The "processing too many applications" section appears to give priority to users creating quality content in English Wikipedia over those creating quality content, potentially even featured content, in other Wikipedias. Is this what we want to be doing, or should this list be rewritten?
I mean to prioritize non-English users who are content creators, but may not be in the topic area over English not Quality content contributors (Foundation priorities are in diversifying our impact across wikis).Sadads (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We sometimes get people filling out the email form who haven't applied on-wiki - how should we address this issue on this page?
I haven't had that experience. Do you want to add a bullet to the "#2" in "Collecting information and issuing accounts'? Sadads (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have several on the Cochrane list at the moment, including one listing a username that doesn't appearing to be registered on en-wiki. I've added something to the point on spotchecking, but should we add them (if approved) to the on-wiki list also? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to address the issue of topic bans or similar in these instructions? How about users who retire or go inactive before being approved?
I will add something on retirement/inactivity. As for topic bans: I don't expect our volunteers to spend that much time screening applicants against ArbCom's list. Also, even with a topic ban, usually those are pretty narrow, and our partner databases are much broader. I would be very suprised if a user wouldn't be able to use a partner source for other topics? Sadads (talk)
This has come up with regards to medical sources in particular - one user (who was rejected for other reasons) applied with the express purpose of working in the alternative-medicine area, in which he was facing a potential topic ban. It shouldn't come up often, so I can go with not mentioning it here, but it can happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we want a disclaimer for narrow-topic databases, especially ones of critical knowledge areas (like health). I could imagine medical database citations becoming rather hairy, rather quick, when users are misbehaving. Perhaps just a "make sure to spot check the contributions and user talk page history for signs of behaviour under examination by the community (i.e. Topic bans, copyvio, etc). Sadads (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If after you remind the user to complete the form they still haven't done so, how long should we wait before yielding the access to someone on the waitlist?
I am running into that problem with a couple users at WP:BNA. I would say a month and two pings, but it would be nice to have a consensus amongst us for that one. Sadads (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One big thing that seems to be missing from this page is archiving. Do we want a two-part archive like we have for HighBeam (Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications and Wikipedia:HighBeam/Approved), a simpler one-part archive listing all applications with the tick or x, a simpler one-part archive listing only approved accounts (Wikipedia:Cochrane/Approved...? There's also the off-wiki "archive" included in some of the current Google forms.
Another thing missing is the "technical support" page, or any discussion of how we might address technical issues. Obviously this will vary from partner to partner. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great feedback on the page @Nikkimaria:; I responded above, a couple of which could use your further input/writing. Otherwise, does the advise conform to your experience? It would be great to have any other input, Sadads (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
