Articles for creation Project‑class

This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

A lot of the backlog is previously declined submissions at this point. Editors resubmitting without fixing the problems in a real way seems to be the norm. Why don't we have two categories, one for new submissions that have not been declined, and one for previously declined resubmissions? We can probably keep up with the backlog on new submissions. It seems wrong to punish responsible users by making them wait for us to chew through thousands of resubmits (most of them pointless) before we can get to reviewing their new submission. Gigs (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigs: Yes please. Would it also be possible to arrange articles by number of references? Then we could use AWB to auto-decline anything that is unreferenced. :) TheCascadian 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we should probably do one thing at a time. I think technically we could implement my proposal by getting AfC helper to use a different template for resubmits vs virgin entries. Both of these templates could probably transclude in the current template and just wrap it with a different hidden category. Alternately we can keep the current big category as it is, and just add an extra category to virgin submissions. Can someone who is better at templates than I am let me know if you think that would work? Gigs (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? This seems like it could really help with the recurrent issues we've had here. I'd hate to see this section archived with no follow-up. Gigs (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my follow-up suggestion re-categorization in the section below: A different kind of "Drive". Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a local "drama magnet" (Prime Prep Academy) had a pitifully small stub on Wikipedia currently, so I went out and got news references and prose for it. I'd like to get a few editors outside opinions to make sure I didn't fall on a "Relies One Source" type problem as I'm citing one news outlet (the local "indie" news) many times because their archives are easily searchable. I'm trying to make a run for DYK status on it. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hasteur I think it needs further improvement. I'd suggest reducing the cites to blogs.dallasobserver.com and relying more on national press. e.g. NYTimes and brief coverage in the Washington Post Magazine. And what about the state-wide press-- Austin Statesman, Texas Independent, and Texas Observer, etc? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is now once again at severe level, presently (as of this post) at 2775 pending submissions. While in previous relatively recent comments there was some concern about immediately opening another backlog drive after the March 2014 one, they sure do help to keep the backlog down. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No

1. We still haven't fully moved over to the Draft Namespace, which was promised that would happen before the last drive. Are you saying that we skip that promise again?
2. We don't have the AFC rewrite tool yet which I think will improve the reviewer's efficency
3. We haven't yet decided how to make explotative points gathering not worth the while
4. We still don't have enough volunteers to maintain a reasonable backlog length
5. We still haven't hashed out a "Firm No" way to discourage hopeless submissions from rabbiting around and consuming time.
6. We still don't have procedures in place to discourage editors from working from the back of the pending backlog and not sitting on top of the 1~4 days pending queues.

For these reasons I still say no to annother backlog drive. We must resolve the underlying issues. Hasteur (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. How hard can it be? To who did "we" promise this? First we need to either move them, or review them. And a pretty fast way of that is through a drive.
2. It is out, just in beta...so practically it already out!
3. I agree with you on this one...
4. First we need to "eliminate" the current high amount of submissions!
5. Why would we discourage any editing on Wikipedia?!? All help is good help!

• How are we planning to keep the backlog at a firm low amount, if we don't get it down first?

(t) Josve05a (c) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We promised ourselves in addition to the Encyclopedia as a whole as part of the agreement to get the Draft Namespace (which was back in November). Several of these COI editors know that they won't make it, but because they're being forced by their boss to resubmit untill they get a firm "NO" they have to continue resubmitting. We can't prohibit them from resubmitting short of deleting the submission so we discourage them from resubmitting when they haven't fixed the problem or they are hopeless (which is why they keep coming back every few days fishing for a volunteer to give them what they want when they haven't remedied the problems).

I'll make a wager with you, simply because 5 AFC drives in the past year have made me extremely jaded, I wager that 1 week after the drive (if we do hold it) ends we'll already be at least 50% back to pre-drive levels. We have all our best volunteers burning themselves out on the drive time, only to have them take a review vacation for a week as a reward for their hard effort during the drive. Exerting exceptional effort is wonderful, but not at the cost of the base progress being destroyed. Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all backlogged out, I'm afraid. I haven't done any AfC work for a bit, preferring to get a few articles to GA, because I think I got a bit overwhelmed. I think the backlog is indicative that we have solved the quality problems that plagued us in the past, and consequently the average time to properly review a submission is much higher. Let's get the draft namespace up and running, where we can have as many drafts as necessary that any editor can see and work on. I think the backlog count is a bit demoralising. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Steps need to be implemented to eliminate the drafts that will never be accepted, including all the unreferenced submissions and blanks. Otherwise, editors are wasting their time reviewing and re-reviewing crap. After that, assuming there's a promise that next time I get my barnstar promptly, I might be convinced to do another drive. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? As a naive, relatively new contributor to Wikipedia I'd love to see this backlog reduced. However, seeing all of the above comments about the preceding work required to make AfC backlog eliminations worth it makes me hesitant. That being said, a demoralizingly high backlog count helps no one, including those who may have good quality articles waiting that belong in the encyclopedia. What can we do to spur work to fix these problems? —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 20:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a backlog drive does not prevent you from reviewing AFC submissions currently... Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally plan to reduce some of the backlog tonight, but I have a community of around 20 people who I'd like to engage in reducing the backlog. Having a drive would be an incentive for them, I believe. —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 20:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the Cookie and a pat on the head that they need? How about a barnstar for every single submission they review? How about adminship for all who complete a backlog drive? How about the keys to the WMF executive washroom? No. Those incentives only serve to get editors involved for a drive, only to have them fade away once the drive is over. Yes I'm being very sarcastic here, because I'm tired of Backlog Drive being the panacea that will solve all problems with AFC Hasteur (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly I entered into a hot topic, but I've haven't been around for years to see the controversy behind the Backlog Drive. I wanted to engage a community of hackers (MIT definition) & makers who've never contributed to Wikipedia before. The sensation of velocity and being part of a "Spring cleaning" I felt could help them decide to join me in a little "party". It's not the recognition, I think we're too new to appreciate that, but being a part of something. I'll drop it, though, bringing this up seems to evoke emotion. —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd hope that after participating in the drive, they would be hooked with contributing to Wikipedia and stick around and participate in other places. It's happened to me, so why not them? —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Will Robinson - AFC is not a place for Wiki-newbies. If you trust your friends to not screw things up, fine, but be ready for "cleanup on aisle 3" if they go rapid-fire and either make the same technical or the same judgement mistakes over and over again. My recommendation: Start them slowly - maybe review 5 pages, then stop for feedback, then review 10 more and stop for feedback, then review 20 more (including at least 5-10 "accepts") and stop for a spot-check of a few random accepts and a few random declines, then let them get to doing some real work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"How about adminship for all who complete a backlog drive?" - how did you guess Anne's modus operandi? :-D Anyway, in principle, there is nothing wrong with a backlog drive. The problem is, that the backlog is so severe and so regular that it seems that we'll never actually keep the level of pending submissions down unless we arrange continuous and permanent drives all the time. We need to find a longer lasting solution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Ritchie and Hasteur wrote above, there is no need for a backlog drive until we solve all of our problems. Within a week of the end of the drive, you wouldn't even know we had one. The fact that the larger reviewers deal with complete assholes (please excuse the language, but that's what some of them are) and clueless editors that they are sick and tired of dealing with them is a hint that we should be strengthening the templates and trying to push editors to be more self-sufficient in their work. If you look at my talk page, I used to give more succinct answers, and now I just give "go ahead and resubmit it" ones so that I don't have to commit to anything, because it gets really bothersome to have to tell some editor to resubmit it again because you don't want to deal with it anymore. I am more than happy to participate in a backlog drive, but there are serious issues that need to be fixed before then, because each backlog drive not only clears the backlog, but it drives our experienced editors away. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now tend to do just the opposite--to give fuller explanations so there's a better chance we do not have to deal with it again--that it will either be abandoned/withdrawn (most likely) or improved.(sometimes). But I absolutely agree that we should be strengthening the templates--and,equally, not using templates that ask for minor improvements which are not necessary for acceptable articles. And one very easy thing: nominating the hopelessly promotional or irrelevant submissions for speedy deletion.

And I agree with those who think the quality of reviewing during the last drive was so abysmal that it would be counterproductive to run another. It might help to set a throttle to prevent more than 10 reviews in a row, or even 5 , as davidwr suggested. I know that if I try to go much faster than that I start making overly quick judgments or downright errors, and I assume the rest of us are human also. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my money where my mouth is, in addition to finally deprecating the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/" prefix, I ask if there is consensus for me to design and run a series of automated edits to relocate every pending AFC page to the Draft namespace. For the purposes of this discussion a page is eligible to be moved IF

The page shows up in the Category:Pending AfC submissions based off the AFC Submission pending template is active

The page has the prefixing location Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/

The bot will relocate the page to Draft: with the remainder of the title unless that title is already taken (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Jimmy John Doe becomes Drafts:Jimmy John Doe)

in which case we will put a postfix hatnote (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/John Doe becomes Drafts:John Doe (botmoved)) and adds a category to the bottom of the draft for an editor to review the title and properly disambiguate it)

The bot will use "Relocating AFC space to Draft Namespace" as it's move message

I see a great many moves initially as we have ~2.5k pages that would qualify but after that I see running this bot perhaps 2x a month so that resubmited drafts, restored G13s, and unchanged scripts that default dump in the old location are relocated to our new home.

I'd like to start writing this bot on the 9th with a speedy run through BRFA (as it's affecting a lot), therefore I ask that you keep your comments brief and to the point. Hasteur (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a terrific idea. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what held this up so far was that the AFC reviewing tools did not work with the Draft namespace. Is that still the case? Moving them all seems like a bad idea if the tools for reviewing don't work. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tools have supported draft namespace since before the January Backlog drive. Hasteur (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. My other question is this: How are we going to make sure only AFC submissions get reviewed? Many people, including experienced editors with previous userspace drafts, have been using the Draft namespace. These editors don't want AFC reviews for their work. It needs to be made really clear that drafts without AFC templates/categories should not be reviewed. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already built-in to the system: Only pages with an AFC submission template on it will show up in Category:Pending AfC submissions (shortcut: CAT:PEND). This is also how we recognize userspace drafts that are really AFC submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before we do this, we need to update the AFC end-user documentation and any new-user-assistant scripts to create NEW AFC submissions in Draft: instead of WT:AFC. If we do that, the need for a bot may take care of itself in 5-6 weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fixable within 10 minutes, not the 2~3 weeks it takes to get a BRFA approved. Hasteur (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for having new submissions in "Draft: instead of "Wikipedia talk" is that if they are picked up by mirror sites they won't appear to be Wikipedia articles. It's too late for that for the ones that are already in Wikipedia talk:, since pages are often picked up within minutes of creation. Moving thousands of pages makes a lot of unnecessary redirects, especially for those which are soon to be moved again to article space (I'm thinking of the size of my watchlist, for example). Why not just start moving all of the new ones now? Also, although the script and also the new script were modified several months ago, a testing period on a small number of submissions at first was a good idea. I presume since Hasteur is calling for large numbers to be moved, that all has been going well in this regard. If others think that a mass move is a good idea, these are only minor objections and I would be happy to go along. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne's idea has merit. Instead of performing thousands of potentially disruptive moves it might be better to simply close WT:AFC/-space to new entries and direct them to Draft-space - by editing the Article Wizard. We can then systematically deal with whatever remains in WT:AFC/-space and finally shut it down when it's cleared. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 Perhaps you missed it, but as I mentioned above to Davidwr, redirecting the input pipe that creates new submissions in draft space is a 10 minute fix. Getting the bot coded and the BRFA approved is going to be at least 2~3 weeks before its approved and then the bot will run at a slow rate (no more than ~6 moves/minute) so it will take a while to port everything over. These submissions may have already been reviewed by an AFC reviewer (and consequently left a message on the submitter's talk page) therefore it's reasonable that the submitter might use that link to get back to their work. Per WP:R#KEEP these would constitute reasonable internal inbound linkages. Per the advice from the Wikimedia sysops, Redirects are cheap so it doesn't hurt. We have plenty of "double redirect" solving bots in addition to reminders to administrators that when they delete a page they need to also clean out any redirects that point to the page. Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the problems listed above concerning backlog drives and the need to solve some of the other AfC problems first, I suggest a drive whereby AfC members manually go through all the current submissions and categorize them. Perhaps have separate drives for each of the two parent categories proposed below.

Category:AfC submissions by review status. This would allow reviewers to prioritise (if they wish) articles which have never been reviewed. Currently, the queue is hopelessly clogged with self-promotion/paid promotion articles which have been multiply declined and are relentlessly re-submitted. See this horrendous example. Sub-categories:

• Category:Previously declined AfC submissions (for submissions which have been reviewed at least once and declined)
• Category:Unreviewed AfC submissions (for submissions which have never been reviewed)

Category:AfC submissions by subject. The categories below are based on the general categories used by AfD. Once this is done, reviewers could more easily find and choose to review submissions in their area(s) of expertise instead of randomly plowing through 2500 uncategorised submissions whose titles are often no indication of the type of subject matter. It would also enable members of subject-based WikiProjects to easily scan these categories to see if there are some drafts worth developing/accepting. Note that in some cases more than one category could be added to a draft. An example would be biographical articles which would also have the category for the area in which the person is active/known. Sub-categories:

• Category:AfC submissions (Media and music)
• Category:AfC submissions (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• Category:AfC submissions (Biographical)
• Category:AfC submissions (Society topics)
• Category:AfC submissions (Web or internet)
• Category:AfC submissions (Games or sports)
• Category:AfC submissions (Science and technology)
• Category:AfC submissions (Places and transportation)
• Category:AfC submissions (Fiction and the arts)
• Category:AfC submissions (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)

An example of a submission in two categories would be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/L.J. Sealey (AfC submissions (Biographical) and AfC submissions (Fiction and the arts))

It would be a relatively painless and quick way to help, pave the way for more focused reviewing and/or drives, and it's something that experienced editors who like to help out at AfC but aren't project members could do without all the fol-de-rol of "automated scripts". Fifty editors doing 20 categorisations each could get them all done in a couple of days. I'd be more than happy to help out. Voceditenore (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this an excellent idea. When overwhelmed with patients needing care, triage is implemented. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a really useful idea. If we did this, and then maintained doing it for all new submissions in the future, as well, it would be much easier to attack the backlog each time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving yet annother way for people to drill down the backlog (when there's already 5) is unnecessary. Want to make a difference Category:AfC pending submissions by age is the category you should be focusing on. Work from the very oldest pending submissions! Hasteur (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tool that will allow people who want to review only within a particular subject area the opportunity to do so. All current regular reviewers have to be generalists - sorting by topic area could attract additional reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, I disagree that simply insisting that submissions be reviewed from the back of an uncategorized queue is sufficient. Without some kind of subject classification, it's like trying to eat a skyscraper. More than one editor here has noted the problem of burn-out. If reviewers had a way to find submissions quickly on topics where they have an interest and a certain amount of expertise, I suspect you'd get more reviews done. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and people are more likely to volunteer for tasks which they find potentially interesting. I think it would also improve the quality of the reviews and attract wider participation. I'm not a member of the AfC project but I have moved quite a few obviously suitable submissions into article space, sometimes after cleaning them up a bit and/or adding further references. Where I would decline the article, I leave a comment to that effect, with reasons and suggestions for improvement (if improvement is possible) to help the actual reviewer. Currently, I rely on members like FoCuSandLeArN to alert me to relevant submissions in my area (some examples here). I simply do not have the time to plow through 2500 uncategorized drafts and have no intention of doing so. However, I would go through a relevant category. I suspect I am not unique in this respect. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. It will pave the way to a much more efficient reviewing experience and hopefully bring new editors on board, as long as we advertise the changes made. I suggest if such categorisation drive takes place, we implement a rather simple one-barnstar-fits-all prize scheme so that we end the gaming attitude once and for all. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the digression (which I'm small-ising to minimize derail of the thread), but: I know you guys have been having a lot of discussions about barnstars and how/when to give them, but I can't help wondering: why must a drive come with a (set of) barnstar(s) at all? Clearing a backlog is a pretty big rush in and of itself. Is the concern that people won't want to help unless they can get a shiny symbol as a reward? Because I would venture to say that those people are exactly the ones likely to do the system-gaming y'all have been discussing a few sections up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Makes sense; there's no downside to categorization. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Having considered this throughout the day my conclusion is that this would actually be quite sensible. Have a look trough the oldest submissions waiting for a review: The pages that are listed there are categorically article's that require above-average effort to review since they have decent sourcing and no issues so glaring it would warrant an immediate decline. If we were to categorize them and ask their respective Wikiprojects - if they are active - for some assistance, i am sure a few people would be willing to take a look at them. The advantages of working like this are numerous:

1. Editors who are normally not interest in reviewing a bulk of new article's may actually take up reviewing article's specific to their interests.
2. Wikiprojects could assist with the most difficult and time consuming cases, which arguably tend to be the pages on the brink of being accepted. This would save AFC members oodles of time, while allowing the Wikiprojects to work on near-complete content without having to sift trough the silt to find that one gem.
3. Specialist knowledge really helps at times. If someone were to submit a page on Single-strand conformation polymorphism i could likely infer that it is notable, but i would have no idea if it would overlap another article or have other issues.

AFC would work like a sieve as it would filter out the worst submissions and categorize the rest so that people can select pages they are interested in to review. I know that a few reviewers - myself included - tend to work at the front of the review queue in order to filter out the worst cases and let the rest pass for another reviewer. It would be fairly trivial to categorize the ones that pass that quick review at the same time. I suppose we can ask the more active Wikiprojects if they would be interested in this review format. If the reactions are positive i see little reason not to implement it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And even at the end of the day with all the sieves, we'll still be left with a collection of pending reviews that nobody wants to touch. One thing to consider is that all of these new categories will need to be wired into templates (so we can figure out which ones are reposts versus fresh posts, which categories a page belongs in, how many pages can a single page belong in), remembering to make the tools ignore these categories, having a "Needs some specialization categories" category, having someone take time out from reviewing drafts overall to categorize the drafts to begin with.

I say again, this a great hullaboolh for little improvement. Others, like Anne, have made multiple attempts to reach out to affected wikiprojects, with very little success. Do we really think that the only thing holding back volunteers is the lack of subject specific listings? Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, i don't believe that the lack of categorization is the only thing that holds editors back from contributing to AFC. That said: If we were dealing with a simple cause-and-effect scenario we would have found and dislodged the key log that keeps editors from contributing to AFC long ago. Even so, i genuinely believe that there are editors out there who may not particularly enjoy reviewing pages but will happily lend a hand if the subject of the page is something they enjoy. I've asked assistance from Wikiprojects on several occasions and in general the responses are helpful - a few times i received little response but most times i did receive helpful advice or even a hand cleaning up a promising page.

Additionally, consider the composition of our backlog. Some pages are being reviewed extremely fast while other pages linger in the queue for an eternity. I don't believe for a second that the pages that linger were never looked at - instead they were challenging or boring to review and editors who read and skipped over them for the time being. (And yes, i am guilty as charged for doing so myself). However, if one just read a page categorizing it would only require a few extra seconds. True, the infrastructure to allow that to be done would take time to build but then again: Once a house is build it should remain standing in place with little maintenance for quite a while. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the proposed categorization: "we'll still be left with a collection of pending reviews that nobody wants to touch". That's the idea. If we sort out the biweekly re-submissions of previously rejected crap I think consensus can form to address those problems. I think many editors would rather take their time with articles just waiting for their first review, or target articles of a specific subject. WikiProject Good Article sorts nominated articles for the same reason. I don't know what kind of work will be necessary to make the categorization process automatically, but if the aggregate here can agree to go forward we can begin manually categorizing drafts along the lines proposed. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, I don't know what projects you contacted, but I'd like to add that WikiProject Opera, WikiProject Classical Music, and WikiProject Plants have also lent considerable support and input when contacted by Anne or FoCuSandLeArN as has WikiProject Architecture. Hasteur, I can't understand why you keep characterising this as a "hullaboo" with no perceivable benefit. There's no reason why this can't be done manually at first (it would take just a few days if members are agreeable) and then later sort out coding it into the tools. You have to start somewhere. Simply telling people to get cracking on the backlog and discouraging any other solution has obviously not worked, has burnt out or discouraged several reviewers, and leaves promising new drafts languishing for weeks or months in an ever-lengthening completely unsorted backlog. I'm also going to be frank here, I have been astonished and dismayed at the number of valuable, well-referenced classical music drafts which have been rejected out-of-hand as "non-notable" (some two or more times each) and which I have subsequently rescued. Lord knows how many more there have been in other subject areas. This is detrimental not only to the encyclopedia itself but also to the retention of new editors. I'm not going to name the articles I rescued, because it would be unfair to single out the reviewers who were acting in good faith in a deeply flawed process. Your current process makes finding vital subject-specific support and guidance random and unnecessarily difficult. What you're doing now clearly isn't working, why not try something new? Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support at a minimum, the categorization of articles that have never been reviewed separate from declined ones. I think this is going to be important going forward so that we can give priority to those who are either first experiencing AfC, or are producing good work (that mostly can get approved on the first review). The subject categories seem like a less pressing need, but could come in handy -- Only worth doing if we can get the article creators to categorize by subject, I'd say. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• While this is a good idea, it may be unnecessary. The new search engine has been rolled out, and it will read text inside templates. It will shortly be possible to search just the current submissions for any keyword. There is a small bug, to do with timestamping of redirects, which hopefully will be fixed shortly. See this discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New search. However, if this fix doesn't work, then manual sorting may be necessary. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We already have a good mechanism for categorizing new articles, and we need only expand it to draft space: see User:InceptionBot and the list of fields searched at User:AlexNewArtBot (an earlier incarnation of the bot) -- examples are at User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Education/log and for a more compact listing, User:AlexNewArtBot/EducationSearchResult. We dont have to reinvent things. (Tho there might be a reason for combining many of these) DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know those existed. I guess that's a great automated way to find the articles, although I'm not sure if this method accomplishes the described goal. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! Just a heads up that I've deployed a change for all versions of AFCH (alpha, beta, and rewrite -- which, coincidentally, you should totally try out if you haven't already) that requires users to be listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants in order to use the script. Those who are not listed are shown an error and a link to the page. This has been done per the decision at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation; thanks to Anne Delong for reminding me! :) Please let me know if you run into any problems. Theopolisme (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get an error message on every userpage or subpage I visit (as opposed to just AfC submissions) telling me that the AfC script can't be loaded because I'm not on the list, and shouldn't admins be whitelisted by default? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Userpages/subpages are "technically" AFC-space. As far as I can see, there wasn't a discussion about whitelisting admins; I think one of the goals of the whitelist is to maintain a better record of reviewers/active project participants...a bit harder to do if you don't even list some users. (I'm not 100% positive about that, though. If the project decides they want to whitelist admins that can be done very easily.) Theopolisme (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, if you don't plan to use the script, try checking your Gadgets under Preferences and uncheck "Yet Another AFC Helper Script". It worked for me. I started getting those error messages today as well. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The old-fashioned way. But thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Oh, I'm so glad I happened on that advice. These days popup boxes fly out at me all the time from web pages and it is fine to be able to stop one of them. BTW I'd prefer it if AFC people didn't poke around at my userspace sandbox, etc. If what I have put is unacceptable, please speedy, prod or MFD (if you must) but I'd rather go without reviews until I put something to main space. Just giving my personal view, which I expect is a minority position. Best wishes to AFC folk. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: AFC reviews are limited to pages tagged with an {{AFC submission}}. If you don't place that template on your user pages (or remove them if they are present) your pages should effectively be AFC-free zones. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. As you see I am not so familiar with AFC. I'm afraid I saw some extremely bad reviewing (historically) and that put me off. I never see what must be a welter of terrible drafts that are quite sensibly being prevented from going live. And, perhaps more constructively, potentially useful drafts that can be improved with perceptive help. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change starts with you! Get the script set up and try a few. No obligation to stick around, but you may like it, so give it a try. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a consensus for removing from the list after two months of inactivity. In any case, it is unacceptable if the AFCH error starts popping up on user pages every time I go through a period of inactivity. Please fix this. SpinningSpark 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pre-existing removal to an inactive list, but I think it was a much longer period than two months, and in any case was only at the time intended to let new reviewers know who they could ask for advice, not to prevent anyone from reviewing, so this should be fixed, by making those on the inactive list eligible to review and maybe having them flagged for moving back onto the active list. There was no mention in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation of people having to keep active to be eligible to use the script , so this should just be changed. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am in favor of whitelisting all admins, ideally we could just auto-add them to the whitelist the first time they use AfCH, and then the whitelist would still be up to date. We're taking ourselves a little too seriously if we think our little toy whitelist would be much of a tool in the scenario of a rogue admin doing en-masse bad reviews, a situation that would inevitably cause huge drama, no matter how we've set up the whitelist. Best not to punish the 99.99% of admins based on a hypothetical 0.01%. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since all admins meet the experience requirements, there's no reason to prevent them from using the script. We could request this change in the script right away, even if the adding of names to the list is more complex and is done later. In the mean time, as long as admins see the notification to add themselves to the list, it really only takes a moment, so this is not a serious problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessary to add an exception for admins. The way the script works now, everyone who reviews AfC is on the list, so we know we have a complete list. I don't think it's worth giving up a complete list to save a few seconds for admins who want to start reviewing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to go that way, at the very minimum, we need to fix these popup error messages. Gigs (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin who is not willing or capable of adding themselves to the list - or unselecting the script in their Gadgets menu if they don't want to do reviews - raises doubts about their suitability or competence to be an admin. It's not rocket science. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if you remove me from your list. What is not acceptable is to pester people with pop up messages until they agree to uninstall a gadget. That is intrusive beyond the scope of this project. You have no business demanding an editor uninstall a gadget just because they have not used it for a while. If someone only does one review a year there is nothing wrong with that. If there is a competency issue that is a different matter, but that is not a matter for an automated process to deal with. SpinningSpark 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, doesn't this script do things other than AfC (FFU is one thing that's in the documentation and seems to be in the code)? If so, one might want to use it without wanting to sign up for AfC, and even if they do sign up just to get to the bits they want to use, get it revoked in time because they're doing AfC, even though they're using other parts of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFU is a part of AfC, and those that wish to contribute to FFU just need to be whitelisted like any other. I also am in agreeance with Jack and Roger that there is no reason an admin that wants to use the script and contribute should be required to add themselves to the list and if they are unable to do that, I'm left to wonder. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I qualify for reviewership status? I have created more than 15 articles, expanded equal number of stubs and have over 3500 edits, almost all of them barring a few, unreverted. My user page gives more information. Your advice would help. jojo@nthony (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. You've got more than enough experience. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gigs, Will go for it. jojo@nthony (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal To prevent "surprises" like the ones above, I recommend that all administrators be immediately white-listed by the AFC Helper Script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Automatic white-listing - admins)

1. Admins are qualified to do reviews, by our own definitions of qualified. If we want the white list to be an exhaustive list of people performing reviews, then we should add admins to the whitelist automatically, either all of them that have the script turned on (next time the load it), or the next time they perform an action using the script, if we only want active reviewers on the whitelist. As Anne pointed out, the easiest way forward would be to bypass the whitelist with the admin flag in the short term, and then write the auto-adding code later. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. If you have the chops to be an admin, you will know how to use this tool. If you don't, you should be desysopped PDQ before you cause some real damage, though I sincerely hope that affects nobody at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Automatic white-listing - admins)

1. An admin that wants to do AFC reviews with the assistance of the script should enter their names on the list. How do we know that a random admin who walks in from the street knows all the things to check for an AFC review? Admins promoting drafts out of the AFC space run the small problem of having to designate an "ADMIN" (i.e. one that needs discussion before it can be reversed) action vs a action performed by any random editor. I'd much rather the admin have to take positive action for the AFC tools to work than to have it be a "fringe benefit" of the Janitor's Closet keys. I do think that having the tools display an alert to the effect of "Per consensus established at .... usage of the AFCH tool has been restricted to those editors who have signed up at ..." would be judicious as it informs the editor how to go about having the tool be enabled. We may want to change the language in the Preferences->Gadgets option to indicate what the user must do to have the gadget fully enabled as a proactive method when a user is thinking about enabling the tool. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Hasteur. Anyone wanting to do reviews can simply sign up on the list - admins are not a special class of reviewer. If an admin is unable or unwilling to do so it makes one wonder how they got their mop in the first place. Signing up is a trivial step that allows a reasonable level of quality control as agreed through a solid consensus - we've had admins do significant damage here before. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Hasteur. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Hasteur and Roger Dodger67, admins are not a special class of reviewer. Elassint ^Hi 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. There's nothing preventing them from whitelisting themselves, why should we go through and pre-whitelist them if their not interested in contributing. For those admins that have an issue and need help disabling the script or want to be whitelisted but aren't sure exactly what needs doing, just ask, there are plenty of people that can help. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Adminship does not automatically confer mastery of all Wikipedia processes and scripts used within Wikiprojects. Better to let those interested sign up, just like everyone else. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per above users, like Hasteur and Roger Dodger67. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Automatic white-listing - admins)

• My first though on this matter: Why? Sure, most admins will be capable of reviewing article's, but so are many other long term editors who have opted against running an RFA. Why would we need to add a group of editors pro actively if it takes mere seconds for an editor to add him or herself to start with? In my opinion automatic white-listing is pretty much a solution looking for a problem. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "why" should be obvious, because we don't want admins who occasionally do AfC to just go untick AFCH to get rid of the annoying messages, making them less likely to ever do AfC again. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but isn't that an argument against the annoying warning, rather than being an argument to whitelist all admins? After all, what about the longterm editors who only review occasionally? @Theopolisme: Would it be possible \ feasible to display this warning only on pages where an AFC template is actually present? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Excirial: That is *theoretically* possible. The thing is that one big point of the whitelist check is that it is done as soon as the page loads, to prevent unnecessarily loading other pieces of the script that won't be used; checking submission state requires a fair bit of code/api requests/etc... Meh. Kind of surprised at the uproar about this; if you're an AFC reviewer, fine, add you name (it takes ten seconds)...otherwise just uninstall the script. But yeah, as always, Code Monkey here is happy to implement whatever y'all decide. Ah, the joys of volunteering for an open project ;) Theopolisme (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Theopolisme: That sounds like monkey business to me. Silly jokes aside i agree that it is probably a waste of time. There may be some elegant solution for this but i don't think that the effort to code it outweighs the effort required to whitelist oneself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to support or oppose, but as an admin, I do want to say that I'm perfectly capable of adding myself to the list, in fact, I did that when I saw the message, it probably would have taken me longer to figure out where to untick AFCH. So my own view is that it's a very minor thing either way. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 20:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Admins probably do not all have the ability to do good reviews, but, quite frankly, if someone is not capable of it I wonder whether they are qualified for the mop in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To reiterate what I said above, I would expect admins to have some experience of our notability criteria and deletion policies; indeed, experience at AfD is often asked at RfA. Even if one had never seen AfC or the tool before, they should be able to quickly understand what's involved, just like an admin should be able to quickly adapt and understand any situation in order to mediate. I see this just an extension of assuming good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed: Only remove names after 1 year of no reviewer activity

The current page says 2 months of no editing or 6 months of no-reviews. This is probably too short, since many active editors take breaks longer than 2 months. 1 year is a good conservative number while still retaining the idea that if they haven't reviewed in a long time, they should probably check to see if the practice here has changed before resuming reviews.

A lot of these "length of time" RfCs wind up with fractured consensus due to everyone proposing their own length of time, please consider whether you could live with "1 year of no reviews" as the criteria, not whether it's your ideal outcome. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As proposer. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. The whitelist should mainly protect AFC drafts against inexperienced reviewers, not against long-term reviewers who took a break. By comparison the admin policy allows a year of extended leave before a desysop takes place (and three years of absences before requiring another RFA to return sysop powers). We really shouldn't make script access more involved or tedious than we have to. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Departed editors can always be re-added when they return. I see no reason to extend the time period for expiration. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. As I say below, 6/12 is more appropriate than 2/6 or 12/12, and as Chris mentions above, they can always be re-added upon return. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 08:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opposing as written (12/12) . I'd heartily support the 6/12 option if it were available... Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose names being removed from the main reviewer list unless the inactive list is also a whitelist. When the list was divided into active and inactive, there was no thought of not allowing those who had been inactive to review. The only purpose was to help editors wanting to contact a reviewer to see who was active and might respond. Ideally the the script should allow users on both lists to have the script activated without receiving any error messages. As an added bonus, the script could move a username from the inactive to the active list if the user actually performed a function with the script. If this isn't practical, then the two-list system is a nuisance and we should just combine the lists. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC

Comments

• I support the idea that 2/6 months is too short, I oppose the idea that 12/12 months is better. Currently, there is a consensus that 6 months is enough time to delete an abandoned draft per G13, and I believe I saw somewhere that a year of inactivity may be reasonable to desysop someone. So, using those existing consensuses and logical reasoning, I think the perfect middle ground is 6/12 months inactive/reviewless (making sure to look for things like FFU and other AfC related activity other than just article reviews). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: 6/12

To remove user after 6 months of no edits or 12 with no reviews. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as alternative. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

• Reserving my viewpoint until the first question is resolved. A lot of these "length of time" RfCs wind up with fractured consensus due to everyone proposing their own length of time... Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I debated whether to close the 12/12 discussion after Josve05a proposed an alternative because it doesn't look like 12/12 is headed toward consensus at all, but I didn't want to effectively suppress the editors who commented that there probably shouldn't be an inactivity limit, rather than merely opposing 12/12. Gigs (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to say "Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!" in the template telling them their copyright violation was declined and will soon be deleted? Gigs (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's bugged me for a while too. I think we should add a parameter to that template and a checkbox in the helper script to control whether or not to display that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• can you be more clear and specific about what you are talking about? I think you are talking about the AfC template that gets left on the submitters' talk pages upon review, but the context here is just a little too vague for me to be sure. If I am correct, I agree and am thinking that the AFCH should add a parameter to the template call identical to the one it uses for the AFC submission template call on the draft itself and someone like me should go through the template and add custom text for each decline reason that is more clear and descriptive instead of just using the one size fits all message we have been using. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, the contributor's talk page template that is left upon decline. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting a box with this text:

AFCH error: user not listed

AFCH could not be loaded because "Beyond My Ken" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there.

whenever I open anyone's user page? It's pretty annoying. BMK (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: This is due to the "AFC Whitelist Opt-In" being enforced now. [1] should prevent it from annoying you further. Hasteur (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incredibly bad idea. I have to sign onto a list I have no interest in being on in order not to get an error box when I simply go onto anyone's User page? That's absolutely fucking ridiculous, and I think you have better change it immediately. BMK (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLease point me to the consensus discussion that allowed this travesty to happen. BMK (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Beyond My Ken Please be respectful with your language. The RFC was conducted months ago, and the code monkeys finally got around to implementing it. Don't want to be part of the list and don't want the warnings? Disable the AFCH gadget.

When determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia

— Beyond My Ken, Beyond My Ken Talkpage

Hasteur (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare give me the damn schoolmarm bit, buddy, - you've screwed up here, and it needs to be fixed, that's what needs to ne addressed. You should be apologizing to me and the community, not taking me to task about being annoyed, and searching my history for quotes you can fling against me. Stop that shit, please, and fix the fucking problem. BMK (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You implemented a system-wide change (badly) on the basis of am RfC which received the opinions of 14 people? That's just absolutley ridiculous. And why does it come up when I merely looked at a user page? That's not an AfC-related activity. BMK (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple ECs) If you have no interest in doing AFC reviews you can simply deactivate the AFCH script in your "Preferences > Gadgets" menu. If you have no interest in AFC reviewing why did you ever activate the script in the first place? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There's no problem, and most users are unaffected. You were only affected because you enabled the AfC gadget (which is opt-in). Some user pages are AfC submissions, so it tries to load on them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may have done a AfC once or twice, I don't remember, neverthless a change in fuctionality was impelemented, it was done badly, and the response is "stop cursing". Is it any wonder that AfC has the reputation it has? You guys are part of a community here, you know, not some semi-independent principality. BMK (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But that script isn't just for AFC. What about people who want to use the FFU bits, for example, but have no interest in AfC? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If I'm understanding the situation correctly (and that's not a sure thing; I'm not involved in the script development), it is the case that people who have installed AFCH - which they would have done purposely, at some point in the past, either by putting the script in their JS or by enabling it in gadgets - will see this warning if their name is not also listed at the Whitelist page and they go to a page where AFCH "expects" to see an AfC submission. You, in particular, shouldn't be seeing this error anymore even if you keep AFCH installed, Beyond My Ken, because you've been added to the whitelist now. I do agree with you that the warning triggering on userpages seems to be excessive, though. I would have expected it to trigger in the presence of an AfC template, not just "anywhere where AfCs have existed in the past". Script devs, is it possible to change that? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffnutter: Acutally, the user decided to have a tantrum and remove themselves from the list and demand that we fix it another way. The lead developer indicated that it can be done, but it's going to slow the overall loading of any page down when it has to see if there's a AFC banner on the page. Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I agree with Hasteur here, BMK, you have two choices:

1. Have yourself added to the whitelist and contribute to AFC
2. Disable or remove the script that YOU enabled that says you intend to contribute to AFC.

On the flip side, Hasteur or Theopolisme, the error message should be more clear about why they are seeing the message and what they can do to fix it or eliminate it.

I have already disabled the gadget, but that's no longer the point, really. This change was made with no real consensus to do so. Hasteur even wrote on his talk page (in answer to a request of mine not to add my names to any lists without my permission, which he has now deleted, along with his snarky answer) that it was decided by the "AfC community." That's a telling remark. System-wide changes aren't made by a single Wiki-project, they're made with the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community, and cerainly not on the basis of an RfC in which 14 people participated. These are, I'm afraid, part of the reason that AfC has a bad rap, and why Hasteur was admonished by ArbCom for his battlefield mentality. I came here with a valid complaint, mildly annoyed, and instead of trying to placate me and explain the situation, Hasteur added my name to a list without my permission, and, yes, after that I was thoroughly pissed off. It appears to me that AfC, and Hasteur in particular, need to remember that they are part of the Wikipedia community and are answerable to it for this decisions and mistakes. I don't see that attitude here, I'm seeing "Oh, he's just an angry mastodon throwing tantrums, we don't have to deal with him." That's just wrong. BMK (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there were over 60 people involved in the consensus that led to this change... Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission was the first big proposal on the subject. As far as Hasteur goes, most will tell you that him and I don't always agree (and we've gone head to head and aren't exactly on talking terms right now after our last disagreement), but on this I do agree with him and there was plenty of backing by the entire community as there were three RfCs that led to this, with nearly 100 participants in total, and there were consensuses in each phase of the proposal for this to move on down this path. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper:, FFU is a part of AfC (and technically so is categories for creation, redirects for creation, and templates for creation as far as I know). People wishing to contribute to FFU, should whitelist themselves (or get themselves whitelisted when the protection level on the whitelisting page increases so that it can actually mean something and be enforced). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly seems to me that he was paying attention to some angry mastodon that the rest of us didn't see. It's just a box, possibly appearing because of a bug, and bugs happen all the time. A very minor annoyance at the very worst. Elassint ^Hi 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor annoyance, I agree. The situation became a major annoyance the way my complaint was mishandled here. BMK (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will now try to write as best as I can trying to figure this out, please do not SCREAM at me if I do something wrong here!

1. The AfC-community (together with others) decided that the use of the tools wich is used for AfC should only be allowed to be used by whitelisted users, as with the AWB-tool. There were clear consensus for this!
2. The programmers finally implemented this, which caused users which had turned on the tool, either in gadgets in settings or in their .js-page, see a message saying that they can't use the tool.
   • This did not cause a sytem-wide change, it only changed the tools, which these kind people have created, which is their right to do.
3. Now multiple users are suprized of this message. All I can say is THIS IS NOT A BUG! or anyone's fault/problem! You choosed to turn the tool on, then you can turn the tool off or whitelist yourself, as multiple other tools have done it.

(t) Josve05a (c) 09:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. At first my reaction was like BMK's (toned down a tad) but then I read through the reasoning and discussions and decided that doing a minimum of one review every six months isn't exactly an unbearable burden. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implement the changes specified in this revisions exactly to the requested page. Purpose is to deprecate the WT:AFC prefix as a valid destination for pages that aren't in the WT:AFC prefix space or the Drafts namespace. The purpose is to get us away from having any de-facto endorsement of WT:AFC being a valid location.Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I oppose this change and this opposition counts as the REVERT phase in the BRD process (The request here is the BOLD phase if there is any confusion). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that a different editor please re-review this request. How many times are we going to have this same dammed discussion? Technical 13 is substituting his own judgement over policy based reuqests. As per the above sections, we can't deprecate the WT:AFC prefix until the templates are changed, we can't change the Article Wizard's AFC destination until the templates are changed, we can't do many things untill the templates are changed. This is a baby step to remove the WT:AFC prefix as a endorsed destination. There is already significant support by AFC members to get us moved over to Draft space. Furthermore Technical 13 was already WP:INVOLVED with respect to Templates and the deprecation of the WT:AFC prefix as he closed the previous discussion for the exact same obstructionist reasons. I positively assert that Technical13 has now substituted their own judgement instead of the will of the community on 2 Template-protected edit requests and question their fitness for holding the template-editor privilege. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Asked and answered. B R D. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2014_1#Template-protected_edit_request_on_2_January_2014 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2014_1#Template-protected_edit_request_on_24_February_2014 in addition to the multiple discussions above with a clear consensus for deprecating. How many damn times are we going to have this same damn argument with the same damn obstructionists claiming they want time to fix things but never do anything? I'd lasso Anne Delong into fulfilling this request, but she's already expressed an opinion so she'd be disqualified as being involved. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd be interested to know upon what you base your assertion that only an uninvolved template editor can either make the edit or say no. And I also don't appreciate your tone. You get more flies with sugar, honey, so stop dissin' and start discussin'. It is obvious to me that this has not been discussed enough. Some want to move forward quickly and some want to move more slowly. As an uninvolved editor my best input at this point would have to be WP:TIND. And do please hold your fingers (keyboard equivalent to "hold your tongue"). Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There's absolutely consensus to use the draft space for AfC, and the RfC consensus was that AfC would be transplanted there "as-is", at least initially. What would require consensus are the additional improvements that Technical 13 proposes. We already have consensus to just move AfC to Draft, without making any other changes to the way AfC works. Obviously, after we do that, they'll be lots of opportunities to improve the way we conduct AfC, but the fact that we haven't hashed those out yet is not a valid reason to filibuster the implementation of the existing consensus for an "as-is" move of AfC operations. Gigs (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other editors who can edit templates in this discussion. I appreciate that they may consider themselves exempt from making particular edits due to their involvement; however, I would at least like to hear from those like Jackmcbarn and Anne Delong before any movement forward in regard to this particular edit. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a proposal further up this page HERE in which a consensus appears to be forming. So far no one but Technical 13 appears to be worried about changing the Afc processes before moving new submissions to the new space. There are some imperfections left in the way that the Afc templates and script work in Draft space (see the thread further down this page HERE), but these are being worked on. I am in favour of the proposal, but waiting a little while to allow more editors to comment may be appropriate, since it was just proposed yesterday. Unless there is a sudden 180 degree shift, though, it's unlikely that the reviewers will agree to wait for the changes T13 wants, even if some of them think that those changes would be a good idea. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for shedding more light on this. I still have concerns about the desires expressed by Tech 13, whom I revere highly as one of the best template editors I know, and whom I've seen himself pitted against an "obstructionist" (in that case, myself), during which he, unlike certain edit requesters 'round here, was able to keep a civil tongue in his head. I would like to wait for more input rather than run the risk of opening a can of worms only to have to go looking for a bigger can. You have been most helpful, thank you! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. When the gadget tells the editor where to find their current article, it assumes it is in the old scheme, not in "Draft:". This requires manual intervention, which is not a big deal unless one forgets. Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I assume you're using the mainline AFCH gadget. Yep, we'd like to fix that, but because it's a breaking change to the {{Afc decline}} template (and the underlying {{AFC submission/location}} template) we can't move forward. If we could secure a consensus to move all of the pending AFC drafts to the draft space (see "Proposed: That a bot be allowed to move all Pending AFC submissions to Draft space" section above), to change the output of the Article Wizard for AFC creations (see "Proposed change: Make the Article Wizard place new submissions in the prefix 'Draft:'" section above), and change some of the underlying tools we use in the AFC process (see "Template-protected edit request on 7 May 2014" section above) we could make the change you invision, but of course we can't because we need more time to talk about our feelings and how to perfectly engineer a process and how to be the least disruptive to the least engaged users of wikipedia. So in short, your suggestion will never happen for the sheer bureaucratic inertia that we've gathered up around ourselves. Hasteur (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, ok, but no, not really ok. Many things can inspect the namespace and use a little coding to create the correct character string in the link to the document. Thus no actual consensus is required, just a clever bit of code. I do mean the AFCH gadget.

No-one needs a bot to clean up. All they need to do is work on the old AFC stream and the new Draft: stream. The category logging all AFC submissions is able to cope. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I could just stop the new hobby I have, which is starting to go through the backlog of submissions because it is just too annoying. Or I could ignore the incorrect links, which makes the AFC process look silly and confusticates the newbies. Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, time to lead you down the path... The gadget places a substituted version of{{Afc decline}} in the user's talk page [2] or [3]. So those work just fine because the path to the page is provided in the full parameter. If just the subpagename is provided as a relative parameter (i.e. parameter 1 to the template) we have to invoke {{AFC submission/location}} to put the presumed basepath in. We could edit the template to take out that, but we have to give a warning that it's going to happen. I announced the deprecation of that form at the documentation page for the template, so hopefully come July 1 we can finally fix this. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could alter the template to be smart, too, I imagine. Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Timtrent. Please don't stop working at Afc - we need all the help we can get! There are some technical issues with the two spaces being used at once, plus the helper script is undergoing a total rewrite, but there's been a steady improvement. I find that if I report problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite they are fixed up fairly quickly by Theopolisme and helpers. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left the smallest of notes there. Thank you Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've talked about misplaced links when the draft is in Draft: space, but could you also please address the problem of misplaced links when the draft is in a user sandbox. I have lost count of the number of cases I've seen where the required manual intervention by the reviewer has not taken place, and I'm sure that the broken links must be confusing some of Wikipedia's new contributors. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original script was never intended to be used on user pages. Until last year, all of the submissions were moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. That's why the template says "This submission should probably be at..." For some reason, some editors have stopped doing the moves, likely because it takes a little more time. If this causes problems, the solution is easy: move the page to the review area, giving it an appropriate title, and review it there, where everything works as it should. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]