Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unqualified user

I have removed Susana Hodge from the list. The barely 400 mainspace edits were very minor and mostly made during the past 48 hours. A request at PERM for New Page Reviewer was also declined for the same reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Another 8 additions have been reverted in the last three weeks. This is getting ridiculous - don't you all agree? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I've always thought the page should be full protected and requests be made in talk page, so that admins can review their edits and see what they are up to. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What if the participants list was fully protected, we should've set up a PERM page just like requesting other permissions? KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

While I don't think having a PERM setup is necessary (we have the "requests" thread at the top of this page), I can agree with further protection.

On a somewhat related note, I've cleared out the inactives - 9 editors who haven't edited in 2+ months, 48 who haven't reviewed a page in 6+ months. This leaves us with 152 reviewers and DGG's alt account. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have just removed yet another new inscription (Wakowako) with the rationale
  Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm but 83 mainspace edits in the last 4 years out of a total of only 800 since 2012 does not demonstrate a good understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions or provide an indication that you intend to return to regular editing. Please make three months of significant consistent contributions, then you will be prepared for reviewing drafts.
  

We're currently running at well over 20% of new enrollments being reverted. I seriously think it's time now to fully protect the page to the extent that users must at least make an edit request to be included on the list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Kudpung this user has turned out to be an undisclosed paid editor using sock puppets. I imagine they declined this AFC[1] and than emailed the person in question regarding money to get the article created.

Yes we need to moderate who can do this work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding myself to the project

So, let's have a discussion on whether I be allowed to add myself to the project or not. I've been approving redirect requests on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, and I added myself to this database in order to use User:PhantomTech/scripts/AFCRHS.js. See User_talk:Ethanbas#AFC_Redirects for some discussion. I understand the COI issue, but all I've been doing is approving redirect requests. Not putting myself on the list of participants hurts my ability to approve redirect request, which at least TonyBallioni is glad I've been doing this work. Pinging KGirlTrucker81, relevant active editor on the redirects for creation page. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: Well, yes and looking over your edit count, I see a bunch of mainspace edits. You can freely add yourself but unfortunately, you're an paid editor and that's why Kudpung reverted you. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have no issue with the work at AFC redirects: it gets a backlog at some points and it's a bit more difficult to create paid promotional content that way. I agree with Kudpung's concerns with the paid-editing for AfC in general, however. It's a tricky subject and it could place Ethanbas in the place where he would be approving other contributions that were bankrolled by the same funder (there is at least one other editor I've seen who has the same funder.) i also have concerns with what Ethanbas considers appropriate articles to be created and have had strong disagreements with him in the past re: BLP policy. That being said his recent work with presidential timelines has been good. It's a tough case, but I'm willing to lean on Kudpung's side here, though like I said, I think redirect work would be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To further clarify: I think Ethanbas has no business reviewing drafts and agree with everything Kudpung has said below. I don't think the redirects harm anything, but fully support the removal from the participants group. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• The many issues reported on Ethanbas' talk page would appear to demonstrate that he lacks sufficient competency for reviewing tasks. Just one example of his own creations can be seen at Andy Baukol. I contend that anyone who intends to police articles shoud know how to produce them. There are also the issues of paid editing and COI and certainly a temperament that I do not believe contributes to a healthy collaborative environment. Bishonen may also wish to comment here.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Kudpung. Ethanbas should not be reviewing drafts. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Morphdog

I hate removing well-meaning editors from the AFCH list, but enough has happened recently to make me concerned that Morphdog is not able to do the task to the standards we would like. My concerns are as follows:

• Not checking a pending change for accuracy (this was before they joined AFCH)
• Decline of a draft based on an AFD for a different person.
• This reply indicating a lack of understanding of sourcing.

I certainly don't think that they have been acting in bad faith, but I think it would be best if they held off on reviewing drafts until they feel more comfortable with it. Maybe a mentor? Primefac (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Moist towelett

I've taken the liberty of removing Moist towelett from the AfC participants' list after two improper G13s and vandalism on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. If any administrator or AfC reviewer thinks I've overstepped my bounds, they are welcome to restore the user to the list. /wiae /tlk 15:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wiae I've reported them for vandalism over on commons as well - clearly not acting in a way we would expect here - 100% agree with removal. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Additions to the user list

Does anybody ever follow this talk page beyond me and Wiae ?

I have removed three more inappropriate additions to the list in the last 48 hours alone, one of whom (only 180 or so edits) edit warred over it to the point that I was obliged to full protect the page for a few hours - this individual's intention was quite obviously to use AfC to accept his own, multiple declined submissions. I would be interested to know just what percent of additions got removed over the past 12 months.

The 90/500 rule that I obtained for AfC will only work if we increase the vigilance over the list page or sharpen the way additions are made. To do this we can consider all or any of the suggestions below, some of which are more realistic than others, and would probably not receive my own support:

1. Permanently full protect the page so that requests to join it will have to be handled by an administrator.
2. Request the use of the Helper Script through PERM in much the same way that AWB is. I.E. also requiring admin approval.
3. Hold a mini RfA-style vote over each request for the tools.
4. Add a script/filter to the page that will physically prevent people without the required basic 90/500 from adding themselves to the page. This is however, would not be a a 100% perfect solution as some users make 500 very minor edits in order to deliberately game the system.
5. Add a script/filter to all draft pages so that the Helper Script can only be used on them by an accredited AfC reviewer.
6. Restrict moves to mainspace of Drafts to accredited AfC reviewers and New Page Reviewers (also abused in the past however by AfC reviewers themselves.

I think we would all welcome people's thoughts on these ideas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I regularly patrol the new additions, but I have been rather busy lately and most of the additions-then-subsequent-removals happen before I see them. I don't think fully protecting the page would make a whole lot of sense given that well-meaning and experienced editors like Atsme wouldn't be able to join.

On the stats side of things, I've been keeping track of the AFCH list statistics (and cleaning it out) since December. Haven't done June yet, but in general we gain about 10-15 and lose about 15-20 per month. This, of course, is not counting the extended-confirmed users who do not actually meet the requirements and are immediately removed; I haven't bothered tracking those stats as I'm more interested in the "boots on the ground" so to speak. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If the list were full protected,anyone like Atsme can easily join it if they fulfill the conditions. All they have to do is make an edit request. That's the whole idea of it, in much the same way as making a request at PERM for AWB (not to be confused with formal user rights). Anyone (90/500 + demonstrated experience) who is in a hurry to start reviewing (why should they be that?) could always ping me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest I'd like to see requests from some people who have 501 edits and join the list. I'm not opposed to making it full protection, but I don't think we need to go the full PERM route (i.e. a dedicated page) since we have this one. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think we have to go the whole PERM route either - that will happen soon enough when AfC and NPP get merged, but we do need to do something about the trolling and those who try to game the system to review their own creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung & Primefac my 6th sense called me here or what you guys refer to as a "ping". A brief little FYI - I first arrived at AfC yesterday looking for a user count template to add to the counter strip on my TP but couldn't find one, so I joined instead - seems I can't get enough volunteer work to consume my day. As a sidenote, I manually counted 171+/- active reviewers, a rather stark difference to NPP's 435. Why? Then I stumbled across a warning banner about the latest scam describing a form of extortion - can't recall where I first saw it - but it or something similar is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Unsolicited contacts from paid editors. That incentivized the Just curious... in me, so I sought more info, Googled and found yet another paid editing outlet you prolly already know about. If the goal of WP is to have independent companies with teams of paid editors writing our articles and dictating what is/isn't published in WP, then all the community has to do is stay on course with their current "rules of engagement", and ignore what y'all have been trying to get implemented. I'm of the mind that because of all the resistance (which probably includes a substantial # of shadow paid editors) our efforts to fix things will be more like a Hans Brinker fairytale...and guess what? I'm an optimist. It's not difficult for one to conclude that WP will be dominated by paid editors, and granted, we will have quality articles but most will be about commercial entities, unnotable CEOs and aspiring authors and musicians (and the list is growing). Articles with real EV are in grave jeopardy unless serious action is taken. How could we not be concerned over seeing what appears to be an inevitable decline in WP:FA about historic events and people, if we haven't already, because paid editors are busy writing promotional articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I have replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are plenty of people already just moving their pages into mainspace themselves- whether deliberate gaming or bored of waiting for a review, I don't know. I support "add a script/filter to the page that will physically prevent people without the required basic 90/500 from adding themselves to the page" but disagree with screening everybody and making them jump through an extra hurdle with an edit request, I fear that this will turn into PERM and lead to less people wanting to join (as they don't want to go through the questions). BTW I have this page watchlisted, I just feel its better if an admin formally says no. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had the page watchlisted for years, it's just somebody else always gets around to checking the permissions first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• That's now six who have been removed this week. If there are no strong objections, I would put this page under full protection temporarily for two weeks to see what happens. I can't really see that having to make an edit request would deter a serious, potential reviewer. There is a backlog, but having to wait an hour or two for approval isn't going to break AfC. Comments Wiae ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  Six in a week is quite a bit above average, and with the backlog back down to "normal" (i.e. 600-800) range, I can't see why people would suddenly be clamouring to join up. I'd support a short protection. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I watchlist this page too. Restricting it to 90/500 makes sense. I oppose stopping editors from moving Drafts to main as there are 6400 pages outside AfC over a year old unedited (plus who knows how many edited within the last year.). A mini RfA seems like overkill Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, the page is EC-protected. Kudpung is suggesting short-term full protection. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No opinion on that. I was responding to some of the options at the beginning. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - not sure to what degree the following happens, but...it's feasible that editors who don't get their submissions approved will add their names to the list thinking they can get their articles approved by doing so. At first glance, it's hard to tell if they're paid editors or COI editors, which may equate into them having no boundaries. I could add to this but it would be mostly supposition which is only one gram above a brain fart so I'll hold it in.^{Atsme📞📧} 23:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely what they do and the reason I removed at least two of them this week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• Thanks for the ping, Kudpung. I think a two-week full-protection trial run sounds reasonable, so I'll support this. Looks like there are enough administrators watching the page, so we shouldn't have too much of a delay if there's a legitimate talk page request during the full protection. /wiae /tlk 23:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• I would support indefinite full protection, creating a PERM page enabling administrators to review their requests for accessing the AFC helper script and the PhatomTech AFC/R script. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

An observation

Just as a note, we have lost three editors from this project in as many weeks. While only one gives the reason, I have it on reasonably good authority that all three are related to the conduct of one editor who is pushing their POV as far as "how to do AFC reviews", overtly criticizing others and making AFC an unfriendly environment (both for reviewers and the reviewed).

While it will do me no good to actually call out this person, I ask the rest of us to please be sure to always treat each other, and the editors whose drafts we review, with civility and respect. We are all individuals with our own opinions, and sometimes our personal interpretations of the rules and guidelines don't mesh up perfectly with one another. If you see someone doing something you don't agree with, talk to them or bring it up here. If someone is harassing you for not doing a "good enough" job, try to work it out or bring it up here. I hope that we don't lose any more good reviewers because of one or two editors who think they're better than everyone else simply because the rest of us "never nearly worked as extensive" as them. Sheer numbers matter for naught. I hope that we will eventually regain the three lost members.

After all, we're all in this together. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

well said, and three good reviewers at that. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Requesting to be added to active participants. I used to be very active on the patrol, but took a long break from wikipedia. But I'm back now! Sulfurboy (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Welcome back. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Full protected again

I'm getting sick of the number of people adding themselves to the list who clearly don't meet the requirements, so have fully protected the page (again), this time indefinitely. I feel the general consensus is behind this decision, but would like to ask for opinions - should this list remain fully protected, and if so, should we move requests to PERM? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It makes it analogous with the New Page Reviewer Right. In fact, I don't see any logical reason why we can't just drive the list of reviewers off that - the two ought to be merged as if you can do NPP you can do AfC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For drafting, I've mocked up "the PERM page". I think having them separate would be a good stop-gap measure, but realistically merging them would make more sense -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) In my view, yes per my previous comment above 2 sections. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I concur entirely with the FP, and with Ritchie333's suggestion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As Ritchie mentioned, we could for ease of transition have the wonderful Enterprisey modify AFCH's `core.js` so that instead of looking at `Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants`, it looks at the editor's user groups, and if they have NPP then they can use the tool. Anyone wishing to review AfC drafts would then have to be a New Page Patroller, which makes sense given the similarity in both role and granting criteria -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be the most elegant solution to the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Wait. I'm opposed to the merging of AfC and NPP. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(There'sNoTime, thanks! ) Fortunately, changing the permissions-checking code in the helper script is pretty easy (as opposed to, say, multiple decline reasons gonna start testing real soon now), so I'll be watching this discussion if we end up going with PERM. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, i think full protection here and requesting a perm for it is a great idea- in your face, paid editors- but also don't think AfC and NPR are synonymous- yet. Think that should probably wait for ACTRIAL. — fortunavelut luna 13:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• As above, I don't have a problem with full protection here. There are always a few administrators around here who can add requesters to the list if they meet the criteria and have the requisite experience, so I don't imagine there'd be much delay for those requesters. /wiae /tlk 13:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'm with OFM FIM on this one - we've discussed a few times before about an NPR/AFC "merger" and it's always been shot down. Besides, for better or worse we'd end up losing about 1/3 of our reviewers that way. Full protection is fine, us admins know what to look for :) Primefac (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Yo, who's OFM? On another page? — fortunavelut luna 14:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Curse you and your previous sig, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. It's in my head now that you're "O Fortuna". Primefac (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry-!" said Wedge  ;) — fortunavelut luna 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• So, reading the points, it's a yup for the indef full protection, a yup for moving requests to PERM, but a not really for combining AfC and NPP. In that case, would people be happy with, for the time being, pointing interested editors towards this brand new PERM section (which is yet to go live)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Well make it live so we can point people to it! Primefac (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Primefac: Well it's live, but nothing points to it yet (bar PERM). Could do with a couple of eyes over it before we change all the wording here to point to it. You can find it at WP:PERM "Articles for creation reviewer" -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) But, if this decision is moved to Perm, does that mean the decision to grant permission might be made by people not associated with the AfC project? If so, that's a bad idea. Recent discussions about merging AfC and NPP have revealed widely different notions of the nature and purpose of AfC. It's better to have this permission granted only by people already experienced in AfC work. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  That's a fairly good point. We do have a section above for requesting access, which has worked wonderfully so far. Might not need to go the full PERM route... Primefac (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed that's a good point - I'm all for centralising stuff though. The areas of PERM, although patrolled by admins in general, tend to have one or two who stick to certain areas. Sure, there's a chance requests will be approved/denied by admins outside of the AfC "circle", but in general I think those who have a vested interest in the project will be clerking that PERM page quite effectively. I'd also say I'm rather against walled gardens, so putting this permission request at PERM provides another level of transparency and contributes to the whole community thing -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Updated to say admins, which is a point in and of itself - the only people who could approve access are those the community has trusted to be impartial -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

1. I've manually tweaked the header at PERM to point here, rather than an empty talk page.
2. Merging AfC and NPP is DOA. Best to focus on the particulars.
3. I think it makes sense to take AfC to PERM; however, it's not totally obvious that this is clearly an orthodox use of FULL, since it effectively changes longstanding community practice well beyond simply preventing non-constructive edits to a single page. I would feel better about an RfC for transparency's sake. I expect if it doesn't get bogged down in tangents on things other than a move to PERM it should pass fairly easily. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary, I think all that admins at PERM are required to do is the same as they do when considering any applications for any of the rights there. That would be checking on a users' edit history for indications that they understand the guidleines, their ability to communicate properly in English, the block log, a work pattern that demonstrate a need for the tool, andof ourse that the numerical conditions are met. As an example, I don't have a clue about AWB because despite the app being around for 12 years, it's developers refuse to port it to Mac, but I feel perfectly competent to accord a permission to use it. As Primefac says, we admins know what to look for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns. Although people with longer Wiki-memories than mine might be able to provide some counter-examples, my understanding is that AfC would be the only permission at PERM that has been the subject of vociferous calls for its elimination, with some of those calls coming from administrators. I agree with Timothy -- if this is to be done, it should be done pursuant to an RfC. Taking that route will allow a full discussion of the many questions and concerns that are likely to be associated with this change. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

PERM

I wholeheartedly concur with shifting the permissions requests across to PERM. Having recently done all the work (except the .js and MediaWiki code) to set up a brand new user group, I would just like to make a couple of suggestions:

1. Description at PERM: to bring this in line with other descriptions - especially the non-official 3rd party AWB app - I propose te following description:

Articles for Creation Helper Script is a semi-automated system for reviewing draft articles by users who are either not able to create pages in mainspace or who prefer their drafts to be reviewed first. This is not a true user right, but access is granted by administrators. If approved, your account will be added to the AfC user list. Users are expected to have been registered for at least 90 days, made a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles, read and understood the reviewing instructions and have good knowledge of the guidelines and notability categories.

- anyone not understanding the English or the tool should not be applying for it anyway. Admins already know what to do, but MusikAnimal will probably include it in his next admin newsletter.

2. Optional: As is done for most of the other requests, create a script that automates the inclusion on the list when an admin approves the request, and notifies the user with a message similar to this:

notification

New page reviewer granted AfC icon placeholder AfC icon placeholder {{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}} Your account has been added to the group of Articles for Creation reviewers which gives you access to the Helper Script. Reviewing of submitted drafts is a function for helping new users to understand how to comply with article guidelines and/or notability and approving or declining new articles. Please be sure to read the tutorial at Reviewing instructions again, and if you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at AfC reviewer talk. URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible. Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong, even if they used the Wizard. You will be asked by users to explain why their page is being rejected - be formal and polite in your approach to them, even if they are not. Remember that quality is quintessential to good reviewing. Take your time to review an article. The AfC tool does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this tool, you may ask any administrator to remove your account from the list at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~~~~

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

PERM 2

• I'm not opposed to using WP:PERM for this akin to WP:AWB requests, however please don't start soliciting applications until there is consensus in the process. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I strongly support the idea, based on the precednt of AWB, but the initiative is not mine and I had nothing to do with the creation of the PERM page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Think it was @There'sNoTime: running at full steam ahead. TNT, I reverted the PERM main header - but like I said above, only because it is still in proposal mode - if the new request process is good for whoever is going to use it, feel free to re-add. It may even help attract some people that want to do the work! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Ah thank you - after the initial "yes go for it"/"actually no wait" I managed to revert back most of my eager edits, but missed that one. Happy to just wait it out until whoever it is that needs to make their mind up does -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think that unifying this with PERM would be a very good idea--at the moment, its an aberrant process. And we need to simplify things. I can see no actual downside. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• User:Kudpung:

1. In the notification message above, "Helper Script" may as well be Greek to someone who isn't familiar. The "under the hood term" should probably be linked or explained for the benefit of users who are qualified, but also presumably not seasoned AfC reviewers.
2. This is not a true user right - While this surely makes sense to those of use who are familiar with the (again) "under the hood" difference, it is probably going to be confusing to many incoming reviewers.
3. the guidelines and notability categories - This is awkward at best, and could probably better be simply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those related to notability. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO, any 'incoming' reviewers who don't understand these terms shouldn't be reviewers. The text was taken from AWB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary to understand the difference between how a true "user right" is worked out in the software vs. the way that AfC reviewers are drawn from their presence on a particular list. All of the necessary knowledge is decidedly "over the hood", specifically notability and familiarity with common AfD outcomes. No programming knowledge necessary. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Sb2001

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've removed Sb2001, in light of a number of reviews which have poor quality and/or unintelligible review comments. There are a number of other reviews which have been declined when they should properly have been approved or the work needed to remedy the issues was small/minor. I'm not too concerned about them being re-added fairly quickly, just as long as they understand the concerns and begin to address them. Nick (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For a relatively succinct summary of why this happened, see their talk page (permalink) and two on mine. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How—exactly—are comments supposed to be addressed when there is no access allowed? –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 19:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to continue working on drafts, and to comment on a draft all one needs to do is use {{AFC comment}}. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The ideas which make perfect sense in one's head may need explication when communicated to someone else. More than once Sb2001 knew what they meant but no one else did, and when questioned, Sb2001 reiterated their belief in clarity rather than re-think the approach. AfC is meant to be a process where we guide new editors towards acceptability. Some amount of useful guidance is required. If you cannot provide that guidance then you shouldn't be reviewing. New editors get frustrated at our collective refusal, anyway. There's no reason to make it worse by being unclear. This was a good-faith error and I'd support Sb2001 re-applying in six months' time. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More than once Sb2001 knew what they meant but no one else did, and when questioned, Sb2001 reiterated their belief in clarity rather than re-think the approach. This fragment makes little sense.

If removing editors from projects because of this sort of error is what you deem appropriate, I find it easy to understand why you have such a high backlog—nobody wants to be here. If they do, you remove them!

Actually, my comments were helpful. You are not giving me any credit for the work I have done, and for which you should be grateful.

It is all very well telling me to re-apply in six months, but with the hostility I of which I have been on the receiving end from people in the project, I think I may have to find somewhere else to go. Actually, maybe I will be forced off Wikipedia all together. Wherever I go, editors cannot resist laying into me. I cannot deal with that. Remember: I am a person. I come here to make a positive difference. I am sure that many other editors do, too. If you are too intolerant to accept what I am saying, and if you cannot understand very good English, you will find that the total number of editors in AfC comes rather close to nought. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• In hindsight, This is not the place for this. See User:Redrose64 for more information. You will need to find a way of changing this to the US, rather than UK. could perhaps have done with being changed to This is not the place for this. See User:Redrose64 for more information on arranging meet ups. You will need to find a way of changing this to the US, rather than UK. Would this have sufficed? –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 22:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. You would need to explain that a meet-up page doesn't need to be processed through AfC as it's not an article, it can be added directly to the Wikipedia namespace as it doesn't need a review. You would then need to explain that the author might want to contact someone who is familiar with organising meet-ups and adding their pages to Wikipedia, someone like Redrose64. The way you're phrasing it, instructions for adding a page will be available at Redrose64's user page. You're still causing confusion with the "You will need to find a way of changing this to the US, rather than UK." as it still reads like you're wanting the author to change the meet-up location from being hosted in the US to being hosted in the UK, you need to be much clearer that you're telling the user that Redrose64 is UK based and that the author needs to be clear that they're organising a US meet-up, and perhaps that Redrose64 might not be able to help so much with a US meet-up. Nick (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Concurring with the other admins, I have left an explanation on Sb2001's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to note that I spent—as is evidenced by the time difference between my first and last edit (and the time before I first clicked 'save')—I spent the best part of an hour working on this draft (one of the two that had be removed from the AfC project) before leaving a comment. I now request that you go through every one of my AfC contributions, and present me with a list of my objections comments. It should not be too difficult, as I was only accepted on 14 August. What is evidenced from my contributions list is that I have spent many hours on this project, and received—apart from one exception, and slight appreciation from a submitter—no thanks in return. It really concerns me that, as administrators, you are not looking at the whole picture. Two administrators came to my talk page (later complimented by a third), and focussed on two comments. One of which on an article upon which I had spent a long time (far longer than plenty of AfC reviewers ...) 'fixing'. As I said at my talk page, if the process was easier, I would be registering a complaint. I imagine that I still will, should no resolution be found as a result of these discussions. Having two administrators coming to my page and pouncing is unacceptable, especially as there was nobody to support me. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 15:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  Sb2001, you continue to completely miss the point, and rather blow this whole thing out of proportion. First and foremost, none of us do this for the recognition. I've been doing this for three years and I've maybe received a half-dozen "thanks" posts on my talk page. However, I have received dozens of messages from other editors about what I've done, be it things I missed or suggestions on how to improve; I have never treated these as "hounding" or "harassment", but opportunities to re-evaluate the situation(s).

  As you say, you started five days ago, and I would have been very surprised if you made zero mistakes right off the bat. As near as I can tell, the comments I left you in various places may have been slightly more on the blunt side, but they were all made in order for you to become a better reviewer. Nick and I were talking off-wiki before this kicked off, and I initially convinced him that you should stay on the project, if only to keep learning and get better. After he posted on your talk page things sorta spiralled out of control, because you made it about yourself and not about the project.

  The AFC project does have some hot-headed individuals, but aside from some philosophical disagreements I don't think any of us feel that we OWN the project or the drafts. Hell, sometimes we accept (or decline) drafts which we personally feel different about, but because the project has a set of guidelines and rules, we follow them. This is why MOS or formatting-based declines aren't acceptable, or why I accept some articles about professors even though I don't feel they meet our thresholds for notability. Our personal opinions may influence our interpretation of the guidelines, but it's the difference between choosing how large a tip to leave the server or just walking out without paying; none of us walk out without paying, but we all leave slightly different tips.

  I think the above comment about re-applying in six months is a little lengthy, because we do need good reviewers. At this particular point in time, though, your attitude towards the rest of us would make for a very trying environment indeed. If you decide that you can't possibly deal with people like us, then I wish you luck in the future. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not asking for recognition, rather that you consider my positive contributions in association with the ones with which you have a problem. I continue to object to two administrators coming to my talk page like that. It does not allow me to properly consider my responses, as I have to be fighting off two opponents at once. I made it about myself, did I? I was explaining the logic behind my comments.

I will object to the way in which the removal was imposed, ie in the middle of me offering responses. If this was outside of Wikipedia, that would be unacceptable. Administrators are like policemen; if an officer chose to charge someone without offering them a proper chance to defend themselves, they would be on the receiving end of an anti-corruption investigation. Nick's conduct was unacceptable in this manner, so I have decided that I shall make a complaint. Please direct me to the relevant place. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 17:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sb2001, I'll tell you where to go, but just know that I find it highly unlikely anything will come of it (mainly because the case involves three senior AFC members). Granted, I doubt it will BOOMERANG back on you, since you haven't really done anything "bad", but you still might get a trout. I suggest just leaving well enough alone, but reporting users generally takes place at WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Because you are 'senior' members, you are able to remove someone from the project without giving them a proper chance to respond to what you are saying? Why does WP not have an anti-corruption area? –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sb2001, you're probably right in that Nick should have waited another ten minutes for you to fully convince us that you weren't going to listen to reasonable requests to change your behaviour. However, it's now been 24 hours since it happened and you have yet to convince me (who despite what you may believe is trying to help) or anyone else that it was (overall) the wrong move. There are some troubling things in your attitude that don't mesh well with a learner-centred environment like AFC.

So yes, you might have been removed a little sooner than what is ideal (and for that I apologise), but your replies here haven't really shown that it wouldn't have happened eventually. As I mentioned before, WP:ANI is where grievances are filed against other users when admin intervention may be required, but this is very far from of those situations, and I find it unlikely that anything will come of it. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

When I have time, I will present you with a fully-justified summary as to why the wrong decision was made. Possibly by email, as then I do not risk being hounded, excuse my language. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 20:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sb2001, As a disinterested bystander may I make a few points,

• AfC is NOT about you, it's about the level of competence you show in dealing with new contributors. If you're going to use it as a platform to advance your own MOS then you shouldn't be active in AfC.
• "able to remove someone from the project" - you're still here. Your account isn't blocked.
• "Why does WP not have an anti-corruption area?" - are you seriously suggesting that someone is being paid to give you a hard time?
• Yes, your english is good, just not quite as good as you think it is. Your efforts to enforce your preferences as outlined on your userpage are misplaced - especially at AfC.
• Drop the hyperbole, step back from the dispute, and take some time to think rationally about what's going on, and to think about what people have said (using a WP:AGF interpretation, not a thin-skinned expectation of attack). If you rush to WP:ANI it will rebound on you. You have it in you to be a valuable contributor, but not if you refuse to see the project is a collaboration. Cabayi (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• AfC is NOT about you, it's about the level of competence you show in dealing with new contributors. If you're going to use it as a platform to advance your own MOS then you shouldn't be active in AfC. I am not using it to enforce stylistic preferences; look through my AfC contributions. I do not really know from where you got this idea.
• your english is good, just not quite as good as you think it is. Your efforts to enforce your preferences as outlined on your userpage are misplaced - especially at AfC. For one, how do you know how good I think my English (NB, capital letter) is? And for another, the second half is totally irrelevant. They are valid stylistic concerns on my user page. I do not use AfC for this purpose, anyway. Evidence? Anyway, my English is pretty good: I would show you my grades, but they are on pieces of paper containing my name.
• are you seriously suggesting that someone is being paid to give you a hard time? Do you seriously not know what corruption is? I shall explain: corruption is were someone in a position of power misuses it. For example, someone may fail to reach a decision on the balance of evidence, instead being swayed towards one side for no apparent reason—or, for their own benefit. There need be no exchange of money. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 20:01, 19 August 2017 (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.

Inactive

Not a big deal but I'm not sure how I got on the moved to the inactive list. I am currently doing several reviews a week so not inactive. ~Kvng (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kvng, no idea (I probably did it), but you're back on the active list now. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Inactive participants

Hello, folks. Does the separation of participants into "active" and "inactive" have any real meaning? I've seen recent activity from a person who is on the Inactive list, yet appears to be using the Helper Script to accept and decline drafts. Is this a normal or acceptable practice? NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Primefac, who keeps track of the numbers and may have some insight into the question. /wiae /tlk 14:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary, anyone one the inactive list should not be able to use AFCH. I believe (and I might be wrong) that a bit of back-and-forth with making the lvl-3 heading into a lvl-2 heading broke things. Enterprisey will know the specifics of how the AFCH needs the page to look in order for it to parse the list. In the meantime, if their reviews look to be in good faith, ask them if they're really back on the project and move them back to active? Primefac (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The code is pretty simple: if the username is linked somewhere in the page, the user is allowed. (Specific line here in checkWhitelist.) It looks like I can just change it to only look for username links above the "Inactive reviewers" heading, right? Enterprisey (talk!) 15:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just noticing that myself, which means that there are 650 "inactive" users that could potentially still be using AFCH... very odd (and also somewhat problematic from a tracking perspective). I'm surprised no one has noticed that before, but it would also explain why there have only been one or two editors who have moved themselves back from inactive to active. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where I got the impression, but I thought the rule was -- two months of inactivity gets you moved from "active" to "inactive", and six months of inactivity gets you taken off the page altogether. And that rule seems to make some sense, because it's difficult to imagine why the page should include an ever-expanding list of inactive reviewers. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, that's actually a good point as far as removing users from the inactive list (I never saw the notice in that section). I'll go through and clear out the relevant names. But yes, I move users to inactive when they either have two months with no activity, or six months with no reviews. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Enterprisey, if you could please make that change, that would be great. It might inconvenience a few folks that are still reviewing while on the inactive list, but it will make tracking a hell of a lot easier. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, so I just wrote the code and uploaded it. I started testing it, and discovered something interesting: I was on the inactive list myself. I was a bit surprised by this, and I definitely think this could discourage someone who's coming back to reviewing after a period of time working in other areas of Wikipedia. If we already remove people who are very inactive from the list forever, what's the issue with allowing "inactive" users to use the script? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Only one of actually tracking who is actively working on the project, I suppose. If we're going to let just anyone who is on the page use AFCH, then there isn't any reason to have an "inactive" list, because I could move someone to inactive one day and they could start back up reviewing the next. I, for one, would like to know how many people are actually/actively/want to be reviewing drafts, but I *really* don't feel like checking 700 names to see who has recently reviewed a page (150 is bad enough). Should we keep anyone who has ever added their name to the project, but might have not reviewed since 2014, as a participant? We aren't a PERM (yet), so it's not like changing one's status is that difficult. Maybe we should have a larger discussion about that, though. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I was inactive until recently. Actually forgot what AFCH script was for. Script would not work until I moved from inactive to a active. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

Based on the conversation above, what are people's thoughts regarding inactivity? Should it matter if you're on the inactive list? Should anyone who ever joined the list be considered "active" until they've gone 6 months without editing Wikipedia at all? Should we encourage users to be more active by having the "inactive" list actually mean "inactive", and require them to shift themselves back to "active" if they suddenly find themselves itching to review something? Does the sum of the squares of the sides of a triangle equal the square of the hypotenuse? Primefac (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree with inactives being removed I don't see any purpose for this. We need to be sure unqualified or reckless editors be kept out of AFCH use. If you're a reliable editor but real life pulls you away, why take your name off the list? Are we worried about old accounts being compromised? If so, I think it makes more sense to notice that pattern of abuse than prevent plenty of trusted editors from contributing, especially if we're talking about editors still actively editing and have control of their accounts but gave up on AfC for a time. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, for what it's worth, I'm not advocating actually removing anyone (other than those who have left Wikipedia) from the list. I'm merely continuing the discussion in the main section above (in a slightly more pointed manner) regarding the "active" and "inactive" lists we keep at the AFCH page, and why there seems to be no actual difference where someone is located. If we don't do an "inactive" list that actually does anything, then I'll make more work for myself and just combine the two lists. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Ok. I don't see a good reason to have an inactive list. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's important to keep separate lists. That way we won't be lulled into a false sense of security by believing we have enough reviewers (which, for example, is what happens with the ridiculously low threshold for determining what is an active admin). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A good use for the inactive list is as a list to contact and encourage them to become active. If every inactive reviewer did one or two reveiws the backlog goes poof. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, the issue is one that NewYorkActuary mentioned above, and which I found another instance of recently myself - if someone is on the inactive list, they can still review drafts, which means that whoever is keeping track of active reviewers (i.e. me) needs to actually check both lists. This is why I asked Enterprisey if they could make it so only the "Active" list was on the tool, but there was some concern about that, hence the straw poll. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have someone on my talk page today who assumes they can't so I've moved them back to 'active'. I think it's perhaps a good idea to prevent the inactives from using the script. It raises the question of course, whether we should do the same for NPP - with only 10 -15 people doing 90% of the work, that's nearly 400 who can hardly be classed as 'active'.

AFAIK, some have never used the NPR right since they asked for it. I guess there are some clothes hooks in the closet bending under the strain. AfC and NPP are ridden with the same phenomenon: a magnet to young, inexperiencd, an new users, like most maintenance areas are.The problem is that once they are given the right, they find that with AfC and NPP they've bitten off more than they could chew so they throw their hat back on the rack. We don't have that same issue with vandalism and recent changes patrollers; those kids are generally happy to wade through the junk and generally do a good job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a report that shows how many reviews each person does a week or month? If so that report would answer the question of how many active reviewers there are without the effort Primefac is doing to shift names around. If there is no report, surely it could be requested. Legacypac (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There is not. I'm sure a script could be written to do such a functionality, though it require combing through everyone's edit summaries. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Such a report would also help immensely when someone claims Reviewer X made 3 mistakes. If the 3 mistakes are out of 10 reviews or out of 500 reviews makes a big difference in how we respond. Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That is true, as I keep finding out. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There is this tool http://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/afchistory/#user= It shows one user at a time, but a report could summarize the results of running names through it. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I could probably write a tool that scrapes {{AFC statistics}} and makes a list showing who's reviewed recently and how many - would that help? What should the report contain? Enterprisey (talk!) 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Inactives still should be able to do reviews. There is no need to discourage them. Once approved they should stay there quite a while until proven they are unsuitable. Two months is certainly too short a time to be called inactive. Perhaps there should be an even more graded list: very active, active, on a break, and inactive. The original split was around for quite a while when the list was mostly to see who to talk to, rather than any control. But why would people that did good reviews in the past become unsuitable? Perhaps if there were major changes to the rules, but not much significant change in the last year apart from control by list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Full protection

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is an unanimous consensus to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants fully protected.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants remain fully protected? There'sNoTime decided to do this, but in order to truly determine consensus, we need an RfC. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Until the role of the participants list is overtaken by a new userright handed out at PERM, the list has to remain protected. As a procedural matter, I object to this RfC. The status of this list should be determined by WikiProject AfC, not the larger community. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support to many bad actors adding themselves but we don't need a Perm the current system is fine. Also I agree with Chris troutman that this is a local issue not a global discussion. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Primefac, I definitely agree that there were too many less experienced editors adding themselves to the system. It thankfully was never widely abused to allow bogus reviewers to usher in promotional/COI content unchecked but that's a potential method of abuse we really do need to be wary of, hence doubling supporting the retention of full protection. I'm not overly bothered when it comes to the use of a user-right or retention of this page for managing access. I'm also happy to add and remove names and help with the administrative side of things, just ping if you need my help. Nick (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As I commented to the effect somewhere above, I think this will easily pass, but I do think that an RfC is the way to go for the sake of propriety. Thanks for taking the time to open one GeoffreyT2000. GMG^talk 10:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Over the last 3 years it's been protected more than unprotected. The FP seems to be doing its job and does not appear to be deterring people of the right experience. There have actually been quite a few instances of users and socks deliberately trying to list themselves for dishonest purposes. I think it should remain protected now as a permanent feature, but there's probably no real rush to have applications processed at PERM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support: it's as powerful a tool as new page reviewer rights so admins should be the ones who determine candidates' suitability, especially with the increasing trend of underhand paid editing. PERM would be a good place to have it but as Kudpung suggests, there's no rush. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. DrStrauss talk 22:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Same thing has existed for years at WP:AWB/CP. – Nihlus (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Seems to work well Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I would also support increasing edit count and one's time on WP when considering qualifications. I realize we need to increase participation but inexperience at AfC tends to create more work for us at NPP, or at least that is what I've experienced. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support: I think it has worked well for us and is a good firewall to prevent users who are ineligible for the script from using it. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 13:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support If this page was unprotected (or even extended confirmed protected) then people who ought not to have access to the script (like me) would be able to add themselves to the list. We can't sadly can't rely on there not being some people with an ulterior motive to gain access to this system for their own gain. Dysklyver 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is similar issue as WP:AWB/CP which is protected too. Ammarpad (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support There just seems to be a lot of trouble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2017 (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.

A few thoughts

Moved to WT:AFC Primefac (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Contested removal

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.

---

• clerking, moved from #October 2017 above. Will read and respond shortly. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not sure if this is the right place to do this but I'd like to contest Kudpung's removal of me following objections raised by DGG. Pinging Nick and Primefac as they were the admins who dealt with my removal requests last time. I find the removal totally unwarranted as DGG's objections were merely that the drafts could have been declined on another criterion. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 07:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kudpung removals of this nature should be clearly explained in the section below. "There are too many recent issues being reported on your userpage" is a cop-out, in future and in this case, I expect you to explain the issues properly, like I've done when removing someone from AFCH (see below for an example). This engagement may allow DrStrauss to be re-added to the project quickly, for us to work with DrStrauss to resolve over a longer time frame, or indeed, to overturn your removal as being spurious. If we don't know what issues you've identified (and looking at DrStrauss talk page isn't particularly revealing) then it becomes impossible to help rectify them. We have a particular shortage of reviewers and significant backlogs, removing reviewers when you identify issues, without communicating what those issues are is entirely unhelpful. Nick (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)s

Nick. The issues are clearly reported on the user's talk page and DGG appears to have provided sufficient details of some of them. A backlog is not a reason to accept sub par reviewing. I shall not stand in the way of you restoring DrStrauss' permission, but it would help if you were to be prepared to mentor him so that his reviews are of an acceptable standard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I find DGG's concerns on my talk page to be minor (c.f. my reply on my talk page). I consider such trivial issues to be poor grounds for removing a user right. Both Nick and I are regularly on IRC so I could ask if in doubt, if that's okay with him. DrStrauss talk 10:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help in that respect (and to back up any opinions on-wiki). Nick (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support allowing DrStrauss back on the list with (limited) mentorship. I'd also highly suggest that it be done entirely on-wiki and not rely on IRC. I think that too much of the drama that has occurred over time in this specific case and related threads has been caused by an over reliance on off-wiki communication and consensus in a forum that not everyone who is a part of the disagreement uses. I'm a regular on IRC so before I'm accused of hypocrisy, I'll point out that on-wiki communication here has several benefits to everyone concerned: first of which is transparency. In cases where there has been an on-going dispute between several users I think that is very important and serves to protect the interests of all parties. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And to clarify, this is not saying any party is at fault, but just as a way to help deesculate here. In the past I've noticed DrStrauss can be a bit fast, but on the whole I think they do good work in these areas. I also highly trust DGG's judgement and consider him to be one of the biggest assets to en.wiki as a project, so if he is offering feedback, it's something I think should be listened to. Something light where DrStrauss can ask a non-involved editor for feedback would only be positive and, as I mentioned above, if done on-wiki would offer everyone confidence that everything was fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I will back up TonyBallioni's comments about IRC, I use it myself, and it is useful when dealing with vandalism and such, discussing things off the record, and dealing with cross-wiki stuff. On-wiki communication is more considered, more relevant to local issues, and easier to refer to at a later date, so I support his comments that mentorship should be done on-wiki (like it was with me for instance). Dysklyver 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Also pinging Legacypac as they have stated an opinion on my talk page. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• As noted in DrStrauss’s talk, I look at many many declines by them as they come up for G13. I’ve never noticed any pattern of serious mistakes. Sure, many pages could be declined for X ratehr than Z but we only can pick one reason. Any perceived mistakes should be weighed against the large number of correct reviews not only analyzed in isolation.

In general I believe AfC reviewers should seek speedy deletion more often on non-notable crap and be a little more accepting of notable topics that need some more work - let editors in Mainspace fix the notable topics instead of forcing the newbies to do it in Draft. That’s the underlying idea of Wikipedia - allow lots of users to build out topics. Legacypac (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have re-added Strauss to the list. While I agree that DGG has commented a fair amount on Strauss' talk page, none of it amounts to continually problematic or systematic errors. Other than comments by DGG I find nothing grossly improper about queries made to Strauss on their talk page (and in some cases, stalkers support the decline rationale). If this stops being the case then the situation can be re-evaluated. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note--It may be noted that Dr.Strauss currently stands indefinitely blocked by a check-user for usage of multiple accounts.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:00, 31 October 2017 (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.

remove me, please

To editors Kudpung, Xaosflux and Primefac: et al. Please remove me from the participants list and take my patroller flag, too. Thanks for all the fish. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:  Done. Thank you for your service to both projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I join

While I may not have 500 mainspace contributions I have contributed to major discussions pertaining to newbies and have helped out at #Wikipedia-en-help. Also I believe the project does need people from Asian countries -To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I will just make some comments on this. I was quite surprised to see you have less than 500 mainspace edits! I have seen you around a bit, including discussions on the article wizard and noticed that you are extendedconfirmed with over a thousand total edits [2]. However two of the pages you have made have been deleted [3]. Dysklyver 10:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Force Radical, our requirements are rather strict. I think you have good potential (and I thank you for helping out on IRC) but I think you need a bit more experience in actual article-space matters. You are welcome to apply formally (see the "Requests" section above) when you've met all of the criteria.

In the meantime, of course, you are more than welcome to ask questions and seek advice at the main AFC reviewers page. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

NPR user right and the AFCHS

I've started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC#NPR_user_right_and_the_AFCHS on possible changes to the AFCHS use requirements. All are welcome to give thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

AFCH error

Hi! I'm new to the group (Alex Shih just added me). When I try to load the script for the first time, I get a popup, "AFCH error: user not listed

AFCH could not be loaded because "Paul2520" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, click here. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!"

I believe my username needs to be capitalized (I typically write it with a lowercase p, but by default it has an uppercase P). Thanks in advance! = paul2520 (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely, but possibly a reason. I've capitalized your name in the list. Might take a while for the change to percolate through the system. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac! It's worked. Looking forward to helping out. = paul2520 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac:i suspect i have the same issue. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Primefac sorry about pinging you again - didn't see this. May want to make the script treat lowercase and uppercase names the same. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Inactive request

I just join the AFC and did not really accept or decline a draft yet, but did some comment. However, the script are disable for "inactive" AFC member, but without script, it is really hard to review a draft, it looks brutal for inactive user, seem they need to ask to remove from inactive and add back to active in order to use the script again. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 December 2017(UTC)

Sorry 'bout that Matthew hk, I generally try to keep the recently-added names on the active list even if they haven't reviewed. Must have missed yours. You're back on active. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive

Can we make the archive settings here slightly better? We've got months old threads still hanging around, and it just makes it terrible on mobile. GMG^talk 11:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the setting is no setting - that is all threads have to be manually archived by oneclickarchiver... Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently I'm running on a three-month archive plan - when I archived in Nov I did everything pre-August. I suppose it's time to now do August itself... Primefac (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Inactive to Active

Was wondering if someone can return me to active status. I want to begin participating in AfC more but want to be able to use the Helper Script to do so. I was added as active a long time ago but never really did anything for the project. Would also take any advise to help me get started again. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for the delay, I think I missed your request. Welcome back, and let us know if you have any questions. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. No questions as of yet. I will likely start slowly until I get a better feel for how the community as a whole is reviewing/approving/rejecting new submissions. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A question of communication

A recent discussion on a reviewer's talk page has brought up a rather interesting question: how much feedback should we require an AFCH user to give when the creator asks? This isn't a question of where to post (I know SwisterTwister used to "reply" directly on the drafts themselves) but whether we should be removing users from the AFCH list if they don't interact with other users. My immediate thought is "of course we should remove them if they don't reply" but I'm concerned that a "hard number" could be problematic. Do we say "zero replies" is enough, because then users will game the system (much like admins do) and make one cursory reply to keep them on the list. Should it be something discussed amongst ourselves in order to come to a consensus?

I'm keeping this general and vague mainly to garner input on the question itself, but if "we should discuss individual cases" then I'll start a subsection on the specific instance that prompted this question. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(Not a participant in AFC, but commenting as a witness to the incident which precipitated this thread) I'd consider "unwillingness to answer reasonable questions about one's participation in a process" grounds for automatic removal from that process. WP:ADMINACCT is specifically about administrative actions, but the principle applies wiki-wide. This is particularly true when it comes to processes like AFC and deletion, where there's a high probability that the declining reviewer/deletion tagger will be the first Wikipedian with whom a new editor has ever interacted, and consequently will form their impression of what Wikipedia and its editors are like as a whole; there's a reason Wikipedia has a reputation as being dominated by a tight clique of aggressive editors who drive out amateurs and newcomers. While things do slip through the net and people do take breaks, and I wouldn't attack anyone for failing to answer the occasional question when it's genuinely slipped their mind to reply, they've genuinely failed to notice it, or they're genuinely not in a position to reply, I would have no qualms about either desysopping admins who refuse to answer questions about the deletion of a given page, or topic-banning editors from any process in which they're not responding to good-faith queries or concerns about the actions they're taking within that process. Talking about a "trigger number" of replies is a red herring—it's obvious from someone's talkpage and contribution histories whether there's an issue with unwillingness to communicate. ‑ Iridescent 11:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. If Primefac is looking for a reasonable wording, just word it like ADMINACCT - "Reviewers are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their reviews and to justify them when needed." Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I think I'm trying to approach this from a "how to" standpoint - do we just kick them off or should we try to be civil and ask them nicely first? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I think it should be in the instructions first. Then one query reminding them should be enough. If they don't respond/don't want do it and especially/mainly if they continue reviewing without addressing concerns, then remove the right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added this point to the instructions. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that communication is required. My opinion is that a warning should be given, should a reviewer continue to ignore queries then yes, they should be kicked off. Even if someone not able to provide the expertise needed then at a minimum the submitter should be referred to the Help Desk. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent has put it quite beautifully.As, we were discussing at 54129's t/p, communication within a rational time-frame, sans any situation extraordinaire, shall be an integral component of the now red-linked ACCACCT.W.r.t to this specific case, I will allow him a chance to keep his AFCHS bit by agreeing to reply to all the accumulatted messages on his t/p and engaging in reviews iff he is sure to answer the queries within a reasonable time-span.Failing that, the access may be revoked without warning.Winged Blades^Godric 15:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am rather disappointed and dismayed that despite an entire lecturing, by certain administrators, for me to be more effective in my communication, I have to find this discussion, as well as a threat by Godric to revoke my access, via a a crawl of at least three Wikipedia pages. I will reply and clear the accumulated messages. I must, however, protest the direction that this discussion has taken, and the absolutely nil knowledge I have received when it comes to this section of the talkpage. (Pot, meet kettle, anyone?) Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(UPDATE) As of 3:26PM, Arizona time, I have replied to all accumulated messages in re AFCHS. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your complaint about not being notified about this discussion might have been a little more credible if you'd actually been mentioned at any point. ‑ Iridescent 23:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent: read Godric's last comment on this issue, which, I believe, relates to me. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes godric was talking about Kiteinthewind. I will allow him a chance to keep his AFCHS bit by agreeing to reply is a bit much, and does read like a threat and is unnecessarily confrontational. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already said this on my own talkpage, and I will say this again here. While I agree that I could have handled the replies better, I must protest, in no uncertain terms, that discussions of my future on this project has taken place without me being notified, and that overt threats, such as those issued by Godric, have been issued, over a simple issue of communication. It is rather funny (edit, rather thick) that while we are talking about effective communication on this thread, we are also advocating for the banning of a participant of this project, by community consensus, without notifying the subject involved. While I agree that effective, timely communications are needed, I will also not just sit there, and allow threats like the ones Godric has issued (multiple times on this particular issue at hand, may I add) to continue. Should they continue, I will ask for an uninvolved sysop for intervention. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

42 isn't equal to uninvolved sysop/ARBCOM and I will but repeat FIM's last reply to you on his t/p .And, if any of my above comments on this t/p seemed threatening, I will take the opportunity to sincerely apologize and reassure you that they were not and that bans etc. are pretty heavy words.Also, to note the issues of communication-vacuum is not simple and was gravely serious enough.Anyway, all's well that ends well. Cheers:) Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kiteinthewind, I must apologize, for despite the fact that I started this conversation as a "general" discussion about the conduct of all AFCH users, it rapidly turned into a "everyone knows what Primefac is talking about so we'll talk about the specific user". It was never my intention to do so, which is why I never mentioned you by name. I was never intending to make this about you, and any discussion involving your specific activities (and future with the project) would have of course involved discussion with you before anything was done. Maybe next time I start such a discussion I will explicitly mention that any discussion of a specific user will be redacted as irrelevant to the discussion. Again, my apologies for what seems like an unfair "trial" regarding your activities; you were asked to reply to the queries on your talk page, and you have done so, and there's really not much more that the other people should be complaining about. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

UserAFCH template

I've created a template to be used on this page that adds links to all of the 'accept' and 'decline' actions that a user has performed, done by using edit summary search tailored using the standard AFCH edit summaries. All you have to do is add {{UserAFCH|Username}} after the {{user2|Username}} template.

This creates the following line:

• Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs · count) Insertcleverphrasehere (t · c · reviews)

It probably only needs to be added for active reviewers, and I've done the work of drafting the page update already: I have drafted the list with the template added: User:Insertcleverphrasehere/AFC reviewers so it can just be copy pasted into the Active Reviewers section.

This addition will greatly improve the ability to check the review actions of AfC reviewers when noticing a pattern of inappropriate reviews, and it will also make backlog drives much easier to implement, as review counts for an individual can be checked very easily.

The template should also be protected as it will be transcluded on a protected page.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you remove me please?

I have come to the conclusion that I am not good enough at editing to deserve the AFCH privilege. Unless I am not truly a bad reviewer, please remove me. Thank you. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Feel free to request back if you want it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

editor Chetsford

See here for the discussion - no need to have the discussion in two places Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice that editor Chetsford has reviewed over 100 articles in 24 hours on his first day of AFC reviewing, with 21 in one hour during that time. 2 to 3 minutes per draft is hardly time for most editors to even read over the draft and do a copyvio check. It looks like perhaps his speed has made the AFC process and wikipedia suffer, much less the probable loss of many first time editors. Is this normal? I remember reading about fast reviewing in a post by Uanfala awhile back, but I was wondering how everyone felt about this issue. I checked over a few of his reviews and found two with blatant copyright violations, one was speedy deleted and the other was fixed by Primefac. Another I looked at had been improved, I improved it more, and accepted it for publication. Very shortly after this editor nominated it for deletion here:[4] I hesitate to look at any others to publish for fear of immediate nominations for deletion. I think this issue needs more eyes on it. Thanks. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC) I, too, have concerns about Lacypaperclip's reviews. H/she quickly approved James D. Zirin for AfC, an WP:AUTOBIO by an editor previously blocked for making legal threats, after it had been rejected five times in a row, despite almost no change or improvement. This WP:BLP has seven sources, five of which are WP:RSSELF and two of which are cursory mentions of the subject (book reviews in which he's simply acknowledged as the author of the text in question). This seems to indicate limited time spent reviewing the article or an erroneous understanding of GNG. I was astonished and flabbergasted to see this was green-lit in its current state and immediately submitted it to AfD. I note h/she has been making repeated errors in addition to this, such as speedy deletions which have been rejected [5], and during peak periods of activity is reviewing an average of one AfC every ~2.5 minutes (e.g. [6], [7], [8]). Combined with a pattern of past issues [9] h/she's experienced correctly identifying notability in articles, demonstrated by a 59% "hit" rate at AfD, some additional scrutiny may be warranted. When I rejected the article at the core of this dispute I spent 20 minutes typing out a long and thoughtful iteration of issues on the creator's Talk page [10], and later engaged him on my own Talk page to answer his questions. Lacypaperclip seems to have just barreled through all this with a cursory 'approve' click in a way that does not demonstrate best practices in cautious and methodical reviewing of AfC. I hesitate to look at any others to publish for fear of immediate nominations for deletion. I assure you, I hesitate to nominate any more of your articles for deletion for fear it will result in retaliatory WP:FORUMSHOPing like here: [11], [12], [13]. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Request to Hat and Redirect Lacypaperclip has copy/pasted this in a couple different places; may I ask an uninvolved editor to please archive this one with a note redirecting it here where the main conversation appears to be occurring? It will save me a bit of time from having to chase down every accusation if they could all be gathered in a central location. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Cannot review drafts

I was recently added to the list, but even after enabling the gadget and clearing my cache, the reviewing options are not showing up for me on reviewable drafts. Is it possible that, since I'm editing from my workplace, there is something preventing the script from running? (though, Twinkle is working with no issues) Could someone please double check that I was added properly, and if I was, I may need to have my name removed due to being unable to actually review anything. LynxTufts (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Your workplace? Your boss must have installed an AFCHS blocker to stop you from getting distracted from your work. – Uanfala (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You're on the list (and with the right spelling). Try a different browser and/or computer? Primefac (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've figured out what I was doing wrong. LynxTufts (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria clarification

Hello there. I'm working my way towards putting my name up in here, but I do not believe I meet the edit criteria, since I only have 243 edits in the main namespace according to my xtools. Is that correct? Don't want to waste your time and mine by telling me no right away. Thanks much in advance, and please ping me with a response as I won't be watching this page. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 22:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Etzedek24, your right! You don't (yet) meet the criteria. Try again when you do. -- -- -- 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, --. I figured that was the case, but wanted to make sure. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 01:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)