If you wish to join the project you may add yourself to the list, don't ask here. Remember, you MUST have 500 ARTICLE edits!!! Thanks!

Archive

Requests

Please add me * {{user2|Nafsadh}} to participants list. I am interested to lend my time in reviewing AfCs. – nafSadh did say 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have added your name (though at the moment you can do so yourself... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add myself valoem (talk · contribs). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still can not access the help script. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done You have already added yourself. --Biblioworm 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add myself. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 19:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You do not yet have 500 edits to article space. --Biblioworm 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join. I have written a few articles: a few are copy-paste pages (episode pages, character list, etc.), two active articles Brett Dier and Dirty Grandpa and two drafts Draft:Fifty Shades (film series) and Draft:Grey (book) (brand new artcile). I have reviewed newly-created pages from registered users and IPs in the past. Thank you, Callmemirela (Talk) 23:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: You can just go ahead and add yourself, you have plenty of articlespace edits. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join, although I have under 3 months (90 days) on Wikipedia. Should I come back when I have reached that requirement? --Anarchyte 11:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough to 90 days with a cursory look at edits, so I've added you to the list Anarchyte Mdann52 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join the project. I have helped to create articles in the mainspace and i would see the opportunity as a worthy extension to my wp editing.Rhumidian (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done You have already added yourself. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Rhumidian, judging by this, I think it is safe to assue that you fully meet with the required criteria for reviewing AfC submissions. There is therefore nothing to prevent you from adding yourself to the list. Happy reviewing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join this project. I have over 1600 edits and frequently monitor the new pages and tag them when necessary. I also use huggle to perform many of my duties. Thanks! -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I eligible to join this project? If yes, please add me.User:AnanthanarayanaSharma —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- -- -- 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:111.250.56.144, I want to join, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.250.56.144 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. One of the requirements to join the AfC reviewing team is a Wikipedia account. IP editors are precluded from reviewing. However, you are welcome to register an account and try again once you have met the four criteria at WP:WPAFC/P. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join. Thanks! Delta13C (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I can add myself! Delta13C (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re add me to the project.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 16:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Please change If you participate in this WikiProject to If you want to participate in this WikiProject, as they cannot use the helper tool until they are on the list. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 08:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can make changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/header which is not protected. I've made a few changes myself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that! Cheers Martin, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how "a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles" is checked? Is there a script that does that and is the code available? I've been wanting something like that for purposes completely unrelated to AFC. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 50.0.205.75. Go the person's contributions page and scroll to the box at the very bottom. Inside that box click on Edit count and it will produce that information and much more. Here's yours, for example. Help:User contributions has some other tips. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This tool allows you to see all the articles an editor has created including the deleted ones (if any). Just type the user name in the box without the "User:" prefix. Here's an example showing a user with both live articles and deleted articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thanks, yeah, that's less useful than what I was hoping for though. I misread "undeleted edits" as "unreverted edits", i.e. the person contributed info to an article that actually stayed in the article. I didn't realize "deleted" meant the page that the edits were on had been deleted. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that first tool will tell you how many edits have been outright reverted. Take a look at the one for me [1]. Under the Live Edits heading it shows 33 reverted edits (scroll down). But I think that tool only picks up straightforward reverts. It won't pick additions that get removed or drastically altered after intervening edits by other users. Voceditenore (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is interesting, I didn't know about it, it's still not what I'm looking for but it's a start. Thanks! 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, since it appears that the RfC to fully protect this page will succeed, there are a few questions I want to ask:

1. Will admins be able to reject editors even if they meet the requirements?
2. Will non-admins have any part in the approval process, or is it an admin-only area?
3. Will this page be attended to, or will requests stay around for days? I already see a request that was made on the 24th and hasn't been answered.
4. What will happen if a reviewer is inactive? Will he be removed from the list, and forced to reapply? --Biblioworm 01:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm: In reply to #3, if and when the PP happens, editors will be instructed to use Template:AFC Request, which will automagically add a Edit protected request template to draw admin attention. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the RfC to fully protect the participants page will succeed. However, I think it is important for others to hear a detailed case on the other side of the story. There are several reasons why the page should not be fully protected.

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As I once read, the goal of a wiki is not to make mistakes difficult to make, but rather to make it easy to correct them when they happen. Protection should be avoided whenever possible. To quote WP:PROTECT: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors." Unqualified users adding their names to the AfC participation list is not an critically urgent matter, and I fail to understand what is so difficult about pressing the undo button with a quick explanation in the edit summary. I don't see an unmanageable situation. Over the span of three months, for instance (December 2014—February 2015), there were about 20 unqualified additions that were forcefully reverted. That averages to roughly one unqualified addition once every 4.5 days. Surely, we're not so lazy that we couldn't simply ask more experienced users to add the page to their watchlist and occasionally revert unqualified additions, right? Of course, there were some days when there were more unqualified additions than usual, but temporary protection for a few hours should be enough to fix that. The point is that supporters of the indefinite full protection are exaggerating the severity of the problem by making it seem that it takes a lot of trouble to deal with unqualified entries.
• An approval process adds more complication and bureaucracy to a simple WikiProject. Signing up to review submissions is not like applying for RfPERM/RfA/ArbCom. The trouble of going through this approval-by-admins process will cause more trouble than it's worth, because users who just want to help may be discouraged by being forced to write some application and then letting it sit for a few days on the approval page. (Let's not kid ourselves; everyone should know perfectly well that bureaucracy is always slow.) This will decrease the amount of new reviewers and will encourage the backlog to grow. Also, I must say that it is my personal opinion that the importance of AfC is being exaggerated. From what I gather, AfC was the process introduced as a result of the Seigenthaler incident so that IP users could still (indirectly) create articles. In my opinion, AfC should simply be the process by which it is ensured that there are not critical problems with an article, such as BLP issues, vandalism, or something that qualifies for speedy deletion. If a person wants to directly create an article, all they have to do is create an account, which doesn't take but a few seconds, so AfC is not especially preventative.
• An approval process opens up an opportunity for the approving user to impose their own criteria upon the applying user. For instance, a person handling applications could refuse to add a user they simply dislike, because they could come up with an excuse which says that the applying user hasn't shown satisfactory knowledge of the AfC guidelines, or something similar. (Besides, I think that particular requirement is rather silly, anyway, because we'll never know how good a person is at anything unless we give them a chance.)

Thanks, --Biblioworm 15:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles are great. But they lose a lot of their potential if other people with the same topic idea for a new article don't notice them. I think the search box at Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Subject for the selected subject should show Draft: namespace articles by default. And so should landing at a page that doesn't exist. Current example: Alice_Bowman doesn't note that there is an existing draft: Draft:Alice_Bowman.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcb (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a point on your last point - we can't have a note at *every* page that there is a draft that might at some point resemble a reasonable article. This is (in particular) because not every draft will become an article, but also because it would mean creating thousands of new pages that only said "someone's making a draft on this subject." Primefac (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be able to do this on the fly next to 'You may create the page "Foolandffaseq"' on a search for a string. So instead of 'You may create the page "Foolandffaseq"'. , it says 'You may create the page "Foolandffaseq". A draft has been created at "Draft:Foolandffaseq", do you want to look at that?' or something similar.Naraht (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, sorry for the confusion. Thanks, Naraht - that's exactly what I was thinking of. Essentially 1) changing the search box, when used under such circumstances, to include Drafts. Then 2) be sure to enable searching drafts when the search is done from pages that don't exist yet. If that seems to be working, it would be straightforward to 3) have the auto-generated page for nonexistant articles include the search results for the exact same page title in the Draft namespace, without actually creating any pages. Of course there would be some performance impact, and I don't know how much, for doing step 3. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AN3 Report 1 and WP:AN3 report 2. Report 2 may be merged into report 1 or vice versa at some future time.

I am expressing concern that an editor with small track record of edits is insisting in a combative manner on forcing their way into becoming a reviewer rather than waiting to serve their necessary number of edits. I feel that a combative and argumentative attitude is counter to our requirements of a reviewer, someone from whom we require a collegial way of working and empathy with new editors over their often rather challenging submissions.

I will be inviting Olowe2011 here formally in addition to pinging them and also placing an invitation on relevant AFC fora for editors to offer opinions. I am making no proposal here at this stage, simply expressing concern. Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get it out of the way up front, I did not handle this as well as I could have. While the discussion about this user should take place here, the move to actually direct them here should have been done on their talk page. My apologies for all of the hassle this has caused. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so up front about that, Primefac. However, one has the right to expect someone wishing to join a project handling the submissions of inexperienced editors to have the inherent ability to determine where, how, and whether to continue with a course of action. While your actions may have been a contributing factor to the unpleasant behaviour I do not think anyone can see them as the cause, with the possible exception of the editor concerned, of course! Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have now invited them, and placed relevant invitations, including one at AN3 Report 1 (above). Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really an unpleasant behavior I should say. Particularly concerning considering the area of work (AfC), where there's a lot of dealing with new, potentially ignorant editors, which requires a significant amount of patience and cooperation. The requirement to be a reviewer is very meager. I'm not sure how an editor not patient enough to meet this meager requirement will be patient enough to handle newbies... *sigh* Regards --JAaron95 ^Talk 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pray tell how I might have initiated a combative stance when I made a clear representation that I was prepared to open up amicable discussions on the issue [2] I don't understand why you keep using my number of edits to define my level of editorial skill to be honest, I feel that is rather judgemental and it isn't exactly conducive of a proper "non combative" discussion. The facts are that one or a group of people thought it was decent and acting in good faith to revert my name contribution to the list so that I am able to use the tool despite the fact I offered to open up amicable discussions. It's not exactly showing of a "non combative stance" when editors decide to relentlessly revert my contributions simply because they seem to judge me as ill experienced based on ? It's not my intention to bulldoze in here and get what I want by throwing policy around, I am acting in Good faith. My only desire is access to the tool so that it can help me make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I'm not subscribing to a cartel community simply because it's forcing it's way onto me. I appreciate that my edits and contributions are subject to editor review and even reconstruction ect however I simply won't accept that I am being refused access to a tool that can make my Wikipedia life simpler simply because I want to curtail my direct involvement with a community formed around the tool. I've shown my ability to make non disruptive edits. You guys are slightly scary I have to say, I've not used Wikipedia in quite some time and when I return I get caught up in editors seemingly hell-bent on expelling anyone other than "pro editors." There should be room for new people to come in and make useful contributions while being supported by the community ... Not set out against by it. olowe2011 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This shows the difficulty. WP:AFC requires substantial tact and diplomacy, something we all fall short of at times. Most folk when wanting to join a particular area with rules await their full compliance with those rules, rules made clear on the joining page. Most folk do not attempt to bulldoze their way through the door and then complain to whatever they perceive the authorities to be when the tracks are removed from their bulldozer.

Expelling? Not so. You have not joined. And you are not the victim here. My worry is that the attitude you are continuing to show will be expressed in any reviews you might make of submissions by new and vulnerable editors.

In short, at present, my view, one you have just reinforced, is that you are unsuitable for this project. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Olowe2011 should thoroughly read relevant policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Recent actions indicate that they are not (fully) familiar with the main policies. I would also say that they should wait until they have enough experience in mainspace before reviewing drafts. I think this behavior is not suitable to this project. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Olowe2011: I can see the reason behind your opinions, but I am also beginning to doubt your experience. There are many tools with requirements as to how many mainspace edits an editor must have, for example, AWB, Twinkle and STiki. Requests for bureaucratship and adminship also require reviewing the editor's edits. Even if an editor shows a clean track record, concluding that he or she will therefore use the tool properly does not seem very wise if he or she has very few edits. In your case, you have less than 300 mainspace edits, and editors at your "age" are usually "immature". It is perfect sensible that there is such a requirement. Furthermore, it is difficult to find proof that you are an experienced editor. Then comes the matter of principle. It doesn't seem right for editors to be allowed just because they have a strong stance and insist that they are capable. Just like a court case, a bad example is to be avoided. These are just my personal opinions. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Please note that Olowe2011 is starting a 24 hour block, whose details may be seen at the AN3 links above, at least until they are archived. Fiddle Faddle 14:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello @Olowe2011: Seems like you are caught up in a disagreement with other editors. We all make mistakes and we correct it. I should make one thing clear. No one here is a PRO editor and no one is trying to scare you off! In fact we want you to stay here and make Wikipedia, a better place. All are equal. We gotta abide by some policies and guidelines and that's it! There are many policies and guidelines in Wikipedia and I'll point you to the relevant guideline (answer to 'why you were reverted?').

1. First off, article for creation is a place/wikiproject, where new editors (I mean 'new' not you!) submit articles they've created for review, and reviewers (the people in the list where you were trying to add your name) review the article and publish them to mainspace (ordinary articles) if it passes all the Wikipedia guidelines or decline them stating that the article cannot be accepted at that time and requires further improvement.
2. B, to be a reviewer there are some minimum requirements. Your account must be 90 days old (which you clearly pass! ) and your account must have atleast 500 mainspace edits (which BTW sadly you don't). Don't believe me? See for yourself! Go to this link and the red portion on the pie chart is the number of mainspace edits you have (you had 232 edits when I saw). Isn't it less than 500? Unfortunately you don't pass the requirement now and I request you to kindly abstain from re-adding your name to the list. But, there's a good news! You are forever free to add or remove your name to the list, once you pass the 500 mainspace edits mark!

We count on you, and I hope you'll understand! Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 14:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good teaching appears to be virtual education. Nannadeem (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Olowe2011, and welcome to AfC. I understand your frustration, and I've never personally supported the editcountedis system, but it recieved consensus to be enforced, because it was better than any other system proposed at the discussion. A few points:

• Accusations of misconduct should be supported with diffs or other evidence at every level of dispute resolution, including the informal "holding a discussion with the editor". This makes your argument stronger, allows the user in question to refute the diffs individually instead of on a general "I wasn't doing it" way, and allows neutral third parties to evaluate.
• To be perfectly clear, the "30 days/500 mainspace" rule is not a policy or guideline; it received consensus and can be enforced, but has never been designated a policy or guideline.
• Edit-warring is never ok, and will get your arguments ignored, even if your argument is good.
• As many of us have stated, it's very usual to make mistakes sooner or later on WIkipedia; don't fret it or anything. I appreciate the attitude you've usually used in these discussions.

I realize you've already been told the majority of advice here, but I wanted to reinforce it, if you don't mind. Thanks for your time. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a second opinion on a recent addition to the AFCH list, Arifjwadder. While they meet the 500 edits criteria (barely), I believe that their grasp of notability is not suitable for reviewing drafts. This is due to the seven pages they have created and have since been deleted, as well as a draft that has been declined multiple times. Rather than engage in another edit war, I thought I would get opinions from other experienced editors. I welcome Arifjwadder to give comment as to why they feel that they should be an AFC reviewer. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the pages which were deleted was the initial pages i created. The draft page has not been created by me. My total page creation is 19 so far and not seven. Arifjwadder (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arifjwadder, I did not say all of your pages were deleted. However, I did notice that a good number of the remaining pages are tagged as potentially being non-notable themselves. My question to you was mostly questioning why you want to be a draft reviewer, and if you feel you are comfortable with the different reasons a draft can be declined or accepted. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the articles have been tagged non-notable by only one person who tags whatever i work on.Arifjwadder (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Latest creations, poorly/doesn't comply with the policy. When my article doesn't meet the criteria, how come I'll be able to judge other articles? I would like to see a bit more experience from this user. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was removed from the Participants list. I'm assuming this is because I have fewer than 500 article edits. I have two questions. One: is there a way I can demonstrate that I don't need 500 edits to be responsible enough to review? Two: if not, will I be welcomed back once I attain this goal? Thanks, and I admire your guys's work, Fritzmann2002 23:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. You need 500 edits.
2. Yes, you will be more than welcome! -- -- -- 23:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the new protection level created 30/500 which requires users to have the extended confirmed user right. This right automatically granted after 30 days and 500 edits. The requirements to be a reviewer is beyond or equal to those standards. Understanding that currently this protection is a type of arbcom protection, I feel it may have some uses in project space, would it be beneficial to look into having the protection of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants page increased from Semi to 30/500? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Would save us a lot of reverts (and hurt feelings). Primefac (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Excellent suggestion. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few notes left at Tseung Kwan O's user talk regarding their reviewing record and some of the issues associated with it. As a brief summary, they seem to be mechanically declining (or accepting) drafts simply based on the number of references, they have missed copyvios, they give poor feedback, and in general they seem to be discouraging new users due to a lack of advice and/or replies.

I know we don't often kick people off the project, but I was wondering if I could get opinions from other helpers. I'm pinging DGG, Jimfbleak, and Soni as they were involved in the original discussion, Kudpung since it appears they are involved in the "cleanup" effort, and Tseung Kwan O as it is their AFC future we are discussing. I should mention that Tseung Kwan O has not responded to any messages left for them, either from AFC members or draft submitters. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

missing blatant spam too, and counting, but not checking, references. This user really needs to do more editing to see how things work. Good intentions aren't enough if there are half a dozen experienced editors clearing up the mess. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would note that Tseung Kwan O has been responsive on their talk page, as is evident on their talk archives. A lot of the talk page sections on their page, including the current notes in question, are likely written after their latest editing session. So we cannot be sure if they are being unresponsive.

I agree with everything else that Primefac said though.

Soni (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, and I should have noticed that they have not been on-wiki for a few days. I have stricken my above comment. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be watching to see if he returns. In the meantime I'm trying to answer the people who have been askign questions and deal properly with their articles. I could use some help with that. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]