Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

If you wish to join the project you may add yourself to the list, don't ask here. (Suspended due to bad actors adding themselves - just ask below) Remember, you MUST have 500 ARTICLE edits!!! Thanks!

Requests

Note - All archived requests older than two months can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Old Requests.

• Making a request to join since there is no way to add myself at the moment; all requirements met. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to add myself and take part in this AFC project. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to exclude myself from participating in AfC because my iPad can't support the AFCH anymore. 333-blue 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, can you pls add me? Thanks. Passion1000 (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add my name to the list, but it seems like I can't. How are you going to get volunteers if they can't join by following the instructions? Please add my name to the list, and consider amending or clarifying the instructions so that they are possible to follow. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done This is exactly how one requests to be added. It's fully-protected because we have had a very large surge of people who are nowhere near qualified, and full protection was (unfortunately) the only way for us to deal with the issue. Hopefully we can reduce the protection level at some point. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also changed the header message to indicate coming here is the correct procedure. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please allow access to this platform, to expand my portfolio. Entry-requirements met. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sb2001, questions for you. First, what do you mean "portfolio"? If you're just looking to be a hat-collector, I suggest looking elsewhere. Second, in looking at your talk page, there are a lot of concerns regarding the MOS guidelines. Will you be declining drafts if they don't meet stylistic guidelines? Primefac (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  By expansion of portfolio, I mean move into other areas of WP. I am trying not just to stay around the MoS. The stuff on my talk page is mostly SMcC looking to criticise. I explained to him that I was not aware of the MoS. That is all sorted now. Check my contributions—they are very much centred around bringing articles into MoS-compliance. I would decline a draft based on style, but will offer helpful advice, and correct it myself, if possible. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 01:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I would probably accept the draft, and then make changes to it myself—to bring it in-line with the MoS. This seems like a much more effective solution than simply declining it. And no, I am not a 'hat-collector', as you put it. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 01:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't accusing you, and I apologize if it came across like that. We've had issues with people joining simply to say that they had joined, then doing nothing or (worse yet) doing bad reviews.

  With regards to the MOS question - a draft should never be declined purely on the basis of formatting, so your revised answer pleases me. It takes much less time for someone who knows what they're doing to fix minor style issues than it does for a relative newbie.

  I do encourage you to ask questions of other reviewers if you have them, but for the moment I think your request can be Accepted. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. No need to apologise; my phrasing was a little ... abrupt. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 01:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Request to join. Requirements met. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you added him into the wrong place. -- -- -- 20:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. -- -- -- 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Request to join. Requirements met. Please grant permission --KamalMahrshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Not done - insufficient experience. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add me back on. Thanks! Mdann52 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Primefac (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Request to join. Old username was TheMagnificentist. Zawl (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straw poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERM

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

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

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

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

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

{{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}

~~~~

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

PERM 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to be added to the AFC reviewer list. I have already made 71 contributions to the AFC help desk responding to AFC queries over the past months, and feel ready to review submissions as they come in; thus would love to help with the backlog in this area of Wikipedia as I feel I can contribute. It appears the page is protected, so I am placing this request here. Isingness (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]