comments:)~ Winged BladesGodric 05:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I have this article declined with "fix formatting problems" as the reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eric_Benny Egaoblai (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Pages written by SPA suspected-UPEs on promoting topics

Largely intended as an quick mechanism to respond to UPE new pages, please see Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Or_what? and a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Navigation tempates in drafts

While doing non-free content cleanup related to WP:NFCC#9, I often come across drafts/userspace drafts which contain navigation templates. While I'm aware that article categories should be disabled per WP:USERNOCAT and WP:DRAFTNOCAT, I am never sure about these templates. Can these be left as is or should they also be disabled? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If the Nav templates only link out to mainspace or redlinks I see no problem. Often the Draft is for a redlink on the template or will be added to the template. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, navbars don't often add a category, and as long as the navbar itself doesn't link to the draft it's usually okay. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback requested on AfC review process rework.

I have floated an idea over at the AfC Process Improvement page that would be a rework of the current review system. Any feedback that any of you guys could provide would be welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

AFCH script typo

When you decline a draft, one of the reasons in the drop-down menu is 'neo - Submission is about a neologisim not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. In the script, 'neologisim' is spelt wrong. Is should be 'neologism'. Can you please correct the typo. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Enterprisey, seems to be script-side (the /comments are written correctly) and I don't have Github access yet to fix it myself. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Neologism is spelt as 'neologisim' in the script. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we know. My comment was a) to alert one of the script devs, and b) alert everyone else that it's only in the script (i.e. the only people who will see the typo are reviewers), which is probably why no one ever noticed it before now. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Implementing ACPERM

In case anybody else doesn't know the WMF is aiming to implement ACPERM the week of April 30. See T192455 which was posted at this query I made. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is next week. A lot of work was done to prepare people for the trial. Is there anything we should to do to prepare for this? Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know most help pages, templates, etc were already modified to reflect WP:ACREQ in a way that they would work regardless of the outcome. Now is a great time to keep banging down the WP:AFC backlog before the influx of new drafts hits when the switch is turned off in mainspace. The backlog is under 1500 pages now, down from 2500+ pages a few weeks ago, but still some pages wait 8 weeks to be addressed. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:ACREQ went live on Thursday. AfC will now see an influx of pages that have been diverted from mainspace where they were summarily deleted. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Authorised reviewer?

Who is user talk:Wiki841 and why with only 100 edits are they moving inappropriate drafts to mainspace? Probably in good faith but they are not ready for this yet. Can somebody please help them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My old drafts.

I have several old drafts that I created. When I am done with them, do I need to submit them for review, or can I just move to mainspace/userify? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891. You do not need to submit them for review, you may move them to mainspace or user space as you see fit. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course, if you think they should be reviewed, you're welcome to submit them. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ayman Kamel

Having made a couple of comments on this draft, the author is asking me for help and I'm not sure on the best advice to give. In particular:

  • COI - the editor acknowledges they have a COI, presumably being a staffer at the Egyptian Embassy in Japan. How should they best declare this? Something like this User:Tarafa15? And does their COI prohibit them from creating the page, as opposed to suggesting edits?
  • [4] - They are asking me about this and I've no idea. Is it some, off-wiki, mirror site?
  • Acceptability - I'm no fan of conflict editing, but this appears at the lesser end of the scale to me? It's not overly promotional and provides useful information about a significant diplomat. Thoughts? And do we have a Notability guideline for diplomats? I'm assuming the ambassador of a sovereign state is Notable. Am I right?

Any advice gratefully received. The exchange is on my talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Accepted. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This is me, genuinely curious

While I'm pleased as punch that we have two "day" categories completely empty, is there any particular reason why no one seems to be patrolling from the back of the queue? We went from zero very olds to a dozen overnight, after almost a month of nothing older than 8 weeks. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Primefac - We have! I’ve been going from the back, as well as the front, as you’ll see from the last time Very Old = 0. If I do a few more oldies, can you advise on my Egyptian ambassador?! KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I know there's been activity on both sides, it was just surprising yesterday when I saw we were at 2+ after having it clear for such a relatively long period. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The script encourages GFOO (less than a day) and Very old. I've been trying to keep up on the recent posts on the idea that quick turn around will encourage not abandoning good stuff while sending a strong message on the junk. I also tackle older pages. We should probably move "Very old" back to 7 weeks. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Yashodhara Lal

With her new book creating buzz in the market, people will search her on the internet and it would be great if encyclopedia comes up. I know she passes GNG but I think I might be a subject to COI as creator. I was wondering if any reviewer could spare some time and take a look. And if it looks good then maybe accept it? Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers who ignore their own talk page

Can we build it in to the requirements of reviewers that they promptly reply to comments on their talk page from the authors whose drafts they've declined? I was just looking at User talk:ToThAc, for example. They've been reminded of this, but they didn't reply to that and I see no improvement. ​ Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd obviously like to hear what ToThAc has to say about this, but in general I would say that it's not required to respond on the user's talk page. A former member of this project almost refused to do so, and instead responded on the draft itself. I think as long as some sort of reply is given, that's good.
In this case, though, I'm not seeing any comments anywhere, which isn't good.
To get back to the original question, I think it would be beneficial to make it part of the requirements. At the moment it's one of the criteria I use to evaluate potential AFC reviewers; do they respond when others make talk page posts, are they friendly/cordial/etc? I could get behind codifying it. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
As you know the decline templates include "If you require extra help ... ask the reviewer that declined your submission" with a link that creates a new section on the reviewer's talk page, so I think it should be a requirement. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • One of the built in problems with the system is any encouragement for users to contact reviewers via their talkpages instead of commenting on the Draft talk werethe next reviewer will see it. I often copy comments over and reply on the Draft talk. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    That's not the question, and not the issue here. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Primefac, I'd agree and say it's better to respond on the draft itself. Sometimes I'm unsure of how to respond to certain questions (or if my answer is necessarily the best), but other users might have better answers. That said, I think it's better if questions about declined submissions are posted on the draft, since it's a bit more inviting of discussion at the least. (By the way, I am open to a re-review of the page in question.) ToThAc (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, I find this to be yet another problem with the AfC process. With "reviewers" reviewing submissions, it's hard not to make questionable reviews...and coupled with the fact that the process is only dependent on one reviewer. Even I admit I've had to make tough reviews. With a little more focus on the mainspace, it's easier to deal with questionable content, since technically multiple users might review said questionable content, rather than a one-user dependence. Once we finish de-backlogging, I'd be all for superseding AfC. ToThAc (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Availability to respond to inquiries is part of the requirements. Most inquiries are hard to respond too because there is no real question not answered by the links in the decline. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Often the author is asking for a re-review, and I've read elsewhere that we're considering it best practice to let a different reviewer do the re-review rather than the same reviewer decline a draft multiple times. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel that this should be strictly mandated. My general policy is to reply if I feel there's something to come of it. If it's obvious spam, I simply let it rot nearly to the point of WP:DENY. Obviously, if there's someone out there who is showing good faith, sure, help them out; but to say you must reply promptly to every inquiry you get about declines is too much. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - 'every' would go too far. I certainly don't reply to every comment. Maybe the requirement should say something like 'reviewers must show willingness to answer questions left on their talk page by draft authors. Reviewers may respond to the question there, on the draft's talk page or on the author's talk page, as they see fit.' Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I sure don't directly reply to every post on my talk. Some are best ignored. Some I reply by declining the page again. Others by approving it. I don't do every review requested of me, nor should I be forced to. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Which leads me to think we should just continue keeping an eye on/for each other, and treat the problematic cases as they come. I'm a big proponent of policy change, but I don't see how an overarching one would benefit us here. If we were to implement one, it'd be so loose that it'd be useless and therefore unenforceable; and we already have plenty of those :P Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Request to change HasteurBot implementation regarding Promising Draft template

[5]. Just a FYI at this time, but I have personally opposed the this request as there appears to have been no consensus for this and think this is a very bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

question

wrong venue Chetsford (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar to the recent question regarding Wiki841 by Kudpung; I would like to express my appreciation to KnowledgeChuck for his enthusiasm in moving a number of drafts to mainspace (e.g. DJ JY (artist) [6], etc.), as well as declining a variety of AfC submissions (e.g. Draft:Sidsel Kjøller Damkjær, etc.) but - since he has only 123 lifetime edits - I wonder if we might be unfairly occupying his time doing AfC reviews at this early stage in his editing tenure? Since he's planning on "going 24/7 on new page patrols" [7] it might be unreasonable to encumber him with AfC reviewing right now as well. Chetsford (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave the substantive stuff to someone else, but I've undone their review of Draft:Sidsel Kjøller Damkjær and put the draft back in the queue, since they are not on the AfC participants' list and because it was an improper decline rationale. /wiae /tlk 14:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the preemptive above note; based on The Mighty Glen's comment here, it appears there might be something else going on and this might be a topic more appropriate for a different venue. Chetsford (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Becoming a AFC Reviewer

Hello.

I have been a pretty active editor recently, and was wondering if I could be given access to the AFC Helper Script? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbhbchange (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Mbhbchange, requests are generally made here, but you do not meet the minimum requirements. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Mbhbchange Also would you please reply at User_talk:Mbhbchange#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent spate of Drafts on Australian graphic designers

Hello, folks. I just declined a draft about an Australian graphic designer, commenting that, in addition to the failure to demonstrate notability, too much of the sourcing was coming from a single source. (The draft is Draft:Annette Harcus.) But something piqued my curioisty about that and so I did a little looking around. The draft's creator, User:InvisibleInAustralia has a user page that says somebody is being "represented by Jane Connory", who is the source that had been used in the Harcus draft. I also found that there is a website, invisibleinaustralia.com, that is run by one Jane Connory (see here). Perhaps this is just a big coincidence but, if not, it suggests that the person running the website is writing articles about her clients and using her own writings to show notability.

I'm not inclined to be the one person who looks through all the drafts that are likely to be submitted by this user in the near future, so I'm posting here to alert folks to the situation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like UPE. Might be worth a warning and/or a block. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC process improvement with Community Tech team

Hi all -- I'm posting here to follow up on my original post from 2018-04-03 about work that WMF's Community Tech team will be doing in the coming weeks to improve the tools with which AfC reviewers can prioritize their work.

Based on a lot of good discussion with the AfC community, we've settled on a plan. Please check out the project page for the details. In brief, the plan is:

  • New Pages Feed will be extended to include AfC drafts as a new list of pages for review, in addition to the existing "Article" and "User" pages that are currently available.
  • The feed will be enhanced to allow prioritization by quality and copyvio scores for all pages in the interface.
  • These new capabilities will be available to both the AfC and NPP reviewers.

Thanks to all reviewers who have so far participated in the discussion. If you have not yet had a chance to weigh in, please do -- though we have limited bandwidth over the next several weeks to work on this project, we definitely want to get this as right as possible in concert with the AfC community.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): Perhaps I've either had too much or not enough happy drink but could you please explain New Pages Feed will be extended to include AfC drafts for review, keeping AfC drafts separate from other pages in the feed. as it sounds like you're both wanting to include and not wanting to include AFC pages. Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hasteur: thanks for pointing out that I wrote this confusingly. Right now, in the New Pages Feed, reviewers can choose to see pages from the "Article" or "User" namespaces. This work would add AfC drafts as a third option. I want to make sure it's clear that we will not be lumping AfC drafts in with other new pages in such a way that they could not be distinguished from each other. A reviewer will be able to choose to see new articles or submitted drafts, but not both in the same list at the same time. I've attempted to clarify above. Does this make more sense? -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Best practice for finding things that need reviewing?

I started working on AfC a few weeks ago. It's certainly an eye-opener vis-a-vis the amount of crap, but every once in a while, I find a gem of a new article and that makes my day :-)

What's the best way to find drafts to review? I'm using Special:RandomInCategory/Pending_AfC_submissions, but that doesn't work well. I get lots of things that are in that category but aren't actually drafts (example: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects). I also get lots of repeats. Is there a better way to do this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If you just want to review articles at random, what you're doing is fine. Just ignore non-drafts and repeats you don't review. You may also want to look at Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age. Or this template
A lot of the young stuff you'll have to decline. Things may get more delicious in the middle and you'll find the more challenging cases at the end. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
RoySmith - Yes, it does rather open one's eyes. I think many of the commentators about Afc would be well advised to actually do it for a while. The influx of promotional material is astonishing and I think the extent to which people want to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform is seriously underestimated. I assume you mean this, [8], which I've always found helpful although I've never got it to sort by topic. Another way in is here, [9], which allows you to focus by date and can be quite motivating if you're looking to clear a whole category. I'm sure more experienced reviewers will have other suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies - edit conflicting and repeating most of the above. KJP1 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
What they said. Lately I've been picking days and clearing them after most of the worst junk is declined. I hope if we can clear enough days we will clear the backlog completely. Right now we have an entire week clear so when that week gets to the end our backlog will shorten. I also like to see the worst resubmissions CSD'd and MfD'd as that mostly stops them from getting in the cue over and over. As a time saver I put the link to submissions on the top of my userpage which gets me back to the list pretty quick - after you accept and clean up a page you need an easy way back to the list. User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
A very good point, that I didn't learn until User:DGG made the suggestion. The most blatant promotional stuff can be sent straight to Wikipedia:G11, with or without a review. My experience with that has been very good, my experience with Mfd less so. KJP1 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I try to decline the worst G11 before CSDing as it removes it from the cue while waiting for an Admin to act. AfC reviewers as a group should be more supportive of each other at MfD so we can push through deletions of pages we have declined too many times. Maybe we should be pinging the AfC reviewers that declined, as interested editors. I don't think that would be canvassing. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Another good point. In the mountains(!) of discussion about the functioning of Afc/MfD, I sure I saw a good idea about Afc'ers reviewing together. That might address the single judge/jury criticism and I'm sure there's something in it. But I'm not convinced there's an appetite for solutions, or at least one as strong as the appetite some MfD'ers have for endless argument. KJP1 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
No kidding. The quantity and volume of opinions on how AfC should function is great from those who don't work AfC. We have to have a way to flush out the pages that can't WP:OVERCOME. MfD should be that place. Maybe we should set an AfC limit to the number of submissions we allow. We could just remove the submission template after say 5 declines and Comment we will no longer consider the page. It would than G13 eventually. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but a consideration of Notability has to be part of that, when the draft has been submitted for inclusion in main space. As we both know, that is vehemently opposed, although for the life of me I don't understand the arguments. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
there are other techniques also. Some that I use are:
1. when deleting G13, if they would also qualify under G11, give both reasons. This will serve as a signal if there's a request for a REFUND.
2. When dealing with the sort of articles that would only be written by an involved or paid editor, always remind the editor that they must declare according to WP:COI.
3.Change the language in the notices as appropriate to further discourage re-creation without improvement. It is possible to edit the notices after they have been placed, and I sometimes do that. I will sometimes add a line in bold italics Do not resubmit unless you can show notability/remove promotional language, etc. it's in the form notices, but it can be made more prominent. I will sometimes even remove the line saying "If you want to work on this further..." This is especially important if the material is rapidly resubmitted unchanged, a frequent device of COI editors hoping for a different review.
4. After third resubmission without improvement, take to MfD or consider adding G11. A good MfD arguemnt is that successive editing has not improved it.
On the other hand
1.If you yourself can fix the article, for example by removing a few paragraphs of catalog information or testimonials, and the subject seems possibly notable, fix it and and move to mainspace.
2.It is also acceptable when unsure, to move to mainspace and then list for AfD, saying, I accepted this, but I am not sure if it is notable and it would be better to have a group discussion.
3.Watch out for articles previously declined for the wrong reason, such as non-BLPS declined for not having inline references, or because the prose could be improved. Some of these can be immediately accepted; others need a proper reason.
4.Try not to just decline with the form statement about notability or promotionalism when there are more specific reasons to be given & there is some possibility of acceptability. Contributors are more apt to improve an article if they are instructed just what is needed. They shouldn't need to come to the help desk to find that out. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent points DGG. When G13ing I always try to tag G11 or G2 or whatever else is obviously a reason to close off the automatic refund of problematic pages. Moving to mainspace and taking to AfD is risking for a non-Admin. I've been sanctioned for even suggesting that as a possible strategy. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Something erroneous in the introduction

I see this sentence in the introduction ". AfC works as a peer review process, where autoconfirmed users either accept and create an article submitted by an anonymous editor or decline the article because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia." - shouldn't this be at least extended confirmed as only EC users can ask for AFCH. Yes, any autoconfirmed user can just pick up a draft and then link to mainspace but this line sounds weird. --Quek157 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Would someone else take over?

Could someone else review Draft:Gulf British Academy? I have declined several times in a row and it would be good to have someone else take a look at it and perhaps explain to the author in a different way what they need to do. I left comments each time but the author deleted them. I fear MfD is the way forward for it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The problem is it reads like an advertisement and lacks sources. Until that is fixed they will keep declining it.Trillfendi (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Curb Safe Charmer - Happy to take a look. But it looks like G11 to me. KJP1 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Future part is clearly WP:TOOSOON & WP:CRYSTAL --Quek157 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

NSFW

I would like to thank User:Legacypac for developing the {{NSFW}}, Not Suitable for Wikipedia, template, and would like to encourage its use as appropriate. I will note that it can be applied in either of two ways, by manual editing of a draft, or by inclusion of the template in the decline message. I think that it should address the concerns of User:SmokeyJoe about the encouragement to keep trying; at least, for an inherently optimistic enthusiastic user who doesn't understand, it sends such a mixed message with the decline wording that they might actually go to the Teahouse and be told that their submission is crud.

I have a few comments. First, I have used it a few times today, but most of the really unsuitable drafts that I encountered were eligible for G11. I would suggest that it can be slapped on a draft for which G11 has been declined but is still a candidate for A7 or A1 or whatever in mainspace.

In one case, I made a statement on the talk page, but normally I have just provided AFC comments.

I would urge that an editor who decides to delete the AFC decline comments, if they included NSFW, would leave the NSFW standing rather than stripping it too.

I haven't used NSFW on some stupid one-sentence entries, although they would get A1 or A7 or even A3, because I am not sure that the editor knew that Submit meant "Request consideration as an article". It could mean anything.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. I tagged an article as NSFW with, among other things, the comment that I wasn't sure whether it was about a person or a web site, and that it had no references. The author added a lede sentence, but no references, and didn't try to clean up the malformed infobox. I declined it again with a warning that resubmitting it again without references will result in deletion being requested. I didn't think it was a G11 candidate, just crud. The NSFW template does, reasonably, say to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd say it needs to be a lot more forceful. It needs to look like a deletion template. A red background and/or border, larger text and a more unfriendly icon would go some way towards achieving that. MER-C 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure User:MER-C I'm not much of a template editor yet but that sounds good. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
{{ombox}} has quite a lot of examples of different colour schemes, which is nice because making templates from scratch is a bitch. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The version with type=delete and the exclamation mark was exactly what I had in mind. MER-C 08:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I have created a snarky alias for this template: {{Bitey box}}. Seriously, if you're annoyed by crap submissions, stop working on crap submissions. Please at least let another reviewer handle any resubmission, ideally after letting it sit in the queue a few weeks. ~Kvng (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Snarky alias aside, I also worry about the template (and the general process) being harsh to newcomers. Maybe a talk page template that would explain what notability is and why their article is unlikely to ever pass would have better results for retention of new users, as well as getting them to understand what they're doing wrong. Acebulf (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
We provide lots of advice including in the Article Wizard. Some editors sail right past it all and need to be told clearly their creation hopeless. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I just think we could phrase it a bit softer if it's the first time the article is rejected. If they keep resubmitting, then by all means slap a giant red box on the draft. I think the article wizard could do a better job of making sure that the users understand what is notability. I tried it out earlier today, and it's quite easy for a new editor to get overwhelmed or completely overlook the part of article creation that asserts whether the article is suitable for inclusion. Perhaps we could have one of the slides in the article wizard talk about what is suitable for inclusion, in order to make sure that it is understood by the users. Acebulf (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
We can always put nice words on the draft or user talk, or just decline with the invitation to improve the hopeless. Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I don't think we want to necessarily encourage someone to waste their time improving a hopeless article. Acebulf (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A quick two cents: Could we perhaps rename the template Not Suitable For Inclusion? I think that the acronym NSFW already has meaning in popular parlance, and might be misinterpreted. Or maybe simply remove the bold on the letters, as I think it's implying something other than what we want to convey. Acebulf (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
That's was meant as a feature not a negative. Needed something easy to remember. Just Unsuitable Not Keeping better for you? Feel free to create another version and add it to the same tracking category Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac:Actually, "Just Unsuitable Not Keeping" is pretty good. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, a rename is needed. Far too confusable otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There is already plenty of gentle language and detailed explanations of notability in the author-facing messaging. Some authors ignore all of this. Whether done out of ignorance or anger, their prompt resubmissions are a form of trolling. You don't want to feed the {{Bitey box}} or anything else with emotional calories to a troll. You want to let things sit in the queue and deal with them in turn. These situations are only a suck on our reviewer resources if we add energy to the situation. ~Kvng (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Checking my assumptions here, actually there may not be "plenty of gentle language and detailed explanations of notability." See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018#Article wizard. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple failed login attempts

Hello all,

I was wondering if any of you guys were having problems regarding failed login attempts. I figure it's someone that I reviewed that's trying to login to my account or something. Just checking if anyone else is having this problem. Acebulf (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Acebulf: It seems to have happened to quite a few users, and appears to be unrelated to AfC in particular. See WP:AN#Please help- who tried to break into my account? for more. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer bashing at AFD

We are definitely done now. Mdann52 (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We're done for now.Seperate issues may be entertained in new threads.~ Winged BladesGodric 12:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of my accepts Mimi Elsa was taken to AfD, which is fine - I'm not bothered by that. User:Tapered is making interesting comments that personalize the AfD which is not so fine in my opinion. As this impacts what is expected of all AfC reviewers in terms of disclosure of our involvement, other AfC reviewers may want to weigh in on this AfD. Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi I had a look at the discussion and to be honest the main thing Tapered seems to be accusing you of is not declaring in your keep !vote that you were the reviewer that accepted the article. They then state after an exchange that they do not believe that the article should have been accepted. I don't really believe it is worth wasting too much time on this. I haven't done much Afc for a while as I was attacking the backlog at NPP but I think we will always be faced with Afds of articles that we accept as we are alone in taking the decision and noone no perfect. Probably better to just step back and let the community decide. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
That said their comments are getting personal so I did weigh in just to remind them what the Afc process is about. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I have weighed in on the above AfD and left a message on Tapered's talk page. Without any prejudice to Legacypac's otherwise excellent work at AfC, I think we can consider this episode as closed for now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
An "excellent" reviewer would actually review the submission without depending on whether the author is an experienced editor or not. Legacypac does not do that. KingAndGod 11:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KingAndGod since you took the opportunity to use a single review to disparage all my reviews - the creator of that page has done numerous football pages and as a subject matter expert is better positioned to evalute adherence to WP:FOOTY. I believe that was an edge case where he was drafted to a professional club but had not yet played - as in he could qualify any day. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's probably not just a single review but I noticed a lot of your accepted submissions went through AfD (like the one in the thread above) and I wonder if they should've been declined rather than accepted. I think reviewing based on the author's experience isn't proper, given that AfC is the center for new editors to develop their submissions and have their work reviewed with high standard in order to prevent or reduce the chances of deletion. If reviewers are to let drafts get accepted merely because the author has written great articles, then what's the point of them submitting to AfC in the first place? In the Jon Aguirrezabala case, it is likely the author who put it in AfC knew the subject didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL which was why he refrained from directly creating the article like he would have done if he wanted. If you are unable to review WP:NFOOTBALL submissions then maybe let another reviewer do it instead of accepting the submission only for it to be nominated for deletion, or worse, be kept in mainspace where it is undeserving. KingAndGod 15:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that we see a lot of reviews from Legacypac because, well, they review a lot. The takeaway from this should be that everyone makes mistakes and it's inevitable that a couple edge cases will fall on the wrong side of the blade, despite best efforts. Can we stop the personal attacks please? Acebulf (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Some think that no reviewed AfC submissions should be deleted. That is a terrible standard to hold reviewers to, causing them to reject them many. 20% deleted would be ok. What percentage of Legacypac‘s AfC accepts have been deleted? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of my accepted submissions do NOT go through AfD - in fact very very few get taken to AfD because I have a very good understanding of notability criteria. So whatever you "noticed" was wrong.

Second, KingAndGod's pure speculation about the creator of the football bio is way off. That user is a prolific content creator now required to use AfC because they were using poor sourcing. I started a thread on football bios higher up and you can go review the creator's talk page and archive for more details. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's my take on it. AFC is a purely voluntary process nobody has to take their articles there. In the reviewing instructions it says "likely to survive" (likely is the same as probably which means more than a 50% chance) not definitely nor highly likely survive. If we start saying that a reviewer should have no fewer than 20% deleted then we will become more and more strict and review less and less articles and there will be an enormous backlog created. This will have 2 effects editors will either abandon creating articles or publish them directly in mainspace. And we will transfer the clean-up process to NPP. We have all seen perfectly notable articles get nominated and deleted as we have seen ridiculously non notable articles get speedily kept at Afd. This all depends on the participants and their own agendas. Sports and music Afds see fans arrive and defend tooth and nail their own pet areas. That's just how it works.Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reducing backlog

Sometimes, when I am trying to approve an article that has been nominated for a long time, I cannot perform the action because a redirect exists where I am trying to put the page in mainspace. As of right now, I have to contact an admin to get it done for me.

It would be nice if

A. AfC members were granted a right that let them move pages over redirects (with a warning) or B. There was something in the AfC workflow where you could tentatively approve a page, and it went into an admin's queue to move over the redirect automatically.

My theory is that when people try to move a page over the redirect and find out they cannot, they just move on to another article (admittedly, I have done this sometimes, if I could not find an admin). This therefore contributes to the backlog. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I face this same issue. You can Comment the plan to approve the page and that there is a redirect in thje way. Then CSD G6 the redirect noting the Draft and watch it. Some Admins will delete and move while others will just delete and wait for you to make the move. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
A G6 is definitely the way to go. Make sure you're using {{db-move}} in the off chance the patrolling admin feels like moving the page themselves. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
In that case, could we have AFCH G6 the redirect and add {{db-move}} to the draft? Would simplify the workflow for casual AfC'ers like myself. Kees08 (Talk) 01:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That would be a task to add to the Github page for AFCH so it could be properly dev'd. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Done, was hoping to get some general community approval first. Seems to be a value-added addition. Kees08 (Talk) 02:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this would count well enough; no one is going to contest their lives being made easier. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
If you add db-move to the draft, then the draft is tagged with G6, and might get deleted. So you need to tag the redirect with db-move, but insert the name of the draft. However perhaps we do not just want a move, but the other AFC processes such as notification, listing and talk page tagging, which the actioning admin may not do. If the script partially did these, we would have to make sure that the move happened later, and not just redirect deletion. So it should add to a pending moves list in case it is forgotten. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really needed to add to pending moves list since the Draft sits in the unreviewed backlog until someone notices it has been Commented on as good but waitimg on the redirect deletion and the "this exists in mainspace" message is gone, assuming to approving reviewer does not notice the deletion on watchlist. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I have absolutely no idea what you're saying (some full stops might help?). Are you saying that it's unnecessary to tag the related article because the draft will just sit there indefinitely until someone happens to notice the page is gone? Because from my experience I get a ping requesting I delete an article, I do it, and then the ping-er accepts the draft. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Field Station: Dinosaurs Kansas

I saw a blue heading on the page which I previously reviewed and possibly can be up to scratch (not entirely reviewed before). I can't see who is reviewing in history. And it's more than 24 hrs, can someone help? --Quek157 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

no Unnecessary settled Quek157 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Deletion of drafts

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain what's behind the eagerness to delete drafts? Best I can tell, some reviewers who work at the front of the AfC queue are in conflict with frustrated or trollish authors and the reviewers want bigger sticks to fight with. Is there more to it? ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It’s knee jerk reaction to the results of a broken-by-design system. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Dark ~Kvng (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver reviewer & all his aliases

The project might need to check the rejected drafts of this now banned sockmaster. I've just rescued a G13 rejected by him towards the start of ACTRIAL on a very clearly notable biochemist. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You can’t complain about resubmissions when the draft contains a saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit

Is there any prospect of a proper “reject” option for draft reviewers? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's where I was going with this -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme. The problem is not with deletion policy. TonyBallioni's Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts is not addressing the problem. The problem is the really hopeless saccharine decline templates that encourage the author to edit, improve and resubmit, even when it is obviously and completely unsuitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on and off on a new decline template series, but at the moment the "do not resubmit" option is entirely dependent on which decline reasons we offer, and we haven't decided on which ones that should be used for (or if we should make a "new" set of decline reasons that don't encourage resubmission). The whole WMF thing kinda happened right in the middle of my plan to organize the revamp. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I once could program. I can almost understand template code. How can I, how any a simple reviewer, adjustment the AfC templates on a Rejected (on a SHOULD BE FIRMLY REJECTED) draft so that it does not carry the encouragement to edit improve and resubmit? That is the first problem, at least with the tendentious resubmission mfd nominated cases. Slightly behind that is that the templates are TL;DR, which refers to the text plus formatting, not just text, and compounds with repeated templates. I teach, and I know how to recognise when the eyes have glazed over, and the newcomer draftspace authors eyes are frequently glazed over. “Tendentious” is not the word. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with you - our decline reasons should be short and to the point. Our decline templates should be short and to the point. I recall in a thread above someone posted an "updated" text for one of the decline reasons and it took me ten minutes to even find the difference because I kept glossing over it.
Take a look at the Article Wizard revamp - an entire RFC needed to be dedicated to it in order to change that (and there are still people complaining about how it's laid out), and we're talking about overhauling 30 decline reasons on top of a new template. Could we remove some of those entirely? Probably, but we should probably add some more as well. I just had a hint of an idea regarding that, though, and I'll see about fleshing it out in the coming days. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Backlog Status

We now have 500 pages over 17 days unreviewed, and a big empty gap following the 17 day mark. I'm trying to keep newer pages from going over 21 days - kind of a new maximum review time of three weeks. Keep on plugging away because we are winning the backlog. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft talk:Example

Shouldn't Draft talk:Example redirect here instead of to User talk:Example ? -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Guy Macon (which I guess I just did), since that makes sense to me. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't think of a single reason why we might want to do that. 65.94.42.219, could you please explain?
I have taken it upon my self to maintain the various example pages on Wikipedia, because of two things:
  1. They tend to accumulate random cruft as newish editors "improve" them (why does improving always involve adding to and never simplifying?) and then move on. Meanwhile the page gets bigger and bigger and farther and farther from the purpose it was created for (see below).
  2. The associated talk pages get all sorts of misplaced warnings and notices plus a fair number of silly jokes. Just look at the history of User talk:Example: Notice of account creator right granted. Articles for creation submission accepted notification. Questions about a GA Nomination. Someone was waiting for those misplaced messages on their talk page.
I have addressed the talk page issue by redirecting as many of them as possible to a single talk page where I deal with them in a central location, often by gently informing someone that they sent a message to the wrong place and inviting them to send it to the right place.
The purpose of an example page is to be an example. For example, one might write "For an example of a good format for your new draft see Draft:Example." Most material written to any draft talk page is the result of a mistake. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the page in question. Since it is an example of an article, to discuss it would mean to discuss how to write an article. As such, one would expect they would go to AfC talk, or Helpdesk, and not to User talk: Example, which is a useless talk page. "DRAFT TALK" isn't a random sandbox space, it is a space for discussing the draft page in question. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Declines on a Post Secendary school?

Draft:Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and Technology (SRMSCET), Unnao has been declined by multiple reviewers. Pretty much every degree granting post secendary school is notable. Why are we declining this page over and over? Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I see this happen for WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTV subjects too. Typically the decline reason is insufficient sourcing or promotional. Reviewers should spend some time at AfD and learn how bad these issues have to be to merit deletion, also learn about wrinkles in notability policy. ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, schools have to follow the same WP:CORP guidelines as every other organization. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm.....Primefac, no.As much as I would love that to be, we both know the current condition(s) in school AfDs.If you wish to re-in-force your RFC closure statement, which is supposedly non-understandable to a certain section of the community, AfDs ought to be the suitable venue.At any case, I'm accepting the draft and will strongly advice any other reviewer to do so, in cases of degree-awarding-instituitions et al. ~ Winged BladesGodric 03:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
So... because a small group of hard-headed editors refuse to accept the results of an RFC, we should just bury our hands in the sand and pretend it didn't happen? Primefac (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing out the Resubmit button on the Decline notice

I know I've seen this done. Can somebody remind me how? KJP1 (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You've seen it only because I sandboxed it. Unless you're substing the entire code of the template onto the page, the resubmit cannot be hidden. Technically speaking putting |small=yes removes it, but only because that means there's a not-small template somewhere else on the page. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That feature should really be added to the main template. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I do think it would be a really helpful addition. It would also address one of the more constant complaints re. the Afc process. KJP1 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Abid Boxer

Could somebody have a look at this. It's about as libellous as you can get, but which CSD can I use? KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't think the sources offered support the allegations, you can speedy as an attack page WP:CSD#G10. If your tool doesn't blank the attack content automatically, you should do it manually. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
jmcgnh - Many thanks. Now done and an admin can take a look. He may well warrant a page, but it needs stronger sourcing than YouTube for those kind of allegations! KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Action for 'Already exists' should be augmented for foreign words

The action column for reason=Already exists in the table in the Quick-fail section of the Reviewing instructions page should be augmented, to say something about foreign words in English titles. One problem to be aware of is multiple transliteration possibilities. Ideally, imho, language experts should be called upon anytime a title appears to contain a foreign word as part of the title, before any content review is performed, which could otherwise be a waste of time.[a] Another question, is whether a foreign title should be used, or an English one.[b] More on this at WP:UE.

(As a secondary issue: the flow-chart does not quite match the text description, with the former showing duplicate-check as part of Content review, and the latter whowing it as part of Quick-fail criteria.) HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before, or at least something similar, but I do not expect a reviewer to check every possible permutation of the spelling of a page before accepting or declining the page. Should a page named "Joe Bloggs (photographer)" be checked against Special:PrefixIndex/Joe Bloggs to ensure that he's not better-known for some other job, like (politician)? Similarly, I would not in a million years expect a reviewer to know that an alternate spelling of Kulche is Kulcha (hell, I don't even know how I would check that). Sure, if the page is titled "Joe Bloggs (2)" there should be a check done on the non-disambiguated title (just in case), but aside from that (or blatant spelling errors) we're better off accidentally accepting (or declining) a duplicate page and having an article space gnome make the connection.
As for the "best name" of a page - see above re: gnomes. Generally speaking if I am accepting a page I'll go with whatever the creator has used (barring the aforementioned horrible spelling/punct/caps/dab errors), and if someone thinks it should be at a better/different title they're welcome to move it themselves or get an RM going. That being said, I see no problem in changing a "German name" into an "English name" if it makes sense. Bottom line, I don't think we need to mandate that reviewers do one or the other. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ ...a waste of time: See, for example, my comment at WP:AFCHD regarding Draft:Kulche.
  2. ^ foreign or English title: For example, should an article about Germany's Constitution be entitled "German Constitution", "Constitution of Germany", or "Grundgesetz"? The actual article title is none of the above; it is called, "Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany"; a mistake, in my opinion.
Mathglot - I appreciate your picking up my Kulche/Kulcha oversight, as I said at the Helpdesk. But the suggestion that a language expert be called in every time one hits a foreign word just isn't realistic. I wish it were, given the number of drafts we get sourced entirely in Chinese, or Russian, or something else, but it isn't. KJP1 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I strip unnecessary (DAB)s and bracketed acronyms but ya if the title a French name like one I accepted recently I leave it. Someone else can move it to English creating a redirect if they feel strongly about it. Legacypac (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

AFCH and G13

AFCH should allow tagging for G13 deletion for any draft with the last edit more than 6 months old, not just ones with the AfC submission template Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically an non-AFC draft is outside the scope of the project, and TW is just as many clicks to nominate for G13. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I have the AFC thing popup automatically so it is two less clicks (don't have to select G13 as the rationale and also submit query), and easier to click the big button. Technically yes but since it already allows submitting of non-AfC drafts.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I forgot that it pops up automatically (I haven't tagged G13 in a while). Primefac (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be a sweet enhancement. The big button is much easier than the radio button way down at the bottom on mobile. Legacypac (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions apply to pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrency

The Wikipedia community has authorized discretionary sanctions and a blanket 1RR for all pages related to cryptocurrency and blockchain, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. This means you can (and should!) hand out warnings and seek administrator help promptly when dealing with those who submit promotional drafts about new initial coin offerings and cryptocurrencies. MER-C 16:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

AFC submission template

Apologies if this has been asked recently, but is there a reason why it's not made obvious to new users that if they're autoconfirmed they can move their article into mainspace by themselves? Jc86035 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Because the point of the AFC process is to ask for a review. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Examples of such a lie: "The sun rises in the east". "Sunrise". Those are actually a complete fabrication. The real answers are "The horizon gets lower in the east" and "Horizonfall". And don't get me started on "dialing" a cell phosne that has buttons instead of a dial or saying "One O'Clock" in a context where there are no clock faces involved.
A joke for pedants:
Q: How do you comfort someone with bad grammar skills?
A: There, their, they're.
--Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Sunrise comes with an implied reference frame.
I think newcomers should be treated as adults, and given the facts, not tricked into staying in the AfC cycle. The fact that most AfC submissions are spam or paid or just plain hopeless is poor justification for the poor welcome to the few wanted newcomers that wander in. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I have come to favor telling people AfC is an optional process on occasion. It's not like this is secret info. If they move their crap page to mainspace other editors can apply mainspace tools like A7, AfD and PROD to it - we become unshackled from the obstructionists whole rule MfD and prevent the implementation of proper CSD criteria for drafts. Also occasionally there is a draft that is borderline notable but I'm not sure and don't want to have to defend it or sully my near perfect no deletions on my acceptance record. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Except they will get even blunter treatment at NPP where inexperienced users and newbies are paradoxically still allowed to tag pages for deletion and treat the place like a MMORPG. Shoving stuff from AfC onto NPP may help reduce the AfC backlog (probably not), but such pages could nevertheless be as quickly rejected at AfC as they would be at NPP but with door being slammed a bit more quietly. (Hmm... can one slam a door quietly?) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Can one slam a door quietly? One can close a door decisively and politely. “Sorry, this topic is not suitable for inclusion”. Do not include “but you are encourage to improve it and resubmit”. NPP is working ok, AfC is working horribly. The solution is not to send everything AfC to NPP any more than it is to send every poor draft to MfD. The solution is for AfC to stop doing what doesn’t work. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If a user gets into AFC, concievably it's for 2 reasons: Either they're new, or they're wanting a second set of eyes to impartially review the content prior to being pushed into mainspace. Going through AFC gives the draft a little more clout (and a second person to call on to explain why it was pushed to mainspace). There's already far too much spam, one line stubs, marginally notable crap in mainspace. Getting a draft to hit a minimum of start/B-class is a great way to not increase the entropy already in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are new, but they don’t freely choose to go there, there are enticements to take that path. These enticements to go to AfC and start a draft are detrimental to the better choice of improving existing content. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: you seem to be laboring under the fallacy that new users are required to get their experience by only submitting AFC drafts. Any user can get their experience by making changes to already existing pages (barring the usual exceptions). Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hasteur no not at all. I strongly believe that all users should get experience in mainspace before attempting a new draft. I observe that so many poor drafting attempts are by people with not editing contributions on any other page but their drafts. I think this is unfortunate. I think the solution is to tell all newcomers to edit mainspace first. I think AfC makes it too easy to ignore a lot of advice and go straight to creating a new draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The only part of the rejection template that encourage resubmission says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page" Since they evidently already know how to edit just say "If you can WP:OVERCOME the decline reason you may resubmit after fixing the identified issues." Will that satisfy User:SmokeyJoe? Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Will that get rid of the big blue button? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It's proposed change to the text of all decline templates. We would only get rid of the submit button on specific decline reasons or perhaps a "hopeless" decline. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I've taken to adding explicitly discouraging comments such as this one. Sometimes I come right out and say, Do not resubmit. But, yeah, an automated way to do this would be both easier on reviewers and, I think, kinder to the rejectee. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I started working on this this morning, rewording the text, making it easier to read, etc. Then I realized that we already do all of this on {{Afc decline}} (the notice that gets placed on a user talk page when their draft is declined). It gives four bullet points, all of which are useful and none of them "encourage" resubmission. With some minor tweaking, on drafts themselves it could read:
  • If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
  • If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
  • If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
  • You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
If no one is seriously opposed to it, I'll convert the decline notice to use this text (or something similar) This might remove some of the ambiguity (and break up the gigantic wall of text that's currently in the decline notice). Primefac (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
"If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ db-self }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit." Can this be shorten, what does "believe" means , can we change to "convinced by reviewer comments", "Wikipedia standards ... further" = "cannot be included in Wikipedia", "you ..... text" = "Kindly Please add "{{ db-self }}" to the top of the draft text, "and click .... edit" = click the blue button. This should be shorten. Thanks. --Quek157 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
one more for @Primefac:, can't we merge last 2 lines, for more help, you can go to either help desk or ask reviewer or IRC (with a warning not 3 at one go, it will be chaotic. Make it just the 1st line / 2nd line shorten / 3rd line. --Quek157 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Cut the whole second dot point. It's not useful. Submitters who can read should be reading something else, their cleaning up things that don't need cleaning is wasting their time. Submitters who don't read won't read it anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Reduce the third dot point to "Ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk". Use no more than this wikimarkup.
Cut the whole fourth dot point. It's not useful to give multiple options for help, that creates more confusion that help. WP:TL;DR needs to be taken more seriously. Other methods of asking for help can be added at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I support this streamlining of the decline notice. If only it were possible to add another big blue button that said something on the order of "I'm sorry, I now understand that I can's get this draft to become an article, please delete it for me" but in a lot fewer words. Would this streamlining and pointing people to just AFCHD mean that the apparatus that generates invitations to the Teahouse could be removed as well? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Forget teahouse and stop sending users to our talkpages for discussion. The Draft talk or our help desk is enough. I support a "request deletion" button. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

delete button bigger than resubmit button can??? --Quek157 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Version 2

  • If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
  • If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
  • If you want more help, stop by the Articles for creation help desk or Wikipedia's live help channel. or the reviewer's talk page

In the spirit of avoiding "saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit" I've included a new second bullet point. However I notice that the decline notice (next to the Resubmit button) says the same thing, so I'd be fine removing it. Two bullet points just seems... tiny. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

no objection, and can we incoporate this also into the draft rejection itself (on the draft page) "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you are the author of this draft, you may request deletion by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page, adding "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and saving. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources: "Yahaya Yakubu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference." is way too long. Can this 3 bullet point be there. And the find sources are quite useless, why not here are some way to find sources and only news, newspaper, books only. I personally don't know how to use the rest and for IP users wikipedia library / JSTOR may not be there. This is not an Afd. Thanks for the improvements --Quek157 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Um... that's exactly what we're discussing. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
oh, self slap. but the sources part is still valid, if they submit nonsense hardly they will use jstor and the rest. Just to explore how exactly it is hard to find sources, I created one article yesterday with just 30 mins via Google search and news I will have 8 reliable independent sources. so I think that's where we want them. per consensus above can we remove the user talkpage and replace with draft talk? or else no one will know who replied what at where and potentially we'll have 3 different answers and conversations. Quek157 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I know can't but why not more blunt , if you search all these places and no reliable source come out this page will be tnt as no chance to surviveQuek157 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please take off the "reviewer's talk page" part. It just fragments the discussion and often I prefer to have another reviewer look anyway. Legacypac (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, although in principle asking a reviewer to explain more about the reasons for a decline sounds sensible I think it has more downsides: it can cause submitters to have multiple similar discussions on different reviewers pages; it can make it seam like it's submitter vs reviewer; unless others are WP:TPS its unlikely anyone will answer any general question, leaving people to wait till whenever; often I find they only come to ask for a re-review which I don't like as it seams like queue jumping. As long as questions are being answered in a reasonable time on the AfC help desk it would seam better to shove people that way. What would be good would be if when they clicked a link to post on the AfC help desk it automatically added the reviewers username in so they get pinged. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I could maybe get a ping going on the HD link, but only for the draft decline notice (an AFCH rewrite would be needed for the user talk notice). Primefac (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please also implement this on the template notice on the user page when we use the AFCH script. We must sound the same both ends too. I initially thought this is supposed to be on the user page as both set of instruction can be very confusing. For the user page notification, just a simple line such as "Please review the draft page for reasons why your draft have not been published" - then the user will simply see this, no need repetition. One more line (hopefully, but can't) is that "if you will like to, you can also publish it yourself if you are an autoconfirmed user". And quit the teahouse invite (though we can untick). --Quek157 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    This text is already on the user talk notification. People wanted an overhaul of the draft decline notice, which is what we're working on. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Now the text reads "If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors." (see the strike out version for proposed improvements. --Quek157 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
And some other reads "If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Nevin pillai/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Nevin pillai/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors." (on the user page). Depending on the decline reasons, we will give users a wide range of templates on their user page, we really need to sync all . --Quek157 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The user talk notice is substituted, so if any changes were made to the template it will not be reflected on the user talk pages where it had previously been used. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, those are what I got when I rejected 2 a few hours ago, the script need to have some time to reflect the changes too, just a comment, I also agree with your decline of G12, I am very half hearted about that. However, the title of that draft needs to change, I tried to move to draftspace and it is "prohibited" and needs an admin to do it --Quek157 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A redirect from the draft will be there

When we publish an article, the redirect will be from draft to mainspace and I had to manually G6 it. This is quite a problem, can the script do a page move without leaving a redirect or we must also have page mover rights? Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157, you should not be deleting (or requesting it) that draft redirects to their respective article be deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
clarified, thanks, Primefac but what does the redirect does? preventing double drafts? --Quek157 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well first off, redirects are CHEAP, and second off, there are likely a large number of incoming links onto that draft page, and so to not make it harder to find the eventual target we leave the redirect in place. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation, understood --Quek157 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Quek157: See WP:RDRAFT, and then Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects if you want more detail. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, missed all out during my break from editing here. --Quek157 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How old is very old

I think it's time to change "very old" to be 21 days plus. There is only about 230 pages 21+ days now, the need to distinguish between 6 and 8 weeks is not that great and it will save us many clicks back to the "weeks" categories after reviewing a page because we can just hit "very old" I think we can beat back the backlog soon. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've split this into a separate section because it's unrelated to the above section. I am declining your request; simply because we have empty categories doesn't mean we have to get rid of them. Just because you don't need to distinguish between 6 and 8 weeks doesn't mean that everyone feels the same. The whole reason I split out the categories was to more accurately report and represent the backlog. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Well a while ago you changed very old out to 9 weeks+. Can we move it back to 7 or 8 weeks again so very old is not empty most of the time? As we further reduce it can be moved again. Legacypac (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Very old is now 2+ months, which is a nice, round number. There's no reason for very old to be 1.5 months. I needed to move it out that far because it was the only accurate way to assess the backlog.
The old backlog used to have "broken" as a condition when there were more than 10000 drafts. Would we ever get to that point? No, but we still listed it. Similarly, after we clear out the 5+ week categories we might not ever use them again, but we might. There is no point in throwing away a useful tool simply because you "might not" need it again. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Call to arms?

NPP managed to really reduce its backlog recently and I'm assuming the call to arms messages ("New Page Reviewer Newsletter") sent by MediaWiki helped. Would a similar thing help for AfC? Maybe encourage some of the inactive reviewers (but active editors) to come back and do just a one or two. Now the backlog is finally back under 1000 it seams like maybe just a few dozen more people picking of a few could help a lot. If not now maybe if we get better tools, then people hopefully could focus on article they are more comfortable with, and certainly editors interested in more specialised topics could help easier with the older ones. Anyway just a thought. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure4734 total unreviewed pages now still at NPP, backlog still quite high Quek157 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree from the current number it looks bad but just randomly going back to when I remember it being large I found this for when the backlog was 22,000 only a year ago. KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Speaking of specialized topics, has a "list of expertise" ever been considered? For instance, I don't know anything about medical material, or ISPs in India, but if the topic is about old music (any genre pre-1980, say, including ancient music), old radio shows, record labels, philately, insurance, or geographic features I can usually judge an article very quickly, and don't mind being pinged if such a topic seems difficult because of poor writing or sourcing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be good if certainly for specialized topics people could register availability for pinging, but I can see getting people to sign-up and keep lists up-to-date being difficult, but maybe it could work. KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I put up my topic expertise on my userpage, maybe can ask those interested to put up also then anyone wanting drafts to be reviewed can go to the whole list of AFC reviewers and individually click on talkpage then see / ping? --Quek157 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Placing your areas of interest on your userpage is well and good, but tying that together with WP:AFCP is probably a little much. It would be nice to have a page with topics listed, and names of active AfC participants under a given topic. Perhaps one of our technical wizards could write a bot removing names of editors who haven't edited in 6 months. This is just spaghetti against the wall right now. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
A list of what might be more familiarness would be a good idea. Especially, if we are expected to judge an articles notability. I might not know what to do with this Playwright from the 50s, but I'd know an awful lot regarding say a professional wrestler, and what makes them notable, or not. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is worth the effort to presort - especially if it requires a human to do it when the human could be reviwing pages. A reviewer familiar with WP:ARTIST, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:FOOTY can process most of the submissions. Make a judgement call on notability, assess WP:PROMO and check earwig under reviewer tools. If you don't feel comfortable making a call comment with your thoughts and move on. You can blast through the backlog. I don't bother gnoming and categorizing since there is an army of editors in mainspace that do that. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A backlog drive was discussed here in recent months and the idea was not shot down. No one took the reins though. ~Kvng (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Helper script does not work

Helper script does not work for me. I have activated it in Preferences > Gadgets. I use Google Chrome, ver 66.0 (32-bit) in Windows 7. My user name is approved. --AntanO 02:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have solved the issue. --AntanO 02:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bilal Abbas Khan

If someone could remove the create protection on this one. Dial911 (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dial911:, help you requested using TW --Quek157 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

59.96.156.53 (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  •  Not done - I think this may have been an error. We deal with drafts here, and are not protected. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
what drafts you are taking about, some drafts are create protected by sysops , fyi Quek157 (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal from the list

Based on the various discussions and tangents this thread has proceeded on, I can see that my main purpose for removing Legacypac from the AFCP list has been largely overlooked, with the main focus being on their reviewing accuracy (which no one is denying is perfectly acceptable). While I personally feel that their attitude towards the process and other reviewers is unsuitable, I am clearly in the minority. Given that the majority of the complaints regarding their review/review style, and what finally prompted this thread, came via IRC and the help channel, I must admit that it is possible that I've been in a bit of an echo chamber with regard to their activities.
As far as "what next", this is the second time that a user has been controversially removed from the AFCP list, and based on those two discussions I think it is appropriate to start a new discussion on the best way to approach "bad" reviewers. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have just removed Legacypac from the AFCP list. This was not a decision I make lightly, and one I genuinely would like further discussion on, but I feel that the concerns I and others have expressed on multiple occasions are falling on deaf ears and it cannot continue.

Their current talk page includes queries regarding their review speed (which earlier today was seven accepts in ten minutes), questionable redirect practices (Special:Diff/842528746), and their archives contain more than a few requests to be more careful when reviewing drafts (in particular with respect to copyrights and bad advice). A look through the history is also worthwhile, given that some of the complaints were simply removed (which is their prerogative, but makes finding old discussions harder).

I know that Legacy is one of our highest-count reviewers, but that does not mean they are exempt from scrutiny. They repeatedly have admitted to playing fast and loose with the guidelines, including accepting articles simply for the fact that they weren't able to find a good reason to delete them as a draft (and then allowing them to be AFDd instead). There's currently a bug where sometimes a draft doesn't end up unpatrolled when it hits the article space, and I genuinely have no idea how many pages Legacy has accepted that have since not been seen by a reviewer. Either way, I know that I and multiple other users have spent an inordinate amount of time double-checking their work when we could be doing better things like giving proper reviews. They claim a very high accept-to-delete ratio but then there are AFDs like this where it is clear there was not the due diligence given and likely the high volume is masking the bad apples.

My interpretation of Legacy's actions since having their tban lifted in March is to pointedly and intentionally follow their own personal guidelines with respect to AFC submissions, flaunting or blatantly ignoring the rules just to show they can. I consider it disruptive editing, and until something is done about it I feel they should not be reviewing drafts. We might have a backlog, but that is not a reason to dump more work on other editors to clear it slightly faster. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I too have been keeping a close eye on his work and given the CSDs, overlooking of copy vio, and just plain spam, I agree with this decision. I'm sure the argument will be thrown around about his good outweighing the bad, and honestly, I would of agreed before this recent backlog rampage he's been on. But, being in the position of cleaning up his messes is exhausting, and I feel a break is needed for his and our sanity. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Commenting well after this discussion started - if Drewmutt has become exhasted cleaning up after me they must be very low energy since given the few pages they touched after I touched them [10] Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've not been very active at AfC of late, but I've also run across a few articles accepted by Legacypac that clearly should not have been accepted. The fundamental premise of accepting an article is "If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?". Accepting a draft effectively to see what happens at AfD is not a valid accept criteria, and the fact that this has been a persistent issue even after concerns have been directed at Legacypac is a serious concern. Reviewing the content and the sources of a draft and making a judgment call about it's realistic chances at AfD is a prerequisite to accepting or declining a draft. Regarding the Queryen submission, accepting a draft then telling someone else to check the sources once it's been accepted and then sent to AfD is simply unacceptable. If Legacypac agreed with the nomination for deletion, then it's quite clear that proper care was not exercised in accepting the draft. As this is a persistent issue, with concerns raised and not acted on, I have to support the removal. Clearly Legacypac should spend time in other areas of the project where they may be more successful. Waggie (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I also want to add that it's extremely confusing and WP:BITEY to new users to have these things happen to drafts when the author doesn't understand our policies and guidelines very well, nor the reasons why someone would accept their draft, then support it's deletion, or redirect their article elsewhere without any comment. We get helpees in the IRC help channel who are extremely confused and frustrated about these things and it only makes more work for everyone else when an experienced editor doesn't follow guidelines. Waggie (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Firstly I'm really not aware of the quality of Legacypacs or anyone else's work as I don't see others work much, so in many ways it's difficult to comment. I had detected a certain direct bluntness that I don't have, but I think too a degree is needed at AfC as many, including myself, will pass over stuff that a tough call, or we wouldn't have the very old. I would also say though that I really don't care for the X accepts in Y minutes argument in itself, it should only count if any of them were wrong. If even one was a bad call then you can say well since you did X accepts in Y minutes you should slow down, but as a stand-alone complaint I don't like it. They could be articles they have been watching and just doing the final updates on each (AGF). I haven't checked them, but I do believe someone should find an actual error before calling foul. However the redirect and Queryen AfD are problematic. Personally I would prefer these things be discussion first then any restrictions, rather than the other way around. The loss of Legacypac will have a huge impact as they have been doing a lot more than anyone else ('recent' stats for those that care: 1074 accept/declines and 510 accepts), but I admit I have no metric on quality. My biggest concern is not the backlog size growing, but that the difficult calls will sit without any feedback. I've found submissions that have had no feedback at all for 7+ weeks, and that really isn't fair on the submitter... WP:BITEY is really bad, but being ignored for months is worse IMHO. It really feels like we need a better way to deal with old requests, maybe a DfD "Drafts for discussion" where once they get to a certain age it's more like AfD (but without sending them to it as accused here) and the community builds a consensus. If it's not a clear yes/no in x weeks then consensus would seam to be needed rather than expecting an individual to step up and maybe be smacked down. Just my 2 penneth KylieTastic (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For discussion purpose, I may not seem to be the most impartial as I had personally have some disagreements (but resolved) with Primefac. I feel that WP:BITEY seems too broadly used, I am on the receiving end of it in my first article (more details see People's Park Centre, I don't think that anyone had been biten worse than me, a 242 edit 5 month old editor, having created the first article in mainspace, within not 5 but 3 minutes I get slapped with a G11 and then within 4 hours I get threatened with an AFD) so I totally emphatize with the situation. However, per KylieTastic, not knowing the outcome of article IMO is as bad as that. I had reviewed LegacyPac last 1000 edits, and picked a few to sample (those accepted per WP:NFOOTY / WP:NHOSPITALS / WP:NCORP) and scrutinized the sources. Most are accurate. The only thing is that there is no tagging / rating or etc which may not be in the flowchart of the AFCH script. To be fair to all sides, and to prevent this being a WP:AN case, a hold of AFCH script for a period of time and a RFC maybe more appropriate than a complete revocation. We can then see the edvidences and etc. Particular interest is that the survival rate (i.e. AFD / PROD / CSD) in mainspace vis-a-vis other reviewers. I had one review of Legacypac acceptance, that was BCA Academy, @The Mighty Glen: had tagged it for G12, and it was a full 89% via earwig copy vio + it is a paid editing from BCA Academy without proper COIN disclosure. @Black Kite: helped me to decline the G12, suppressed the copyvio and turn it into a redirect to where it is. But I will like to see more examples to determine whether this is the exception rather than the norm. --Quek157 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no data showing my accepts are getting deleted in any rate higher than anyone else but Primefac is willing to risk their reputation making a hasty decision without discussion with me. And who is Waggie? They never brought any concerns to me but seem free to judge.

My acceptence criteria (as I've well publicized and advocated others follow) is: 1. Is the topic notable? Preferably incontestably notable. 2. Is the material reasonably referenced? Inline referenced especially for BLPs. 3. is there a CSD that should be applied here? 4. Does it pass earwig and a common sense test for copyvio? If a page passes these four tests I accept it. If not I reject it. With a strong knowledge of applicable policy many pages can be quickly processed.

Since the person making the accusation needs to provide the evidence,or suffer any resulting consiquences, I'll wait for someone to back up the assertions here. I'm busy enjoying myself in Mexico :) Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac, Primefac provided several examples of concerning behavior, did you see those? So, if that's your acceptance criteria, what happened with this draft and subsequent AfD? Why would you accept a draft, then immediately agree with it's deletion? That makes no sense if it met with your acceptance criteria. As far as who I am, I've been around for a couple years, and been involved with AfC on and off for quite awhile. We've even interacted in a few spots. No, I've never confronted you directly about any of these issues, but others have and I don't have to as well in order to register my concerns here. Either way, like I suggested above, perhaps AfC isn't the best fit for you, there are many areas of the project that need attention. Waggie (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm tired and a tad (lot) drunk, but I like evidence in discussions this is a list of Legacypac last 1000 moves and and quick drunk count was 14 now deleted from main-space, of which one was Queryen. Now not all moves were AfC accepts, but most, so is that what we are talking about a 1.4% fail rate? If we are expected to miss judge less than 1.4% I'm going to not accept anything but the blindingly obvious. Maybe I'm missing something, and maybe more that a tad too much beer, but I think we need more facts (diffs, lists, whatever), not just point at Queryen. KylieTastic (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi KylieTastic, I hope that your beverage of choice is tasty tonight and forgiving tomorrow morning. Ok.. So, the concerns I have are poor review practices, specifically accepts and the general rate of review. Some examples have already been pointed out, and Legacypac had already had a conversation with Primefac on the topic, all linked to by Primefac. Some more evidence? Easy, I looked at the list of moves you linked to. Second in that list you provide is Adil_Lari, a draft with entirely offline sources which Legacypac accepted only 1 minute after accepting Alain Njoh Njoh Mpondo, a draft with 10 sources, which was only 2 minutes after accepting Jay Gambetta which was a draft where the only sources actually discussing the subject were primary sources. I'm not cherry-picking here, these are three accepts in a row.
Legacypac can find, read, and evaluate seven offline foreign-language sources in less than 60 seconds, open and read 10 online sources in less than 120 seconds? Primary sources are now acceptable for establishing notability? This was at the top of the list in the link you provided. I'm sorry, but it's clear to me that he's not properly reviewing sources. He clearly understands how to review, as his stated acceptance criteria are pretty close to the reviewing instructions. AfC isn't a race and we might as well not have AfC if reviewers are blindly accepting drafts without actually reviewing the sources. There's always a backlog at AfC and we should not be declining good articles, or accepting bad ones just because of the pressure to relieve that backlog.
As far as evidence regarding BITEYness, I can't provide logs for the confused helpees on IRC, but trust me when I say that I've fielded some very confused newbies who have no idea what's going on, and it places the helpers in a very difficult position and reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. It IS best to "ignore" a draft, rather than confuse people, because if someone is frustrated, we can truthfully and easily say there is a backlog, apologize to them, and try to work on the backlog a little harder. Explaining why an admin deleted their draft right after it was accepted is a lot harder. I do agree that there's issues with some drafts getting passed over due to them possibly being more difficult to review, but that's no excuse for not fully reviewing a draft before accepting it. Waggie (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Re primary sources, Jay Gambetta is an academic and so exempt from the general guidelines if the subject meets WP:PROF, which he easily seems to; I could assess that article in ~30 seconds, aside from running it through Earwig. It could do with some of the promotional wording toning down but wouldn't meet G11 in my opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That was exactly my assessment. Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Waggie I don't see you or anyone else trying to CSD or AfD your examples. I've love to see a list of this drafts that are getting immediately CSD'd because I watch every page I touch and I would have noticed that just like I notice the gnoming and categorization that follows an accept. If someone is complaining about having their Draft deleted and my name comes up it would be because I applied the CSD right before or after declining their SPAM or copyvio, not because it was deleted. You know you need to account for your allegations right? Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I fully intend to AfD where appropriate, but haven't set aside time for it yet. What, precisely, do you mean by "account for [my] allegations"? I'm just not sure what you mean by that. As was requested by KylieTastic, I've given very specific examples regarding my concerns, clear examples where articles were not properly reviewed. Unless you are saying that you can actually evaluate 5 offline foreign-language sources in 60 seconds or less and that primary sources are acceptable for establishing notability? I'd love to know how you got access to those offline sources so quickly, because it'd make other reviewers jobs much easier. Waggie (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • All I'm seeing is anecdotal evidence of a few bad calls, but given the sheer volume of drafts Legacypac has been going through, it is expected that anyone would make a mistake on a few of them. The 'speed of reviewing' argument is invalid as you you have no idea if he had all those articles open in multiple tabs reviewing them simultaneously (I often do this while reviewing at NPP, so you'd probably see similar stuff in my log). I haven't seen any evidence that LP's reviewing is any worse than would be expected from the average reviewer (in fact from the numbers above, I expect it would be better). In the absence of a much more systemic problem, I'd recommend putting him back on the list and tell him to slow down a bit (if he was indeed reviewing at that speed). If you guys want to kick him out, we could use his help over at NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The more I look at his Move Log, the less I see any problems, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazmudin Rayani was a clear failure on behalf of AfD, as the Order of Canada clearly meets criteria #2 of WP:ANYBIO. In any case, LP clearly isn't at fault there. Nearly all of the remaining examples were articles tagged as G11. While I can't view deleted articles, I find it hard to believe that these were truly 'unambiguous' advertising or promotion, and suspect that these examples probably come down to a bit of a difference of opinion (this CSD criteria can be rather subjective). In any case, even if all of those examples were bad calls (and there are a couple bad calls, such as Queryen), there aren't enough of them to be considered a systemic or significant issue given the volume of drafts reviewed. Lets not let this become a witch hunt. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I find it a bit of a kick in the teeth to anyone who'd like to be involved with the project be removed simply because of working at a fast rate, or doing a bad job. From everything I've seen, the user does an awful lot of work, and as such, there WILL be errors. Even if this is judged to be too high, or guidelines aren't being adhered too, we should really be working together to promote the values and guidelines, rather than chucking people out who may or may not be doing a bad job, but clearly wants to work harder than most on the project. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll address speed. There are three reasons I can work very quickly. I've often already looked at Drafts due to previously declining or commenting on them or I've checking them over and decided to come back after thinking about them, so I can often do a series of quick accepts or declines. Secondly I'm a visual reader who has tested out at 5 times the average university student reading speed, so yes I can evaluate Drafts and sources I've never seen before more quickly than some other people. Third, others have pointed out my knowledge of CSD criteria is Admin level and accuracy on CSD is quite high so I no longer need to ponder if the page should be CSD'd or is likely to be CSD'd by someone else, I just know (which suggests I spend too much time on wikipedia).

Waggie has made some very unfortunate allegations above. I'd like to know IF Waggie gets access to offline sources to evaluate them? Are reviewers supposed to check offline sources before we accept a page that by all accounts appears good? I tend to WP:AGF and give the page creator the benefit of the doubt that they accurately reflected sources when I see scholarly effort sourced carefully to actual books. Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I always thought offline sources should be taken as good faith... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I do review offline sources wherever possible. I do not take as given that a contemporary topic would only have offline sources available, that just doesn't make sense in today's world. There are plenty of ways to verify offline sources in many cases (like the various "Look inside the book" features on many sites, Project Gutenberg, etc. I encourage you to read WP:OFFLINE, which states that we should treat offline sources like online sources (which, amongst other things, means attempting to verify them). There's a lot of good information there regarding verifying offline sources. If a draft has enough online sources to establish notability, then I do AGF on the offline sources and accept as a matter of expediency, certainly, but I verify as many sources as possible to ensure the integrity of the draft before I accept. It is our responsibility as reviewers to make sure we are not putting problematic biographical content into mainspace. AfC is not a race, no matter the backlog. Waggie (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This is all good practice, but I'm not sure the instructions actually state that the reviewer should verify the content in detail? Reviewers are required to check that the references provided are sufficient to allow verification, but not actually to verify everything themselves. And in particular the instructions state "Avoid declining an article because the reliable sources are not free or on-line. Books, magazines, and other print-only sources are perfectly acceptable" without any caveat about chasing them down via Google Books or the like. What you are talking about sounds more like a Featured Article review, and even that goes with spot-checks not complete source review. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue, in my view, isn't the accepting of borderline drafts, it's accepting drafts without a proper review. In just a few minutes I was able to verify several of the offline sources for Adil Lari, enough to verify that the subject does meet WP:GNG. I even updated the article to allow for better verification. Many offline sources can be verified without undue work and online sources should be checked to verify they actually discuss the subject and aren't primary sources. I understand that no one has a 100% accuracy rate at AfD, although I'm fairly certain that none of the drafts I've accepted have gone to AfD or been CSDd (I've have to dig to check). We just need to exercise due diligence, and if a draft is so bad that the accepting reviewer agrees with it's deletion at AfD (back to Queryan) then that's a red flag that there's a larger problem with the reviewing practices. I'm not asking for perfection, that's completely unreasonable to do so. I'm asking that due diligence be given, that's all. Frankly, I don't have time to dig through a long list of Legacypac's accepts and AfD or correct all the problematic ones. I pointed out several that I found problematic and explained why I found them problematic. If consensus is that I'm wrong, then whatever, I don't control Wikipedia. I'm just agreeing with Primefac that there seems to be a problem here. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Waggie: I am delighted to hear that none of your accepts have ever been taken to Afd or CSD but in the period where Legacypac has reviewed 1500 articles you have reviewed 7. If you are only dealing with surefire bulletproof articles that have zero chance of being deleted then you are not taking any risks and are not complying to the instructions of accepting those articles "likely" to survive. Your admission that none have ever been challenged is, to be perfectly honest, not something to be proud about. If all the reviewers chose only 100% surefire wins then we might as well forget the process. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Domdeparis, it was not an admission, a boast, or anything of the sort. It was simply a statement, for the reader to take as they saw fit, as it had been claimed that no one had a 100% "success rate", and I even stated that I was not sure if this was the case for myself. No, I do not review hundreds or thousands of articles in a day or two. I work 60-80 hours a week and cannot dedicate any more time than I already do to Wikipedia. Also, I'm not only dealing with "surefire bulletproof articles", quite the contrary, it's just when I see an article that is borderline, I have the option (per the instructions) of improving it (which improves it's chances of success at AfD), which I usually do. I'm not chiding Legacypac for not exercising this option, however, I'm just voicing concerns about poor reviewing practices. Anyway, I've stated my opinions and given my evidence and reasoning to back them up. Thank you for your time. Waggie (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
My mistake . I understand that no one has a 100% accuracy rate at AfD, although I'm fairly certain that none of the drafts I've accepted have gone to AfD or been CSDd (I've have to dig to check). just looked a little boastful to the casual reader. But you might want to bear in mind a little phrase that we have in France "Il n'y a que ceux qui ne travaillent pas qui ne font jamais d'erreurs" which loosely translated means those that are the most productive have the greatest chance of making mistakes. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I have a couple issues with all this.
  1. Accepting marginal drafts is not a crime it is not even a WP:BITE. A WP:BITE is when a new author creates a new page and it gets deleted within minutes or hours with a link to a policy page that looks like legalese. In order of increasing hostility, we have three choices with marginal drafts. All of these have been discussed here as valid approaches.
    1. Decline (repeatedly) in hopes that the author will realize it is not going to happen or figures out how to make the necessary improvements
    2. Accept the draft and see if anyone tries to delete it and then see if a delete verdict is rendered
    3. Nominate the draft for deletion and see if a delete verdict is rendered
  2. An administrator taking the initiative to monitor behavior here seems creepy. I know there is a history with Legacypac, but still, why not wait for someone to register a complaint? I have reviewed the infractions Primefac references above and I agree that what's cited is not the sort of behavior we'd like to see from reviewers. However, the issues I see here seem more WP:TROUT worthy than WP:BAN worthy. I don't know how often this happens with Legacypac but we've all learned to deal with dickish behavior on Wikipedia. If we set a zero-tolerance policy against disruptive behavior, we might improve the Wikipedia culture but it would potentially be at the expense of the freewheeling, decentralized environment that currently exists. In any case, in practice, that's not what we we do and no bright line has been crossed here.
If we retain this ban, I suggest that it be held only for a specified and limited period. ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If I understand rightly we are essentially accusing Legacypac of having a larger than acceptable number of articles accepted taken to Afd and deleted for not being up to scratch. If that is the case what is the acceptable number and can we have statistics on all reviewers ? I have not been very active myself as I have been concentrating on NPP. The AFC guidelines say that we should accept an article if it is likely to survive Afd... likely means more than a 50/50 chance. Noone has a 100% accuracy rate in Afd. If that is the criteria for having the rights then I can't see any reviewing getting done anytime soon. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Accepting borderline drafts is a perfectly reasonable action, even if they have a 50% chance of being deleted at AfD; if someone accepts a lot of borderline drafts, some are going to be deleted. If we're not careful we make it impossible for anyone except an admin to accept any article that falls short of perfection. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say not even admins, mailer Diablo 2005 article was hauled to AFD and I with some other saved it. That's was part of an FA even. Quek157 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue, in my view, isn't the accepting of borderline drafts, it's accepting drafts without a proper review. In just a few minutes I was able to verify several of the offline sources for Adil Lari, enough to verify that the subject does meet WP:GNG. I even updated the article to allow for better verification. Many offline sources can be verified without undue work and online sources should be checked to verify they actually discuss the subject and aren't primary sources. I understand that no one has a 100% accuracy rate at AfD, although I'm fairly certain that none of the drafts I've accepted have gone to AfD or been CSDd (I've have to dig to check). We just need to exercise due diligence, and if a draft is so bad that the accepting reviewer agrees with it's deletion at AfD (back to Queryan) then that's a red flag that there's a larger problem with the reviewing practices. I'm not asking for perfection, that's completely unreasonable to do so. I'm asking that due diligence be given, that's all. Frankly, I don't have time to dig through a long list of Legacypac's accepts and AfD or correct all the problematic ones. I pointed out several that I found problematic and explained why I found them problematic. If consensus is that I'm wrong, then whatever, I don't control Wikipedia. I'm just agreeing with Primefac that there seems to be a problem here. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:KylieTastic calculated above 1.4% of my last 1000 accepts have been deleted. User:Primefac/AFCStats#Post-acceptance_statistics shows 3.6 to 7.6% deletion over various months. As the largest contributor to accepts (but only over the last several months) my personal survival percentages appear to be improving the overall AfC stats. If my survival rate is too low than experienced AfC reviewers willing to compare track records should discuss a reasonable survival rate. Anyone who does not have a bunch of accepts to compare against is just armchair quarterbacking and should step up and show us how to do AfC correctly. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a specious defence. Primefac's statistics reflect all AfC acceptances ever accepted by us that happened to have been nominated in a particular month. This is relevant because the average age at which an AfC acceptance gets nominated is far older than the maximum age of one month reflected in your last thousand. What would be helpful (perhaps) is a comparison with the general rate for acceptances that took place over the same period as your most-recent thousand. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Primefac's stats or maybe not. If 4-7% of all pages ever accepted by AfC are deleted each month pretty soon there would no AfC accepted pages left. The allegation is my accepts are being quickly CSD'd and AfD'd which is not true - now the goal posts are being moved. AfC should not be a gatekeeper that excludes 100% of drafts that might be subjected to a deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
No one ever said we're excluding 100% of those drafts, and you are misunderstanding my stats. For each month, about 4-7% of the accepted drafts are deleted. This has been discussed multiple times and is viewed as a perfectly acceptable percentage. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: So what is your argument for removing him from the list then? His overall statistics seem quite good. While some more of these articles he has approved might get taken to AfD in future, worsening his stats, that is a purely speculative hypothetical that can be dealt with at a later date if it ever happens (based on the obvious behind the scenes scrutiny that has been going on, I doubt it will happen). In the mean time there is no evidence that his rate of misfire is any worse than anyone else, just that his volume of reviewing has resulted in more individual examples. Anecdotes do not equal statistics, please add him back to the list. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not gonna go into statistics here. But Removal of Legacypac from AFCP list took me by the same amount of surprise as discovering sock-puppetry of SwisterTwister did. Something unimaginable though. Dial911 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Dial911 - The two should not be mentioned in the same sentence, except as being completely different, an apple and a serpent's egg. The merits and demerits of reviewers can be debated, but sockpuppetry is just plain wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I was not comparing both the incidents as they both are mutually exclusive. However, 'this' was as sudden and surprising and unexpected to me as 'that' was. Dial911 (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In a related event Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Gambetta concerning a page User:Waggie complains about my accept on here - they just proved they don't know much about what will or will not pass AfD. Perhaps their AfC tools need to be removed User:Primefac as there is a clear competance issue here. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment about 'armchair quarterbacking' above made me chuckle, and seems more than apt in this case. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's try to keep in mind that this discussion is in relation to Legacypac, and not Waggie. I can't see a situation where taunting participants in the conversation could be helpful to anyone involved. SQLQuery me! 00:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyone is subject to getting hit in the back of the head with a WP:BOOMERANG when they make complaints about someone else. In terms of the "Perhaps their AfC tools need to be removed" bit that LP said above; while I might assume that this is facetious and intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek, it is also appropriate. On the grounds and evidence provided for LP's removal from the list (isolated evidence of bad judgement), the same argument applies to Waggie if LP's sanctions are to be upheld (in which case you might as well remove me as well, because I also make the odd mistake and I doubt that my error rate would be any better than LP's after 1000 articles). I want it to be clear that *I* think that neither of these users should receive anything other than a red cheek and a slight fishy smell about the face from a thorough trouting. Legacypac is willing to have the balls to make difficult calls within the grey area of borderline articles, this is admirable and needed and he has been doing well when you compare him to the baseline. This situation reminds me of Robert McClenon's RfA, where a few bad calls at CSD were used to crucify him, despite the fact that his rate of errors was actually extremely low and the reason that there were even a few bad examples was because he had been doing many thousands of CSD nominations. I very much regret opposing that RfA, and I won't stand by while the same thing happens again. We cannot let the community destroy prolific editors that generally do a very good job by pulling out a few anecdotes and repeating them over and over. The only way to avoid making mistakes is to not bother to do anything of worth at all. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't see that as the main reason for the opposition to my RFA. Maybe that is why User:Insertcleverphrasehere opposed, in which case I am willing to accept their apology as a case where seeking perfection was an enemy of the good. However, I see the real issue at my RFA that I consider quality control (and crud control) to be of first importance, even more important than outreach to new editors or expansion of the encyclopedia, and, on top of that, I then wouldn't make the usual statement to be a different editor for six months and come up when I was someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: With regards to your RfA, I was on the fence regarding the "content creation vs. deletionist" debate, and I suspect many others were as well (I think there is room for all kinds of admins). I regret personally being swayed to the oppose camp by SoWhy's evidence and have regretted it for some time. You definitely have my apologies. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
While the comment about removing Waghie's AfC access is a little sarcastic let's remember I'm not the one who showed really bad judgement by piling on a bad decision with a bunch of nonsense allegations and then POINTEDly AfDing a page he knows (or at least was already told) passed PROF. In an act of mercy, that was speedy closed in less than 1/2 a day while I still get a pop up saying I my AfCH does not work. [11] See John 8:7 Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Legacypac - I am not quite sure what that has to do with this. That had to do with the death penalty for adultery, and with what may have been a list in the dust of their sins. (Maybe He wrote it in Latin or Sanskrit, because if it had been written in Hebrew or Greek, they would have known what was written.) I assume that Legacypac means that his critics are too willing to throw stones at him. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the chapter summary but the key quote is "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and that the accusers left in shame when it was pointed out they were no better than the accused. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Jesus didn't say that the accusers were no better than she was, at least not verbally, but that was probably what he wrote in the dust. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
So the question is whether Legacypac's critics have also made mistakes. My guess is that they have. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
SQL, they're welcome to taunt me all they want, I not concerned. Thanks for your concern, though. :) Waggie (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I promised myself I'd say my piece and bow out, but this conversation is a good example of why we're at this point. We can all sit here and cite stats, and honestly, I feel that's a beside the point. People can forgive as much as others fault, but the currency for that transaction is humility. Picking at each other's past can feel like winning a debate; but, this isn't a debate on logic, in my opinion. Even with my nit picking, I respect Legacy and the impact he has on the backlog, he won me over with the G13 crusade, and I'm happy he did. I agree with some others, it should be a break, with a predetermined amount of time. I'm by far the smartest person in the room, and I welcome you back, I just hope it comes with accepting critical feedback. The people here, both in this conversation, and all over this silly project have made me a better person in ways I didn't even know I was faulted at. If you are the company you keep, you could do a lot worse than being in good company around here. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you want a trip to ANi Waggie? Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has visited before, I suggest avoiding the pilgrimage. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is it that any time someone does something you don't like, you immediately threaten to bring them to ANI? This is one of the main reasons why I had been avoiding this post for so long, but also why I ultimately made it; because of the repeated veiled threats that you'd be coming for my mop or you'd take editors to ANI over completely frivolous garbage. You're on a collaborative project and not everyone will always agree with you. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

how many admins are here already , this is ANI in all but name only IMO Quek157 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Undecided - I don't yet have an opinion on the merits of the de-AFC-ing of User:Legacypac because I haven't finished researching their complicated history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acceptance for Purpose of AFD Question

  I don't know whether this is the place to bring this up, because I am already discussing it with User:Legacypac, and I prefer to keep discussions centralized, but there is mention above of having a higher than normal rate of acceptances taken to AFD and deleted, and I have an issue, that I think is a serious problem, with User:Legacypac saying that drafts should sometimes be accepted in order to be taken to AFD and deleted. In my opinion, accepting a draft for the purpose of requesting its deletion is completely wrong. I haven't actually seen Legacypac do this, only say that this should sometimes be done. If they have actually done this, it is problematic, although I won't say that it warrants de-AFC-ing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note the MFD is way too slow, after the recent submission, I don't bother anymore. This comment will start of another MFD vs AFD which is now in 20 places, better place will be on the RFC. Focus on whether they should or not to strip off their tools based on quick acceptance and competency to assess drafts to prevent rather than taking to AFD please Quek157 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I have converted this into a lvl2 discussion, because while it is directly related to the discussion above I think it could stand "general" opinions on the matter. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What RFC? Where? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science

I note someone declined this journal draft last year. Journals with impact factors, even very low ones, are generally considered notable. There's some advice at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), and if in doubt, you can ask for an opinion at Wikiproject Academic Journals. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've processed them. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Creating a standard "best practice" for problematic editors

At the beginning of May I had the intention of starting a "spring cleaning review" thread on this board asking for editors to email me any concerns regarding active AFC reviewers. I would evaluate these concerns and if enough (or significant) complaints were levied against one user I would bring it up here for further discussion. However, real life and other more pressing on-wiki issues kept me from doing so, and a recently closed thread about one editor's reviewing has made me think that at the very least that system would be a good starting point for future "review of reviewers".

At the moment the only "review" process for a reviewer is when they are on probation - so far a handful of editors have successfully passed, and a half-dozen are currently in probation. After a month threads about probationary reviewers are started so they can receive feedback on their editing; when the probation is over if there are no further issues they'll be considered in good standing.

Should this review process be extended to all reviewers? I know starting a review thread on every reviewer would be overly excessive. Should we go with an "anonymous reporting" system like the one I described in my opening paragraph? Should we not even review reviewers at all?

In the interest of keeping things on topic, well, please keep things on-topic. This is not a re-litigation of any previous threads (though they can obviously be referenced), but sniping at other users will be reverted. This thread isn't about reviewing anyone in particular, but rather about determining some "best practices" regarding our project. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a major part of any potential suspensions/bans is that the conversation should be had before anything happens. Above, the user is suspended, in the opening paragraph of the thread, and the rest is argument around his quality of work. It should really be the other way around.
Also, we need to be a little bit more consertive with our efforts. It seems as though there is a wide-spread difference in opinion on how we should deal with drafts. Should we be more inclusive with borderline inclusions, as these may well pass an AfD? Or, should we be more stingy for the quality of mainspace? Should we continually allow non-notable drafts to be worked on, when there is zero chance of ever making it to main space? Or, should we be deleting drafts that are completely non-notable, and perhaps scare off wikipedians, or come off as WP:BITEY. Maybe if we can be a bit more clear on what is expected (If stats are being monitored, then we should have a set limit for accepted articles that are later deleted as being acceptable).
Even then, we shouldn't be too harsh on other reviewers, as we are all working on the project. I think a good thing to do, is to publically air out potential problems with how reviewers act (Even if that is annonymously), and try and work on things that could be deemed as problematic. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur, a discussion should have been had above, and that's why I'm starting this (to hopefully avoid these things in the future). There is (and always will be) a broad spectrum of users who review drafts, ranging from "this has a source so I'll accept" to "not every sentence is referenced so it's not acceptable". But this is not the point of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss how we deal with problematic editors when/if we find them.
If Editor A thinks that Editor B is doing a bad job, should A just post here saying "here are drafts X, Y, and Z, and so I don't think they should be in the project"? Should it just be a procedural "this person has had more than M% of their acceptances deleted, discuss"?
I certainly like the idea (in your last para) regarding airing out issues - even if Editor B is doing something wrong, Editor A can ask for clarification "in general" and see how the discussion pans out. It's been done before and is usually successful. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there can be a one-case-fits-all model for these things, as obviously, certain infractions are more important than others. However, some issues could easily be solved by simply talking about whatever the concern is, and get a consensus for what the proper course of action should be. Sometimes the issues that someone might be bringing up might not even be a problem. If we believe that a 15% plus (random number) AfD percentage is the limit of acceptableness, it might be worth having a public list somewhere of what people's stats are. I'm not of the opinion that simply having a high amount of deletions is a problem, but it may well indicate bad reviewing.
I think in those cases, a message on the talk page, or even a general discussion (Heck, we could even give the reviewer helpful hints as a group), to get this percentage down. Personally, I don't do a lot of reviews, (I'm busy with other projects), but if I was to put effort into reviewing a tonne of drafts, I'd want to know that I wasn't simply going to be lambasted for this work. A reviewer did leave me some helpful hints on my talk page as I was learning, and I feel something like this is by far a better way to help the project than to simply remove someone's ability to review drafts for a period of time. Of course, if someone simply ignores the help, then it would need to be taken further. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, at the moment I check all of the deleted drafts every month (for stats-keeping) and as of yet no one has more than 2-3 deleted pages per month (and none consistently month-to-month).
And yes, sometimes a note is all that is necessary - I have left dozens of "by the way" notes on reviewers pages. Small issues shouldn't be treated as world-ending, but habitual or consistent errors definitely need to be brought up. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, since we implemented a PERM-style request system the onlyalmost all of the reviewers that have been removed were socks (or later found to be socks), so this is not exactly a perennial issue that AFC is facing. Because of that, if people don't think it's worth discussing I'm happy to hat this. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd love to figure out how to generate a % of accepts that get deleted chart by reviewer. Then we can look at both reviewers who accept too many articles that get deleted and not enough articles that get deleted. If none of your accepts get deleted you are likely declining too many notable topics. Creators rightly complain if we decline pages that should be accepted - even more than if we accept a page that later gets deleted by discussion.
Looking at Accepts vs Rejects is misleading as I've found the newer the date category worked the more percentage of pages that need to be declined. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As you say, comparing accept vs decline is problematic, and as Kudpung stated on a different thread just now there's simply no way we can make everyone review identically (if we could do that we could program a bot. Figuring out percentages is pretty easy, though; just compare redlinks v bluelinks at WP:AFC/Recent. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks, Primefac, for starting this thread. I would urge review not to be based on any kind of simple proportion of accepted articles that subsequently get deleted. This will encourage reviewers both to concentrate on easy cases and to reject all borderline content. Mainspace is a complex filtering process that should be allowed to do its work in borderline cases, rather than one editor unilaterally rejecting articles, perhaps based on notability criteria that they don't fully understand. Also, everyone should be allowed occasional mistakes; it is patterns of unhelpful behaviour that we are looking to notice, not individual errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm starting to get the idea that "talk it out" is really the best way to go forward. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
One idea, shall we have a recall criteria (that didn't work out for admins) but since this isn't a formal permission rights, this can be a way to noncontroversial removal of AFCH. But talking it out seems the best.--Quek157 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think having more clarity on any issues would be a good idea for all reviewers to learn from: Maybe instead of taking concerns to reviewers talk pages so that most don't see an issue until a problem blows up, maybe all deletions (within a week/month?) should be listed here in the project. That way the accepter can respond/defend/apologies and the rest can comment and learn. Maybe some default timeouts for repeat failures, i.e. not learning from mistakes gets you a couple of days/week whatever off the project. However it needs to be considered some review 1 and others 1000+ in a month.
As for the discussion on if accepting a submission that you think 'may' get AfD is OK or not, I think this has been seen as too blank or white, and timing matters. Personally I think it's totally wrong for new submissions, but for ones stuck for many weeks or months I think it could be acceptable, even beneficial. If no reviewer is happy to make a call, is it not fairer on the submitter to give it a chance rather than just sit stuck? I would find having an article stuck in AfC for many weeks depressing and it would have driven me off Wikipedia. Three possible solutions for any articles once over x days/weeks old:
  1. It's just deemed OK for more accept if you can't find a reason to decline
  2. Have a new template that tell the submitter "It's been deemed unclear if this article meets guidelines, if you would like it to be accepted understanding that it may be challenged/deleted please say so"
  3. We have a procedure so we can build a mini consensus here on the project - to stop every old article being listed maybe one reviewer has suggest a consensus review, and then another has to second them, and then it can be listed.
Anyway just some quick pre-beer thoughts, Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We already have a list of all open deletion nominations. It's under the "Submissions" tab above. Are you suggesting something that goes beyond that list? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And if you're interested in watchlisting anything, WP:AFCAA is the page where the article alerts are actually placed (the Submissions tab transcludes the list). Primefac (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of WP:AFCAA, my bad, but for one it includes all items regardless of time (for instance Q-Collection accepted 2015, PROD 2018) secondly it not a place to comment. What I mean is if any recent accepts get deleted, rather than talking to the accepter on their user page as has been indicate has happened, that 'issues' are discussed more openly here. Turn what can be one editor telling another they did something wrong, who may disagree, into a wider discussion, so others can agree/disagree with either side. To stop what may feel like just X has an issue with Y, into the consensus that X or Y was wrong, or neither. KylieTastic (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to be discussing every draft that gets AFD'd here. Also, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help used to exist and was never used so it got closed. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it would be too much to do all - but still I think that when someone thinks a reviewer has 'issues' that need to be addressed it would be better done here rather than '1 vs 1' on a users talk page. Having more peoples input usually helps, either to convince the accused they were wrong or to point out the accuser may be being a tad tough. A consensus is much easier to accept (for most) than a single accuser, so hopefully keeps things less confrontational. KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We know users get frustrated when they wait - they post on our talkpages, teahouse, help desk etc. I love the idea of a "it's unclear" like KyleTastic suggested. However our present decline templates basically say there is not enough sources to establish...

Where it's just not a clear cut case or the creator is arguing with AFC advice I've been occasionally telling editors that AfC is an optional process, and they are free to move the page themselves. That way I don't get accused of accepting a bad page and it's their risk. As long as the editor is AC they don't need AfC anyway. Maybe that should be a "Decline" template that removes the page from AFC? After all optional goes both ways. The AfC project/reviewer should have the option to decline/refuse to review a Draft and chuck it out of the AfC system. Legacypac (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing inherently wrong with letting a page creator that they take their fate into their own hands if they choose to move the page properly into the article space. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yup we know that AC editors can do this, but maybe they don't, so maybe a template to explain clearly the options. Also for non AC the point was we could give them the options to asks us to accept knowing it may be challenged. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The problems start when a new user enters Wikipedia for the first time with the intention of creating an article. I've been saying for years that this website needs a proper entry page. I brought up the issue of the Wizard yet again a couple of weeks ago but it was almost as if I had said a dirty word. Yes, I could rewrite it easily without it being a challenge to my skills, but it would be a challenge to my time - especially as I stepped into the breach with The Signpost and resued that. It wasn't something I really wanted to do but there seems to be a lethargy across the site in many areas that are not directly adding content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:International School of Temple Arts

I give up, can someone continue.started in mainspace marked by me g11, deleted for advertising, upon request restored by deleting admin who move it to draft. now that guy wanted it back to main and ask me to move it, can I ? can someone else take over this.Quek157 (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey Quek157 how odd that they though you would move it for them when you obviously thought it was promotional - never seen that. I posted a reply to them, they can either move it or AfC it, or leave it to get stale. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @KylieTastic:. First is a balant G11. Then I warned the creator, then Admin deleted it. Then this person says I asked to move to draft where clearly Anthony said it is advert like in the talkpage. I saved the redeletion by asking draftify. Then I get accused and drawn into a deletion discussion where this is speedy. And they still have the intent to say that anyone can move drafts (I am a 2007 user). I really can't understand the entire logic and asking me to AFD after moving it to mainspace is no no, we just have a long discussion about legacypac thing here. They are not new either, an event coordinator from 2010 and have all the rights except NPP. Since they are autopatrolled, I don't think we need to care if they really move. However, if someone really and I am sure a lot of people are lurking at NPP feed tagging things for deletion tag that again as G11, they might even lose that right. I really don't know how such people think but can only AGF and move on, this issue should be settled by the admin. That's why sometime I appreciate RHAworth - clear CSD decline, without needing me to note for SALT he SALTed the page. Thanks for your 3O --Quek157 (talk)

A-class articles

I've been looking through various lists of unassessed articles recently, and I stumbled across 6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps), which is listed as unassessed by the project; however, it is assessed, as A-class, incluing in your Wikiproject template. Looking at this, it looks like your template doesn't support A-class. Should I change the assessment to B-class (only for your project), will someone fix that, or what? LittlePuppers (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We do not recognize A class articles. I see that MILHIST downgraded it to B, so I have done likewise for our template. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Some WikiProjects do have an A class, or at least they did. (I remember this being a thing with the Military WikiProject. I thought it was above the GA status though? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, MILHIST is one of the few projects that heavily utilizes A. I believe it's technically less than GA, but only because GA has superseded it as the standard. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Liam Glyn

I'm requesting a third opinion on Draft:Daniel Liam Glyn. Do you think he is notable enough? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


Oh, and also an IP suggested that that AFCH put decline and AFC comment templates at the bottom. What would you think about that? L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think all AfC comments and templates belong on the Talkpage like how the rest of Wikipedia works. The current system dates to when AfC submissions were project subpages without their own talkpages. Legacypac (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: no, I was talking about the AFC templates placed on the draft. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
So am I. The Draft should be kept clean to work on without scrolling past AfF templates and the Draft talkpage should be used instead. Then when we accept we leave our comments there. Legacypac (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The talkpage makes sense for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia. My only concern would be how to effectively point new users to the talkpage. I'd like to see something remain on the drafts page acting as a pointer to the talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The talkpage of every page you create is watchlisted. The message sent to usertalk would also point them to Draft talk. Legacypac (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it is implausable to expect most very new users to understand how their watchlist works. The user talk message might get there, but I would think a lot of newbies will check their draft page directly, possibly whole not logged in. Having something there to link New users to the talk page seems valuable. This can be as simple as a one line template at the top of the article saying that it was declined and linking to the talk page to encourage discussion there. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Tazerdadog. The simplicity of keeping it on one page for new editors is more important than consistency. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: the notability case based on the provided sources ([12], [13], [14], [15]) is strong enough that I would give it a better than 50% chance of surviving AfC. I was not able to find additional sources. I see that you have declined indicating the sources were not reliable. What did you find lacking? ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kvng: well the fact that many people are deleted for failing NPERSON even with some RS. The person in the draft appears to be just one more run-of-the-mill composer. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there now a case for deleting a sourced biography on a subject that meets WP:GNG? I didn't get that memo. ~Kvng (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving Drafts to Mainspace to Consider Deletion ?

If there is a different place where this discussion should be held, please advise me. I think that the principal objective of Articles for Creation is to support Draft space as a temporary place where pages can be worked on with the eventual objective of promoting them into article space. At the same time, I think that some pages in draft space, although they may be submitted once or repeatedly for review, will never be suitable for article space. We can probably agree on that.

I think that drafts should be moved (promoted) to article space when they are ready for article space, and that is usually defined as meaning that they will probably survive an AFD discussion, or, better yet, that they won’t get taken to AFD.

My question is: Should drafts ever be moved to article space when they are not ready for article space, in order to face CSD or AFD? Maybe I have misunderstood, but I have read at least one editor as sometimes saying that drafts should be moved to article space in order to have a deletion discussion. I personally think that is a terrible idea, and that draft space is a better place for questionable pages than article space. I am aware that there are unresolved disagreements about when drafts should be deleted, but I personally don’t see that they should ever be moved to article space unless the reason is that they belong in article space.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

imo never, just strengthen the mfd process is enough. or just let time pass for G13. Quek157 (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we do not nominate drafts for deletion under notability criteria. I see no reason to move them anywhere if they are not ready. Maybe instaure a deletion criteria of x declines or a g13 in time. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If an article is definitely not ready for article space then it should be declined. However, from the previous arguments it appears to be just certain types of cases that are causing issues, the ones I've noticed:
  • Firstly the one that appears to be the main issue in the past: left over articles in user space - there already appears to be a policy WP:STALEDRAFT that covers 8 options in total. I haven't seen a reason why those options aren't enough? There is also MfD, and if that fails and no one shows any interest in taking on just blank and tag {{Userpage blanked}} this effectively removes it, but allows the users to easily restart if every they desire. Also the conclusion to this RFC B3. Should it be permissible to move userspace drafts which do not meet article content standards to mainspace in order to seek deletion? - Consensus is clearly no. would make it clear for this has been decided on.
  • Secondly the articles that keep getting submitted and declined, not improving and wasting our time: These can be taken to MfD, but I understand some do not like this, so an alternative would be to have a template to inform the submitter that it is no longer suitable to be re-submitted and they have three options: move themselves to main space; {{db-self}}; and should not resubmit to AfC and doing so could be treated as disruptive behaviour. This could also be used if taken to MfD and fails, it's just a declaration it's no longer deemed suitable for the AfC process.
The {{NSFW}} template can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thirdly the ones I care about most the ones stuck for weeks/months not being reviewed because they are borderline, or unclear. As I suggested in the "best practice" thread above have a new template that tell the submitter "It's been deemed unclear if this article meets guidelines, if you would like it to be accepted understanding that it may be challenged/deleted please say so, or move yourself, or you can continue to wait". It only seams fair when we are failing to make a call either way, that we make it clear to submitters their options.
The idea of giving an author the option of requesting that a draft be taken to article space, knowing that AFD is available, is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I've missed something, but with MfD and WP:STALEDRAFT the only thing I think is missing is making it clearer to users what options they have, and when 'we' either think a draft will never pass or it's unclear. KylieTastic (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Drafts should only be moved to mainspace by AfC reviewers if they are deemed by the reviewer to be WP:LIKELY to survive AfD. As you can see, the definition of likely (and unlikely) is 50%. I personally interpret this to mean that it is acceptable to move borderline articles to mainspace. Doing so helps me keep in touch with how AfD works. How readily to marginal articles get nominated? What sort of delete and keep arguments are working? If you don't have AfD experience, you can't do a good job with the difficult reviews at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree with Kvng. AFC reviewers should have AFD experience to know how a battleground there can be at times. Deletion cause nerves but discussion will be better. --Quek157 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been applying a standard of "almost certain to avoid AfD" only because I have enemies that want to remove my ability to edit. Even then I recently lost an accept at AfD on an Order of Canada receipient that meets WP:ANYBIO #1. On the flip side I've failed to get pages I think are total crap deleted at AfD. I support the stated "likely to survive AfD" standard. AfC should try to help editors but some don't want or will not accept help and should experience mainspace rules. Some pages we just can't predict what will happen if taken to AfD and that is ok. We should not be a block against truly debatable pages being tested in mainspace. We should facilitate the inclusion of the good and stop the clearly unsuitable pages as best we can, but not try to be one person AfD decision makers. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the last things we should ever be doing is encouraging AFC draft submitters to move the page into mainspace themselves without a review. Sure, it's technologically possible for them to do so, but it defeats the entire purpose of having AFC at all and is not an option we should be telling people is on the menu — anybody who thinks they're actually allowed to do that is just going to do it even if the page is nowhere near mainspace-acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree 100% with Robert McClenon's notion that moving drafts to mainspace in order to have a deletion discussion is a terrible idea. No reviewer should move a page to mainspace that is not ready for mainspace -- in other words, if it is not ready to to found by readers who come here seeking "accepted knowledge". I do not think people who submit drafts should be encouraged to move articles to mainspace themselves. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jytdog with one clarification. I have occasionally told a submitter that they can move their draft to mainspace, but only as "if you insist", with submitters who argue with my advice (and possibly that of other reviewers) that a draft is not ready for article space, "You have the right to move your draft to article space yourself and take your chances on an AFD discussion." It is less troublesome to tell the submitter to go ahead and move it themselves than to continue to talking to a brick wall. For a reviewer to move a draft to article space for any reason other than because they judge it to be ready for article space is a terrible idea. For a reviewer to tell a stubborn submitter to go ahead and move it and take their chances is occasionally in order. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of paid editors as per WP:PAID ?
I reckon that is what he means.  :) Robert thanks for your clarification. A thought. This is a volunteer project, but everybody has to follow the policies and guidelines. Per the AfC guidelines, a) not to move stuff that isn't ready, and b) to be reasonably kind to the new editors submitting drafts. The interesting thing is where the obligation to be kind and keep interacting with new editors, ends... and how to exit, when the conversation is going no where and the draft is not really deletable. Nobody is ever obligated to keep working on anything. So how do folks exit when you have had enough? Options:
Just walk away: (JWA), saying nothing or saying something like "I've given all the time to this that I feel is reasonable, and I am going to do other things now. Someone else will come along eventually. I do hope you take my advice on board if you choose to resubmit, as the next person will likely say the same thing"
Take your chances (JWA+TYC): just say same as above, and add "You can move it to mainspace if you insist, but please understand that it is likely to be deleted"
Roll up your sleeves (RUYS) and take it the last mile, and move it to mainspace when you are done, would be a third option.
Which of those do folks do? Others? If you do TYC and the person does move it, do you then nominate it for deletion, or have you washed your hands of the matter? (which is completely fine, i am just asking). Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

3 week backlog!

Yah happy days. Now let's cut it somemore. Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Pity it only lasted a very short time, but 4 weeks is still way better than it's been in ages - well done to all those hitting the old ones and getting this done. KylieTastic (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
We can hold it under 4 weeks especially with all the new reviewers coming on. We were even under 1000 for a little bit. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Script bug?

Is anybody else having problems with the AFCH script sometimes failing to actually do anything when you click on the "Accept", "Decline" or "Comment" buttons on a pending draft? Or is it just my computer being difficult for no apparent reason? Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I just reviewed Draft:National Business Crime Centre with no apparent problems Tazerdadog (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have seen over the last 36 hours or so erratic misbehavior, where actions have been incomplete, such as not transferring the actual deletion reason to the user talk page or in sometimes even the article, and especially in not delaing properly with multiple reasons. It look very much like a slow script response., but I'm no expert. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I've had the same problem once or twice but when I refreshed it seems to done it anyway. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Script is working fine for me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Food Network Star (Season 14)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please create Food Network Star (Season 14), as that is an upcoming series being aired on the Food Network in the United States and Canada - (101.98.104.241 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC))

This is not the place to request articles (that's WP:RA). Primefac (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Schools

@Legacypac, DGG, and Northamerica1000: I've never nominated an article that has been accepted at AfC for deletion but I think that's about to change, unless I've missed something? On what basis do Westcliff School of Skills and Clifton College (Botswana) meet WP:NCORP, and how did we come to accept the latter given the obvious WP:PROMO? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I accepted Westcliff on the basis it is not promotional just factual and backed up by sources. It is just a specilized government run school with a 65 year history. If you look at the box below evidently every school in the district has a page (and this one should be added to the nav box) so adding this school simply allows us complete coverage of the topic. In some districts all school pages are rolled together, whch is fine but not done here. A school district is an inhabited place and autonotable. I see absolutely no harm in cataloging public infrastructure. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and nominated this article for deletion. In my assessment of the sources, none of them meet the criteria defined in WP:NCORP. Being a 65-year old school does not infer notability, and Wikipedia isn't about everything. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
For the second school compare List of schools in Botswana Looks like an over enthusiastic student effort that could be trimmed down. I'm way more concerned with business and non-notable individual spam than people with school spirit. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: sounds like you're advocating WP:Other stuff exists as the reason for inclusion? It sounds like you're applying your own notability criteria? And are you advocating that any student should be able to publish promo and we'd accept it at AfC? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I said what I mean and no more. There is no rule against covering schools. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Curb Safe Charmer: the flip side of WP:OTHERSTUFF is that if you think Clifton College (Botswana) needs to be deleted, you should probably also nominate any others eligible in List of schools in Botswana too as a group. ~Kvng (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The age-old problems with folks who are head over heels with schools.If Clifton College (Botswana) was on any other damn topic DGG would've G11ed it.~ Winged BladesGodric 01:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And, DGG, however much you may feel that all schools are de-facto notable, at-least a basic level of cleanup or tagging ought be executed, before introducing such outright spams into mainspace.~ Winged BladesGodric 01:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
DGG has a valid position. If Winged Blades of Godric thinks the articles need to be flagged, then he might better try asking nicely or taking the initiative to do tag bombing runs himself. There is nothing that requires stuff coming out of AfC to be pretty, it just needs to be keepable. ~Kvng (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kvng: even if the reviewer considered the subject notable, it should have surely been declined as WP:NOTPROMO using the "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view" reason provided by the helper script, putting the onus back on the author to clean it up. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The criterion for passing AfC is being likely to pass AfD. It is not whether the subject actually is or ought to be notable. On subjects where the criteria at AFD are unclear or disputed, there can be no unambiguous way of predicting. When in doubt, the issue must be left for AfD to decide -- I have sometimes even accepted and immediately brought the afd myself. No one reviewer at AfC should substitute himself for the community, and AFD is where the community makes the decisions. If something will probably pass, a reviewer has no business declining it because they think it ought not to pass. At least 90% of school articles brought to AfD even this year still pass, so there is no other valid choice at AfC than to accept them.
That said, I should have cleaned up Clifton College somewhat further, and I have just done a little. I seem to have been doing just what I often blame other people for, trying to deal with a backlog by going too fast. Nobody's immune to that, and I just as everyone else sometimes need a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
If it will not be deleted at AfD or by CSD we have no business complaining about fixable issues. There are but a few AfF reviewers and even fewer willing to make tough calls - but an army of interested editors in mainspace who will fix, tag, cleanup, and expand or condense pages. New pages don't need to be perfect. Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
DGG, thanks for your reply:) My stand on the issue of schools have been pretty firm and that is to treat them as equivalents of normal establishments, without any premises of default-notability.That hardly means that the bevy of AfD participants in these discussions, (who are largely constant w.r.t the two sides) agrees with my take and as DGG notes, a majority of the schools are kept which means that while I am compelled to accept such AfC sumbissions, I may choose to !vote for deletion, shall it ever land up at AFD.~ Winged BladesGodric 11:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
My view is not specifically about schools. There are many things that some of us consider important, and others not. In order to have an encyclopedia at all, rather than a debating society, we need to have some agreement about how to handle each of these. We could do in many ways, such as by voting, but instead we settle this and many other debates by the concept of consensus. Consensus does not meet having a debate, and adopting whichever view predominates by either logic or arbitrary decision or selection by a decider. Consensus means finding a solution that everyone of good will can live with. This means compromise. The rational way to compromise for broad questions of how much coverage we should give to the various individual conceptions of what is important to an encyclopedia, is to defer to each other. I am, for example, of the firm opinion that having detailed coverage for some forms of so-called entertainment is not just worthless, but harmful to the purposes of an encyclopedia by showing distorted priorities. I do not try to remove them, or even engage in debates about individual articles in this group with the hope of trying to even slightly decrease coverage. I let those interested have their area, and in turn expect comparable treatment. Compromise is also the way to handle smaller questions: since we disagree about covering schools, we had and I hope still have a compromise to divide them by level, and cover one but not the other.
If we did want to have a debating society, that's something different. I might well choose to engage in such a project, as I enjoy the sport & think I'm rather good at it. It furthermore has the positive value of improving the mind, just as some sports improve the body. But the concept of sport is that one does it for play, not for the things of life that one really cares about. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing as to the above locus allows for accepting blatant spams and introducing them to mainspace.And, I am afraid that if Legacypac's belief to the contrary affects his workflow, that' s not likely to be much beneficial, in the long run.~ Winged BladesGodric 11:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not accept blatant SPAM - my point was more nuanced. Legacypac (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June editathons

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

VJ Lokesh

can anyone help me out to create vj lokesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniyavelliangiri (talk • contribs) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Biggest piece of advice I can give you: You need sources that are about VJ Lokesh, not just videos of stuff he's in. We don't need you to prove that VJ Lokesh exists, we need you to prove that he's a notable person. That means you need sources that were not created by VJ or the television stations he's worked for, sources that talk about VJ or his work. These could be magazine or newspaper reviews of his work, whether in print or online. Other sources are possible as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal from List

I would like to think User:Primefac for having the dignity, grace, and courtesy to reverse the decision to remove User:Legacypac from the list of AFC reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I still have serious concerns about Legacypac's frivolous attitude that questionable drafts should be moved to article space for AFD. That has nothing to do with the removal, which has correctly been reversed, but I am still deeply concerned by Legacypac's attitude, but think that they should be back reviewing (and they are). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I still want to see a rewording of the decline template. That has nothing to do with whether Legacypac should be a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See #AFC submission template. I'm pretty sure we're 90% of the way there. Might be worth revisiting the decline reasons themselves soon. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't yet reviewed Legacypac's complicated history. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. You reconsidered your actions for the wiser and better course. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not taking any sides here but I do thank Primefac for having graciously reconsidered. What concerns me most however is that this entire discussion demonstrates once more just how dysfunctional AfC is and how disparate the reviewing criteria are. This is a social issue and not one that any amount of software enhancement could improve. If this were NPR, it would be almost impossible for someone to lose their rights (I've tried but been shouted down) and there aren't discussions there like these about Legacypac, for example, nor is it even common for a NP Reviewer to be required to take a trip to ANI where eventually a T-ban might be pronounced. In the absence of any structured coordination of AfC Primefac does his best to hold things together, while I am sure Legacypac's work is without doubt nevertheless extremely valuable. Personally, I think all users should be given a canned warning first and then be given the courtesy of knowing when they are being discussed, and that transparency be maintained - it's what we do elsewhere. Please let's not allow AfC to become a ducking stool or a kangaroo court, and remember that AfC as a WikiProject still has no user rights founded in policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Primefac, good decision and you gained my much respect from taking back such a thing, seconded all the comments. --Quek157 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards there was also a lot of compassion and respect shown by and to other AfC project members in that discussion. Thanks everyone and of course that includes you too Primefac. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree that Primefac handled this gracefully, and hope that he and Legacypac can work together moving forward. Both are valued users in this area whom I respect. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

I want to open a new question. Why do we decline submitted draft articles on the basis that what is submitted is a redirect?. Why do we not simply move them to the proper part of the project for considering redirects? Declining it discourages a good faith contributor on the basis of not understanding an arbitrary technical separation in the way we've set up a complicated process--it accomplished nothing positive. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Having recently gone through all of the accepts for Jan-Apr, I saw a lot of accepted redirects. Is this really an issue? I do note that Category:AfC submissions declined as a redirect has 90 drafts in it, but I haven't looked to see when they were submitted or who declined them. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we wouldn't simply accept them, as redirects are cheap. The only issues are when the redirect isn't suitible; or hard to judge, in which case pass on to the relevent team. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I must admit it confused me when I saw others reject them and then I noticed the AFCH option for it, but I assumed it was "policy" and have just gone with the flow. I had guessed the reason was that on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects you have to give a reason, but drafts tend to just have the redirect with no reason. If it's obvious I would think accepting is fine, if not reject and send them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to give a reason? KylieTastic (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
AfC/Redirects is part of our project. Who cares which box someone drops the request, if it makes a good redirect just create it. I'll go check declined as a redirect category ans see if we need to create some out of it. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Quint Buchholz

This has been around forever and declined 5 times. However reviewers say it is really close. Can this be passd to mainspace to test it? We should not be holding back pages that are likely ok. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If the author wants to fight the lions of mainspace who are we to oppose it. If you don't think it's ready, include a note on the Talk page about why it was promoted over objections. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there are occasions where I accept something that's borderline, and I leave a talk page message to say why I'm on the fence (usually to imply that it passing AFC was not a rubber-stamp for it's guaranteed notability). Primefac (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's looks like a borderline accept - I looked for more sources to help it but failed. So as the options come down to decline again and hold here as we arn't sure, or accept and give it a fighting chance I agree give it a chance. The only caveat I would add would be if the submitter User:Julietta17 or User:Quibu as the main contributor (possibly the same person?) say that they don't want us to accept it if we don't feel it has a good chance of surviving an AfD. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The submitter evidently wants it in mainspace given they have submitted it to AfC so many times. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I accepted it after removing a bunch of unsourced statements. I know it's borderline, so feel free to revert me or take it to AfD if you disagree. Bradv 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

MINREF again

I know we discussed something like this in 2014, it's possible I've missed other discussions since.

I see the reviewing guidelines as contradicting themselves in at least one situation. Here's a key example, that I tried to explain to a confused long-term non-AfC aware editor recently.

In one place, we write: "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace."

In another, we have, both in our workflow diagram, and alluded to in other places, a suggestion that drafts should be declined for failing MINREF.

These two bits of advice give different results for an article that *could*, but does not currently, have in-line citations for quotes of controversial material, but for which such citations could be found. Working years at AFD I have never seen an article deleted for MINREF when such references weren't in-line, but where known to the discussion participants.

I've been largely working to the workflow diagram, which seems to be in line the 2014 discussion, but is there a more recent consensus on how to resolve this? --joe deckertalk 22:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested before that we should have hard decline (not notable/not encyclopedic/100% copyvio &c) vs soft decline (major flaws but fixable). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The current situation does make for some odd accept/declines. I've just accepted the somewhat borderline Bryn Williams-Jones but found myself having to reject the absolutely bomb-proof Draft:Eric Block. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see it as a contradiction per se, rather just being an oversimplification as these summary statements often are (and have to be). Maybe it should be changed to "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace, unless they fail minimal inline citations guild-lines"? Are there any other caveats or is it just this one?
For articles that fail WP:MINREF if they do not require those parts to meet the notability then it should just be made clear to the submitter they can either source or remove the items to get it accepted. Although if it was accepted, someone would likely come along and do that anyway for them, so the result is the same. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The other option would be to stubify. Find a draft that's definitely about a notable person, but there are four sections of unsourced information? Remove those sections and approve. This does mean that the creator could come back and re-add those sections without proper referencing, but it would also demonstrate that at one point it was a perfectly acceptable page. I've done this on a few occasions, and by watchlisting the page I've been able to ensure that information added after acceptance is properly referenced. Sure, most of them never reach the same size as they were in the draft space, but they're well-sourced and (to quote EA above) "bomb-proof". Primefac (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Or just pepper it with 'citation needed' tags. Unfortunately it's usually the notability-conferring material (awards &c) that genuinely needs the references added. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I would argue against that, mostly because of WP:BLPREMOVE. I'd be find leaving awards with a {{cn}} tag, but not for running prose. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I've always interpreted the BLP policy as requiring removal of negative material that is inadequately sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Cooincidentally I left a MINREF related comment for another reviewer today. I hope I got it right? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The population stats should theoretically have an inline source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
...but we wouldn't decline on that basis, and would tag it as citation needed, accept the draft (assuming no major issues) and let someone fix it in mainspace. That's my understanding? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The decline edit summary says "Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements"; should this be clarified elsewhere to align with that, or in the decline message? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

HasteurBot G13 processes discontinuing effectively immediately

Bot tasks are being picked up, nothing more to discuss in that regard. Primefac (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After repeated abuses by editors, admins, usage of the "Promising Draft", deletion nominations that are closed on the flimsiest of arguments, I'm leaving wikipedia permanantly. Thank Calliopejen and Esspresso Addict for driving the wedge in. This means effectively immediately HasteurBot's G13 maintenance is stopping. Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-G13 deletion of drafts is a waste of our time and good will. Why do we do this to ourselves? ~Kvng (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not the time nor the place to re-(re-re-)litigate our CSD practices. If anyone is interested in picking up HasteurBot's duties the source code is linked on their talk page; it will require a BRFA but it should be a quick pass. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to pick up the duties (or rather, Bot0612 is). I'm experienced with Python so will be able to fix bugs and expand functionality should it ever be called for. I'll take a look now. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed why did some editors do this to the rest of us? Create a mechanism where a single editor can overturn the entire system of cleaning up abandoned junk without actually doing anything. The Wiki Way is someone adds a tag and someone removes it when they resolve the issue. Users of this tag need to be very careful because incorrect application creates substantial disruption and I can forsee the application of topic bans for too high a rate of inappropriate application. Some before to make sure the page does not already exist or has not been recently deleted via AfD would be a clgood start. Heck better yet if the page is actually "promising" just mainspace it already don't leave it for someone else to sort out. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2 Week backlog and < 1000

Moving on from this issues above....lets just take a moment to say well done to all those who have kept on bashing at the backlog and got it back to a more sensible size, and a not so depressing wait message for new submissions. Beverages of choice for everyone who's been reviewing recently. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Overall we are getting better at mainspacing the good instead of sending it for multiple rounds and deleting the bad instead of rejecting it over and over. Next goal - under a week. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Legacypac deserves a lot of the credit here for single handedly grinding through daily backlogs a few weeks ago now making weekly backlogs manageable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Practices/Best Practices for rejected drafts of subjects which are suitable for articles

Context: When reviewing pages, I often come across a draft I like but which I think needs some work before it can be accepted. If I do not have time to do the work, I sometimes bookmark the page to come back to later. Sometimes the page is accepted before I get back to it, sometimes it is still a draft and I can improve it and then accept it myself, and sometimes it has been rejected. My question is about this last case. Dilemma: When a draft has been rejected and I would like to improve the page and move it to the main space, what is the best practice? First, obviously, I should go ahead and improve the page. At that point, I do not think I need to leave the draft and wait for the original editor to make any edits they wish and submit it themselves. So there are three options: 1) I could resubmit it to AfC and let someone else review it, 2) I could resubmit it to AfC and then accept it myself, or 3) I could simply move the article to the mainspace. I generally perform 2, although when I want a second opinion I do 1. Application: A number of abandoned drafts were recently posted at WT:WIR, any of which I might like to develop. As a reviewer, I could and likely would simply perform 2. Is there any reason I should do 1 instead? Any user could go ahead and perform 3 - risking AfD but doing so in a way that avoids notifying people who watch the new AfC list. This strikes me as in poor form for a AfC reviewer to do, but I don't see any reason the article should be automatically reverted to draft in such a case. If done and noticed, should such an article be posted to the new AfC list? Smmurphy(Talk) 10:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally, see no issue in using the script to submit as the original editor, and accepting. Especially when an article has been declined, and is clearly notable. That way, the original user gets the notifications that the article was successful. As with all of Wikipedia, no one owns a draft, so you could simply move it, but as likely new users, it may well be good practice to inform them that it's been accepted. You could leave the article to be re-assessed, but there really is no reason to do this, unless you feel you have a COI, or it's a more borderline case. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1 and 3 would be your best options. 2 gives the community the impression that the new article has been reviewed by an independent editor and that's not the case here. That said, 2 is easier to do than 3 so I've definitely taken that shortcut. Maybe AFCH could be improved to do 3. ~Kvng (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, I've used #2 on multiple good (unsubmitted) drafts purely because it's less legwork - the script does all the work. There is nothing wrong with improving a page to an acceptable level; this is a collaborative project and we all know no one "owns" a draft. We're seeing a (positive) shift in mentality at this project, and "going through AFC" doesn't necessarily mean it will automatically get the green light from NPR (since they still have to patrol it), but no one will hold it against you if it something isn't perfect (unless it happens repeatedly). Primefac (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I regularly submit drafts I find and immediately accept them. I come across them in stale userspace, G13 eligible list, and other places. The creator gets a nice message and it makes the move easier. I see no conflict of interest at all because I did not write the draft and I have no conflict of interest with any topic on the site. Occasionally I also submit pages but don't accept them myself because I'd like a second opinion or it's a math topic or something that needs different expertise.

There is an army of NPP and other editors that watch new pages, followed by topic editors that get summoned when their page is linked or via wikiprojects. They can fiddle with the categories, fix formating, wikilink, fill in empty sections (I'll add "empty section" sometimes) and do other things. There is a very limited number of AfC reviewers so we should do our thing and not feel bad leaving work for others who do their thing. Legacypac (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with this statement. Unless there's a reason why you would be in an COI, or would like a second opinion, we should be ok to move articles via the script if the article is suitible. It's no different from cleaning up an article before moving to mainspace in my opinion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd go even further. If you write a Draft from scratch you can use the script to submit and accept it. The contribution history is there to see anyway. The script is a tool to make things easier not a special blessing of the page. I use it to make comments on drafts that have been no where near AfC sometimes even because both the draft and the creator's talk get a copy of the comment. Legacypac (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all! That is what I figured and I'm glad for the confirmation. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_33&oldid=1212161828"