Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

FloridaArmy

For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to this ANI issue — offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to Template:AFC statistics/pending they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected Draft:Koninklijke Militaire School with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with {{submit}} so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers). Thoughts? KylieTastic (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This needs to go back to ANI. I will point out that the drafts you listed (except the school) were legislators and per WP:NPOL are presumed notable. Theoretically, those drafts ought to be approved now, as is. I agree, this sort of nonsense is not the optimal way to build an encyclopedia but I recall Jayen466 saying "Whatever Wikipedia as a community is doing, it is more of a vehicle for contributors' self-indulgence than it is a concerted endeavour to bring free knowledge to the world." FloridaArmy is just being self-indulgent, like most editors are. Don't be surprised when the cohort at ANI defends one of their own. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: "just being self-indulgent, like most editors are" - damn, that's a depressing view on people! KylieTastic (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started rejecting the articles that they resubmit with serious improvements as WP:GAMING the system and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I also decline when they submit articles that have multiple explict grammar/spelling issues or have issues with improperly formatted references. If they're not going to take the time to put together a proper article, then I'm not going to waste my time with deep diving the references.

I've noticed that the problematic articles are typically the ones about actors from the silent film era. I've started decline those unless there's a clear sourcing demonstrating they've had major roles in wiki-notable films.

I would support any further action in an ANI, just ping me to it. I think limiting the amount of pending drafts is probably the best solution. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sulfurboy - Do you mean that you are "rejecting the articles that they resubmit with serious improvements" or that you are rejecting the articles that they submit without serious improvements? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is bad as that from personal experience of going through several dozens of FloridaArmy's stuff in the past. I think certainly some articles that came through are rank. This draft article, Draft:Albert Percy Godber I think is notable, although it needs some work certainly. It has not been given a fair shake, due to to the blizzard of rank coming through. The ideal solution would be to encourage the editor on the larger articles, to try and improve them, and reject all the rank one liners outright, that are no use to man nor god. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the worst draft i've seen: Draft:Lucius Wimbush. The minimum amount of effort expended here, is mind boggling. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:KylieTastic, for showing us why FloridaArmy is using AFC. I must not have been following WP:ANI at the time. I sometimes do and sometimes don't (and may have been sick at the time). They are an "interesting" case as one of the largest stub-creators we have, and many of their stubs are marginally good enough. I have dealt with some of their silent-film stubs, and with legislator stubs. I may comment more shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If the question is whether to go back to WP:ANI, my question is what we would ask from the community, and whether we, a subcommunity, can simply impose our own quasi-sanctions. I agree that a lot of their submissions are crud, but the thing about two-sentence sub-stubs is that they are easy enough to decline or reject without the reviewer doing a lot of work. Maybe we are just trying too hard to do more than our share of the work. FA is, overall, a small net positive to the encyclopedia, which is more than can be said of the submitter of Draft:Back Market, but perhaps in both cases we as a subcommunity just need to push back. Is there anything that ANI can do that we can't do by just pushing back? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What if we, the AFC reviewers, make a rule that anything that isn't right on the second submission goes into the Rejection bin? What if we, the reviewers, make a rule that anything coming from anyone that isn't right on the third submission goes into the Rejection bin? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel that I should mention under this header that, in my opinion, FloridaArmy has done some good work in getting drafts on state supreme court justices (of which there are well over a thousand) in shape to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree BD2412 they have and continue to do so much good for the project, which is why it's so frustrating to have the other side of their work. It's a real Jekyll and Hyde that is baffling. I guess many articles they submit are just with what they believe is the minimum to get accepted by the guidelines, rather than what most would do and try to add more to make notability clear. KylieTastic (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that they believe that it's racism rather than poor sourcing that is the issue... see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Racism_on_Wikipedia. That's an angle I had not even considered..... but then I care not one iota of the race, gender, age of either the subject or the submitter. I agree that it sucks really bad that history has failed both women, minorities (and others) but I will treat them the same as subjects I'm interested in but don't have sources.... individuals desires don't matter squat. Show me sources and I'm happy to accept anyone. Sources do exist for some, and with a brief scan I added 2 to Henry Cardozo and Lucius Wimbush. There is a ton load of racism in the world, but I see no evidence that it has played any part in AfC declines against FA. KylieTastic (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• We all see a lot of of Florida's submissions. I think there are two issues here. One: Florida has a very different view on notability than most of us, and has been pushing it for some time. Two: They are not very careful. Florida's approach is scattershot, they throw a lot at the wall, and some of it sticks. Certainly, Florida is a prolific creator, and has gotten a great many articles approved. But every day a great many are declined too, which sucks up our time. Perhaps what is needed is some sort of submission limit for Florida? Such as a three strikes system, where two declines and the third is always a rejection? Or perhaps auto-rejecting non-improved drafts? Florida has been at this for years and should know better. But that sort of thing may need to happen at ANI, not here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:CaptainEek that we should follow a three-strike system. I am inclined to think that we should employ a three-strike system on any editor who resubmits without actively asking for advice. I agree that two strikes should be enough sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sigh. I've been following Florida Army for a long time, and now that I've gotten involved with AfC reviews, I'm seeing him a lot more. Here's my take on things. As I've told him many times (and I'm sure others have too), he should concentrate on writing fewer articles of higher quality. And he should be more open to accepting constructive criticism from his fellow editors. And he should learn how to research topics beyond doing a google search and mindlessly copying the top 3 or 4 ghits. And he should absolutely stop wasting reviewers' time by resubmitting garbage drafts with no substantial improvements. But, the bottom line is he keeps finding interesting and important (if not necessarily notable by our standards) historical topics to write about. Damn, I'd rather have an encyclopedia full of badly written silent film stubs than one full of perfectly written UPE biography, corporate, and struggling entertainer spam. If wading through piles of FloridaArmy's sub-stubs is the price for that, then I say, bring it on. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:RoySmith that FloridaArmy is much to be preferred over spam, and that FloridaArmy is a net positive and the spammers are negative (without providing any counterbalancing positive). I think it is silly to expect that FloridaArmy will ever focus on creating fewer better articles. We have to recognize that they are a prolific stub-creator, and that we would rather curse about them than not have them. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I think we'd be better off for requesting ANI implement a rate limit. In fact, usually in cases like this, a rate limit is automatically applied. 1 a week, with resubmits counting as 1, would seem fine, and mean comparatively little disruption overall, and potentially encourage FA into prioritising a few. He is better than a spammer. I'm somewhat reticent to implement a strikes system generally - i do actually see a few that improve despite an avalanche of declines. In response to one suggestion above, how would we know if they'd actively sought help? That can be done at AFCHD, or to any of the reviewers. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• To follow up on my own comment above, I was just reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oberlin Academy Preparatory School. People should go read it. It sums up the entire situation here; badly written draft, inexcusable blugdeoning of the AfC process, but a historically important subject which is infinitely more encyclopedic than, say, Westwood Regional High School, which I attended. There's so many things I wish had gone better with the path that draft traveled, but the bottom line is the encyclopedia is better for that article having been written. The various people who declined the draft and tried to delete it from mainspace were undoubtedly following the letter of some guideline/policy/whatever, but clearly didn't understand why we're here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I believe there is enough consensus here to take this to ANI, I'm going to use Kylie's OP in the ANI and tag those of you that agree there needs to be some sort of action. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I see no foul here. The work is better than average. Resubmissions with little or no improvement is not uncommon behavior. I am actually sympathetic to authors getting a second opinion from a different reviewer. We bring this on ourselves since different reviewers here operate according to different standards. As for telling FloridaArmy how they should be contributing, we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS and that is their call, not ours. ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• That is certainly true, but the other side of the same coin, is why should we, as volunteers, spend our value time on low quality AFC submissions, or indeed any rank article on Wikipedia, when it is much more efficient for Wikipedia as a whole, and us and a better spend of our time, to work on articles that have a decent chance of becoming a much higher quality. Another viewpoint I've see is to see the writing process as a kind of bitstream, so adding a wee bit is good to overall effort, as ultimately all articles are going to excellent. But that is a really dodgy approach, as you ends up with mountains of stubs, that nobody is going to update, unless their considered important. Most of them are not going to be updated. I understand that folk try and do their best, but I think should be an ideal that if editors should at least try and get it up to 2k if they can, 5k if it is possible. 600byte articles are no use to man nor beast, particularly when Google can pull together 1k worth in each search, so what is the use. I've written a few 600bytes myself, but I'm going around trying to improve them. scope_creep^Talk 08:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's how you feel about how Wikipedia should work and as a WP:VOLUNTEER you should go ahead and work on stuff you see is important and that can become excellent. Wikipedia is, however, the encyclopedia anyone can edit and as such it's going to be very wide and shallow in spots. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note that the ANI thread "FloridaArmy and AfC woes" was closed as "The community restricts FloridaArmy to no more than 20 pending Articles for Creation submissions at any time. Their existing restriction on mainspace article creation is still in effect." - From Template:AFC statistics/pending they are currently at 38 much down from previous levels, and I don't feel that it should be insisted they un-submit to get down to 20 but they may wish to if they want to submit any new ones. KylieTastic (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be working so far: from the original 68 active submissions when this started they are down to 24. KylieTastic (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look at Draft:Jatinegara-Manggarai railway‎

There is some 'stuff' going on here. Please see my comment and follow the link to the discussion and my and others' comments there. Look at the article history, where it shows a sudden appearance in Draft: space from main namespace. I have no idea what is going on. I half think we're looking at tit for tat move and counter move, but I can't be sure. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Timtrent, that's what it is. We have two stubs now, which are probably valid stubs. I will leave them in article space for the New Page reviewers either to approve or to deal with. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This has now been resolved by dint of my asking questions enough for one of the protagonists to realise that moving to Draft: space for an established, albeit unduly stubby, set of stubs was an imperfect course of action. They are, or should be, back im main space to take their chances with the rest of stubs that are too brief Fiddle Faddle 07:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Joshua Iginla - other experienced eyes, please

Rather than accept or decline this draft, I have left a comment on it with some concerns, since it contains a great deal of controversy about a living person. I'm setting aside any technical issues that can be cleaned up, I'd like extra eyes on the bigger picture, please.

My instinct is that it quacks, but I have been mistaken before about things Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Iginla seems to be notable, though perhaps a hard person to write an article about. The adultery confession seems to be well-substantiated, but it's not a great idea to have an article about someone that basically says 1) he is an adulterer, 2) he has a private plane (seeming to imply that this is a bad thing, particularly given that it's listed in the controversies section even though the cited source is quite complimentary about how the plane will be used for missions....). Given that Nigeria is underrepresented on WP, I might be inclined to reduce the adultery thing to a sentence or two (it does seem to have been a major subject of press attention) and then approve, possibly also deleting the private plane reference. He seems to be someone we should have an article about, though the current draft sucks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I don't think I'll edit in there. It feels too much like an attack page to me. It's also a type of person I despise, so I will recuse myself.

Under-representation is an issue in a way, equally I am not in favour of positive discrimination which might weaken the overall project. A counter-argument is that the community will improve any article in its own unique way

I agree that we ought, probably, to have an article about him. Equally I think not this precise article. Do you fancy having a crack at it? Fiddle Faddle 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 I've had a crack. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

My congratulations to you both on flattening this mess into a decent article. I suspect it may soon over-inflate. In view of my distaste for the type of individual I shall watch with wry amusement and do my best to sit on my hands. Thank you for solving my challenge with it. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just read the self description on the picture now in the article. Humble chap, ain't he? Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

History of king of Nepal

Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, (born December 28, 1945, Kathmandu, Nepal—died June 1, 2001, Kathmandu), king of Nepal from 1972 to 2001, 10th in the line of monarchs in the Shah Dev family.

Son of the crown prince (later, from 1955, king) Mahendra, Birendra was educated at St. Joseph’s College (Darjeeling, India), Eton College (England), Tokyo University (1967), and Harvard University (1967–68) and traveled extensively before acceding to the throne on his father’s death on January 31, 1972. (He was crowned on February 24, 1975.) Birendra continued the autocratic tradition of his father, who had dissolved the elected parliament in 1960 and banned political parties in the constitution of 1962; indeed, for a time, Birendra was one of the world’s few remaining absolute monarchs. He managed to maintain Nepal’s independence despite encroaching influences by India, China, and the Soviet Union. During his reign Nepal was opened up to extensive tourism.

Beginning early in 1990, a popular prodemocracy movement led to demonstrations that erupted into bloody clashes between the soldiers and police and the demonstrators. Submitting to pressure, Birendra lifted the ban on political activity and on November 9, 1990, approved a new constitution that preserved his status as chief of state but confirmed multiparty democracy, a separation of powers, and the protection of human rights.

On June 1, 2001, Birendra was fatally shot by his son Crown Prince Dipendra during a dinner party. Also killed were Queen Aiswarya, Prince Nirajan, Princess Shruti, and five other members of the royal family. After the attack, Dipendra turned the gun on himself and died three days later. It was believed that he acted under the influence of drugs and alcohol and was despondent because his parents disapproved of his choice of a bride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay theeng tamang (talk • contribs) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jay theeng tamang: I'm not sure why you have posted this here on the project talk page. Any of us would love to give you helpful advice, but we need to know what it is you need. Are you able to help us to help you, please? Fiddle Faddle 19:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

AFC handling of Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force

Excuse my ignorance but I try to keep very well clear of AFC.

{1) Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force was created on 22 January 2020, declined on 26 February and rejected on 30 May saying " Please use the proper process for attempting to restore a deleted article." but without saying what the proper process might be. On 3 July the submitter sought review at the AfC Help Desk [1] and received an encouraging reply but which said that because of an AfD on 23-31 March, WP:Articles for deletion/Rhino Force, the matter should be referred to DRV. The submitter also approached the reviewer who had placed the rejection and was given the same advice.[2] The page deleted seems to be of the same topic and was created by the AFC submitter but the draft had been considerably changed since the AFD. Now, DRV is highly likely to bat this away somewhere because the draft has not been deleted. See WP:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 7#Draft:Hemmersbach_Rhino_Force. Assuming the AFD deletion was correct, what are the proper instructions for reviewing articles previously deleted at AFD and for resubmitting such articles after improvement?

(2) 1292simon was the reviewer who rejected the draft but I do not see the name appearing in the AFC participants list[3]. Am I looking in the right place? Recently Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2020 1#Reviewing submission without the helper script seems to show them being "recommended" to apply to be a reviewer. Is this matter being handled suitably? Also, are people giving advice at the AFC Help Desk required or expected to be AFC reviewers and is there any check on the advice being given? Thincat (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thincat: On 1. Afc is not the place to put a deleted article, that was so recently deleted on the 31 March 2020. The proper process, in my understanding, is to approach an administrator who might undelete it and put it in a sandbox for you. You can also post up to the WP:DRV noticeboard, who might find the deletion has been approached wrongly, but looking at it, I don't think so. There was some research done on the sources, so it looks ok. I would approach an admin, who will put it in a sandbox for you. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 11:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I see it is already at Drv. Forget that. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

DRV has i the past decliend to discuss such matters unless the title was salted, although i disagree with this view. But it is not fair fort both AfC and DRV to tell the user "ask him over there" leaving a the well intentioned user no path forward in a catch 22. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I hate to immediately contradict the above, but 1) AFC is the perfect place to improve a recently-deleted article to overcome the issues presented at AFD. 2) simon is not an AFC reviewer, and so far as I have seen has not made enough of a mess to merit sanctions (though they have been invited multiple times to "officially" join this WikiProject). Primefac (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The difficulty I have is that if AFC is the perfect place (presumably the AFC Help Desk specifically?), then when the matter was raised at the Help Deck the submitter was told to go to DRV on account of a prior AFD deletion.[4] Was that advice perfect? The reviewer then repeated this advice.[5] At DRV the consensus might become that some form of assessment is required[6] comparing the deleted Rhino Force with Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force and AFC may not be a good place to be doing that, particularly when Rhino Force cannot be seen by non-admins. Thincat (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If the issues as described in a previous AfD discussion (visible to all) are addressed, then a detail comparison with the previously deleted version should not be required, and is not normally requested. When those issues are notability, as they so often are, a regular AfC review will do, with perhaps a note to reviewers to be particularly careful about source quality. If a specific source or sources were called out as not reliable, then a reviewer should either insist that different sources be used, or vet the sources directly as being in fact reliable. That is my view. I would and that in my view the rejection was not justified, and without that the issue of whether to go to DRV would not arise. At the DRV I favor removing the rejection notice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thincat, I would add that I agree with Primefac that in general afc is the perfect place to deal with a draft for a previously deleted article, unless there is some rather unusual issue i9nvolved. A previous AfD should not lead to a rejection unless no attempt is made to address the issues discussed in the AfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Script peculiarity with Template:unsigned and Template:unsigned IP

Having seen an unsigned comment by an IP editor on a draft I applied these templates, usingthe first incorrectly, then the second. When asking the script to 'clean up submission' the signature wandered off to thre head of the draft, making me think it was unsigned again.

Since reviewing or leaving a comment also cleans the submission this happens each time. Affected draft is Draft:Luke H. Walker‎ which I bumped into trying to help another reviewer out.Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

First, the unsigned template family are subst-only (which I see you figured out). Second, signatures should be inside the {{AFC comment}} (which was eventually figured out); the script kept moving it because the only thing above the ---- should be AFC-related templates. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I wish I'd figured that last bit out!! Thank you. So obvious as soon as you stare very hard at it!!! Or as soon as you step back and look better!!! Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Heh, it took me a few times looking through the diffs before I noticed it; easy thing to miss! Primefac (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

AFC and Paid Editors

It is a given that paid editors exist. It is also given that part of AFC is to help them create neutral articles about notable topics. Sometimes the status of the editor is hard to determine. Another times they are up front and open. I have no problem with up front and open paid editors.

Have we discussed any form of separation of paid vs unpaid drafts by a category scheme? I ask because tend to wish to apply more care with some less experienced paid editors.

It is not hard to asses a decent editor's work, paid or unpaid, nor is it hard to assess a poor editor's work, paid or unpaid. What is useful is to check that being paid is also recorded by use of {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the draft talk page. Even that may not be mandatory.

I suspect this is a topic we ought to look at from time to time with a view to improving assessment of drafts, helping new reviewers find their feet fast, and shortening the backlog, whether long or short already, and I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is my belief that trying to identify and sort paid vs unpaid submissionjs would be an unproductive diversion of time and effort. If aq draft is neutral and well sourfed, I don't care so much if the creating editor was paid or not, and if it isn't, that needs to be corrected in any case. Yes, when we can identify a paid editor, or strongly suspect one, we should add {{connected contributor (paid)}} , at least until we are sure that all promotion has been dealt with. But a devoted fan can be at least as promotional as any paid editor, and a deft by such a fan needs much the same attention. I don't see separating paid fro0m unpaid COI as that urgent or vital.

I recently had occasion to help with Ronald Hugh Barker, where the creatring editor prompotly declared a COI (son of the subject) but was quick to understand and apoply Wikipedia standards, one of the better ocasions of working with a new editor I can recall. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If a COI is suspected or declared, reviews should be handled with extra care. I think a good way to help new reviewers negotiate this is for other helpful editors to slap a {{COI}} tag on applicable drafts. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a COI tag where COI is known or suspected, that seems perfectly proper. I merely doubt the utility of a separate category for drafts with paid editors. However, i would mention that if there is any reasonable possibility that the editor was acting in good faith, adding a COI tag withotu a note to the editor can be a bit bitey. Often an unpaid editor with a COI does not know or does not understand our COI policy and thus fails to declare. Sometimes a fan with no COI sounds very much like a writer with COI. It is well to keepo these possibilities in mind, and reach out to a suspected COI editor to explain why the tag has been placed. Not required, but good practice, IMO. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, reaching out is good practice and I was trying to say that applying COI tag is enough to categorize these so I agree with you also that Fiddle Faddle's proposal is unneeded. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, It wasn't as grand as a proposal, you know. It was only thinking aloud Fiddle Faddle 14:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ruturaj Sinh Sisodia is in the queue

I'd review it properly, but sport and cricket escape my attention span. There has been a mini-brouhaha of sock puppetry over it. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu. I mention it here so that anyone reviewing it can come aware before acceptance or declining. If further work is started by a suspicious editor please report further suspected soccery.

Various spellings, capitalisations and abbreviations of the article name have been attempted Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he qualifies under WP:NCRIC/WP:CRIN for having played for Karnataka cricket team, a top-level domestic team competing for the Ranji Trophy. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, If you feel it to be appropriate, please accept it. It might become the target of vandalism after acceptance, so we need to watch it for a while Fiddle Faddle 16:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll keep an eye on it. Starting to wonder if he even exists; he's not listed on the team's website, but then again they only list five players on their "active" page. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, He seems to be listed under 'Sinh', but that adds to the mystery. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

He also doesn't seem to exist, other than the two (very vague) Gujarati articles. Being on a U23 team doesn't meet notability requirements, and I can't seem to verify his presence on the Karnataka cricket team. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Cracked it. Sisodia is not a name at all, but an allegation (BLP violation) of his caste. His hame is Ruturaj Sinh or Singh (either or both!) and I have migrated the article to the latter name, and added {{Castewarningtalk}} to it. Still not able to judge notability myself. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I've searched both in English and in Gujarati and I'm thinking that his biggest claim is playing for the U23s, which makes him not eligible. AFD time, or kick it back to draft? Primefac (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, AfD please. Help prevent re-creation. Better be you since I know nothing about cricket except that getting hit with the ball hurts a lot Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The G5 date for this sockpuppet is in May 2019. The G5-ability depends on how "substantial" you feel your edits have been Timtrent & Primefac. Cabayi (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My only concern is that Henrygayle2000 is likely tied to Imrutu, but not confirmed. That being said, if it hadn't just been taken to AFD I would probably ignore that "but". Primefac (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, My edits have been trivial, AfD is running. If you choose G5 please salt. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Other opinions on Draft:Edward Pratt

Following this discussion on my talk page, I'd like other opinions on this draft. I'm not overly sure either the person or the feat is notable, but there are enough dissenting opinions on my talk page that I figured I'd look for 2Os from this group. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think pages like this should be mainspaced by AfC, even if the reviewer would not defend it at AfD, and might even speak against it. It is not the crap that draftspace serves to keep out of sight, it has multiple big newspaper sources that could be argued to meet the GNG. It would probably be a stub orphan forever. It desperately needs rewriting, but that happens in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Same Complaint Yet Again - Non-English Doesn't Accept Language

I have had this complaint many times. On receiving a draft that is not in English, if I know what language it is, and specify, it doesn't copy it.

See Draft:EVP GmbH. I tried to say that the draft is in German. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried again, this time also declining it for notability reasons (because I could read it well enough to decline it). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why it's not passing the language as a parameter. You are either the only one this is affecting, or the only one that has noticed. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have only seen this happen if you add a second decline reason, I've not had the issue when just doing it for lang. KylieTastic (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Luke H. Walker

Hi all, could another reviewer take a look at Draft:Luke H. Walker? I've reviewed all the sources and declined it because I was only seeing passing mentions in relation to an event that the subject organized. There are also a couple of reviews of his play, one or two of which are reliable, and then some routine coverage of its production. Anyway, the editor who created the article now has indicated on my talk page that they "suspect bias" and resubmitted without making any changes.

Thanks in advance for your input! - MapleSoy (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

MapleSoy, I've left an extensive comment on the draft requiring the editor to review their references, which I found to be seriously limited in quality. Other reviewers may agree or disagree, I commented rather than accept or decline, hoping for further eyes than mine and yours. Thanks for referring it here. Good call. Fiddle Faddle 12:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

MapleSoy, A second comment left. The meat of the draft os contained in two other articles theatre already present. I am not sure what this draft will add Fiddle Faddle 13:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, thank you! I really appreciate your thoughtful comments to the user. - MapleSoy (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

MapleSoy, I just declined this after it was resubmitted with no changes.

The draft has one sentence about Walker and then rehashes a load of stuff about his projects available in articles of their own. I'm tempted to delete the off topic material and accept out as a one line stub, on the basis that he may be notable in his own right, and let the the eyes of the community as a whole take over. Your and other folks thoughts would be appreciated please Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, I think your decline is justified and I don't think you need to work too hard on fixing it up and then having it go to AfD. I've really tried to turn up some other sources but no luck. If the author is able to make some substantial changes, we can take a look at it then. - MapleSoy (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kai Imhof

Hello Wikicommunity, I was asked to cite the article about Kai Imhof in a correct way, which I did 40 days ago. Maybe there is someone who’s can check the reworked article? Would be amazing to see the article online soon.:) And of course if you have any tips on how to improve the article, I would be happy about your feedback. Thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.240.237 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be patient, drafts are reviewed in no particular order and there are over 2500 drafts needing review. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Note on Draft:Trinity College Queensland

Whoever ends up reviewing this, it was a COI Draft that I cleaned up and worked out. I am not attached to it, and ran out of any resources to improve it. Unless new coverage happens, or someone finds a book on it in a library somewhere this is the article we're stuck with. If you decide it's not good enough for mainspace the only other option is to delete it, and there's no reason to let it linger for six months before doing so. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose any such deletion at MfD, precisely because someone might find that book, or new coverage might occur. "Not enough sources" is not a valid reason to delete a draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Jerodlycett, Accepted The draft seemed to me to be having a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process, so I have accepted it. It may take its chances in the hurly burly of main space Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't make the script work

I have tried both mobile and desktop version to make the script work but it is not working. It does not show the options to decline or accept the draft. I am trying to decline this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sellbeta.com

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: it wasn't working for me either, but having moved AfC to the top (not normally an issue where it is), it's become an option again, if you give the move dropdown an extra second or two to load. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

could use another opinion

Per the conversation at Draft talk:Michael Genesereth, I don't think the subject is notable and I've declined it but Denny thinks the subject is notable. As Denny is not an AfC reviewer, does someone else want to weigh in? I see no harm in him moving the draft into the main namespace but I'm unsure of the protocol here. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the wrong laptop to do a formal review, but it seems to principally come down to whether the AAAI is "prestigious" or not. That's not really defined in NPROF - they warrant an article (there's sufficient sourcing that their poorly sourced article would survive if ever challenged), so they aren't "non-notable", but presumably "notable societies" and "prestigious societies" aren't completely overlapping, NACADEMIC-wise. A search for them brings up constant mentions of them, talks at their conferences, quotes by their fellows etc. There isn't much specifically about them, but in-field might be well known. I'm not sure they're prestigious, but I'm inclined to say "send to mainspace, let an AfD thrash it out, rather than AfC". Nosebagbear (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be rejected when he is full blown professor at Stanford: [7]. He is also an author with the IEEE. Any one of them would have made it. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

AAAI is easily one of the if not the most prestigious society in the field of AI, but even if it were not, the clause which is relevant here is the second part after the or: a fellow of a major scholarly society, where fellowship is selective. Fellowship is selective, the society is major. And the article on AAAI is terrible, agreed on that. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The draft's lead contains material that isn't sourced and isn't in the body, and fails to make clear why he is notable. Neither it nor the body says he's a professor at Stanford (if that makes him notable). Author Compulogger makes a plausible argument at the AfC Help Desk that his first book, in particular, is highly cited, which would demonstrate a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. True, it's published by a company founded by his co-author, but in this case I don't think that makes it a non starter. However, there's nothing in the draft about how highly cited or how widely held the book is. Being an AAAI Fellow satisfies WP:PROF criteria #3, but the only mention of it is tucked away in the infobox and linked to the more general AAAI.

Beyond not indicating his importance, the draft contains material (such as his date of birth and educational background) for which no sources are cited. The weight it gives to the mostly non-notable companies he has founded is undue, or at least their importance is unexplained. And the section describing what is significant about his research cites only his own research! I would have declined the draft rather than rejecting it, but it is a train wreck. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't cut it. I think that is taking it to the limit of non-involvement. The guy has an h-index of 42 with 16k citations. It would have take two minutes to check it and 2 minutes to remove the offending material. That is exceedingly bad practice. scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm late to the party, but I agree with scope_creep that Michael Genesereth is notable. A useful tool is to check Worldcat Identities: Genesereth, Michael R. 1948-. Two of the books listed are widely held and appear to be standard textbooks, which would meet WP:PROF #4. Alternatively, that could meet WP:AUTHOR, given that reviews are generally available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @K.e.coffman:. A useful new technqueue for verification. That will be handy. I finally moved it to article space yesterday, and immediately found several links, folk he was sponsoring for promotion to Phd. I also found that he had written 27 papers with more than 100 citations. A classic sign of academic notabilty, is if a person has written 3 or more academic papers that have 100 or more citations..scope_creep^Talk 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:David H. Baker (animal nutritionist)

Hi Folks, I wonder if anybody fancies taking a look at it. There is a COI story behind it re:noticeboard, from the originating editor, but it is now referenced sufficiently for a small stub article. The subject was in the American National Academy of Sciences, so is notable and it is now a wee seed article. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Curb Safe Charmer: That was nice of you. scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Tuan

This is another idol submission, that is, a draft for an individual article for a member of a K-pop-style idol group. Individual drafts for members of idol groups are common, and are considered based on whether the singer satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or entertainment notability criteria separate from the group. In this case, the submitter says that a single by Mark Tuan has charted in China, and the reliable source is in Chinese. I was willing to assume good faith that the source in Chinese does verify that the record charted. However, it turns out that the redirect is permanently move-protected and edit-protected, because Mark Tuan has been three times created in mainspace and three times redirected to Got7 after AFD. If the redirect were only move-protected, I would tag it for Redirects for Discussion. But I can't tag a permanently protected page. So I have made an Edit Request to tag the redirect for RFD. The instructions say to contact the protecting administrator, but User:Jenks24 is a retired or inactive administrator. Another of the closing administrators, User:FreeRangeFrog, is also a retired or inactive administrator. So I have made a Request for Unprotection for the purpose of making a Redirect for Discussion.

Does anyone else have any other ideas on how I could have handled this? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Page is now semiprot. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You can change

Chikukiri (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little

Would another editor please take a quick look at Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little? Wilbur Little has the same name as a musician. (The musician appears to be notable but does not have any references, and I have tagged the musician as not having any references. That is not the subject.) So disambiguation is needed. The current draft appears to be BDP1E, a biography of a dead person noted for one event. I have renamed the draft to Draft:Lynching of Wilbur Little. I would like to know if anyone has any comments on whether this was the right way to handle the disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would have done the self same thing, if that helps. Accepted Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Simpsons (season 32)

Will other editors please take a quick look? The season has not yet begun to air, so that it does not satisfy television notability as usually applied. However, the articles on the previous 31 seasons are frames for the articles about the episodes, and the season 32 frame will presumably have a link to one episode added at a time as the episodes are broadcast. Accepting the draft in its present form will merely accept information about the production of the season, which is notable, and appears to be consistent with the way that Wikipedia has documented the episodes until now.

My thinking is to accept it, but I would appreciate comments first. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree and accept the draft. The production seems plenty notable to me, and I can't see this being deleted at AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy a little assist, please

The draft is, in my opinion, well ready to take its place as an article and to face the wisdom of the community. I've been advising the editor, so would prefer other eyes on it in order to consider the acceptance. Obviously pushing back is an option, too. It kind of needs to be an admin because there is a redirect in the way. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I didn't see this until I had already replied. In my opinion, it is much too long. It reads like a brochure about this particular type of therapy. In my opinion, we should have an article, but this draft has the same problems as the deleted article, and I have Rejected it. I apologize for having conflicted with you, but I really think that it is much too long. I am also still concerned about conflict of interest. Maybe we should stop worrying about conflict of interest and concede that Wikipedia is being taken over by promoters, but I am still optimistic that, with adequate effort, we can maintain neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, disagreement is absolutely fine. I never guarantee to be correct, but I do guarantee to have an opinion. I was working with the editor to guide them towards acceptability. The only place we disagree, probably, is the venue for improvement from this point on. I suspect the editor has done all they can, and much will be removed by the community. You hope the editor will do that. With good fortune both of us are right. Fiddle Faddle 06:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I missed your second point, my apologies. What we have today is some openness about promoters. Not that many years ago they hid, skulked in the shadows, were a rather unpleasing industry. Today at least they have the incentive to work within AFC and to declare their interest.

I think we have always had a large proportion of promoter created and edited articles. The arguments for and against we could rehash until we both die of extreme old age. Managed well, we are better for them. Mismanaged, we are worse. Amateurs such as we are help contain their excesses.

I worry more about the quality of articles such as glamour models - ten a penny, pointless sportspeople - lax inclusion criteria mean someone with a couple fo seconds on the paying area can be included, Bitcoin (etc) pushers - nuff said!

Generally I think it is managed as well as an amateur pastime can be managed. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejection Reasons

My Rejection of Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy has caused unintended confusion because I had to choose either Not Notable or Contrary to Wikipedia as the reason for rejection. In this case, neither was really right, and I used Not Notable, although I said in my long rejection discussion that an article was in order, and this caused confusion. I would sometimes like to be able to Reject a draft for some other reason, either with free text (like 'custom' decline) or with conflict of interest as the reason, or for some other reason. The next time that I would like another Rejection reason, I will mention it, but I think that, while the two reasons we have are good, some require another reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Failure to address feedback" (more from my personal experience than anything specifically related to that draft)? Custom is probably a good idea (assuming it's not misused). LittlePuppers (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Two considered opinions:

1. The decline and reject rationales would be better received as untemplated draft_talk posts.

2. The author, in this case Carrieruggieri (talk · contribs) would be best advised to get experience editing existing articles. I think it is virtually essential.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - You often recommend getting experience editing existing articles, which is a good idea. However, you often make that suggestion to editors who are not interested in becoming regular contributors to the Wikipedia community, but have come to Wikipedia to get one article accepted. Many of the editors to whom you make that recommendation have only come to get one article accepted. They are single-purpose accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Little Puppets: I addresses every single feedback- I basically TNT’d it myself! I even went through the highly tedious task of adding page numbers to books references. I altered subject headings and rearranged the topics (based on tea house advice). I translated every technical word (which may be a reason why it seems promotional whereas before it seemed like it was technical. Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are not hiding a WP:COI, I would point you to WP:DUD. You clearly know how to write and reference. You can move the draft to mainspace yourself. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - There are two reasons why the submitter did not move the draft to mainspace. First, she does have a declared conflict of interest. It is not a major conflict of interest, but it is a conflict of interest, and she writes as if she owns the mode of therapy. Second, there was already a redirect where the previous article had been, and she needed someone to move the redirect after there was an approval or a rough consensus. So mainspacing it herself was not an option. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t find her declaration of conflict. I wish that declarations of conflict of interest were required to be at the top of their main user page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri, Sorry if my initial response wasn't clear. I haven't looked at your draft in depth, my comments above were more in response to suggestions above and other drafts I've seen which should probably be declined but don't fit into one of the above mentioned/available reasons. Evidently yours (as all drafts, but even more so) is a bit of a unique case. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, comments such as “being taken over by “promoters” in response to a suggestion that I could benefit from editing other articles, your confidence in your assessment of me as here to “promote” is really unfair and unkind. Maybe people don’t come back again to create other articles because it’s quite rough in here. Carrieruggieri (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, You write as if “she owns the mode of therapy?” Really you should probably have recused yourself from reviewing the submission because you seem to have developed an unpleasant feeling toward me and that makes it hard to not be influenced by personal impressions. Carrieruggieri (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rationale for acceptance

First, I have already recused myself from further reviews. I have told  Carrieruggieri that I am able to advise on Wikipedia technicalities. So I make this simple point as an reviewer who was about to accept the draft, and found a redirect in the way. Had I been an admin it would have been accepted and we might be having a different discussion. I also declare that I am not in any way associated with the topic, nor with the editor.

We are discussing rejection a lot here. But I believe firmly that rejection is not what we are about. I'm not a militant inclusionist, nor a deletionist. I think, hope, I'm a pretty ordinary bloke with a reasonable judgement, and as unbiased as I can be when editing Wikipedia. And no, I am not accusing anyone of any form of bias. I am speaking only of myself.

When I started to review drafts way back when AFC was new, as many here did, I over-reviewed. I was keen as mustard to get it right. That was good in a way, yet not quite right. Then I discovered that "right" within our brief was that a draft should have a better than 50% chance at surviving an immediate deletion process.

Once I found that out and worked it out in my head I stopped reviewing for perfection and started to aim for better than 50%. I aim for a 60% plus chance of surving a deletion process. Sometimes I make an error of judgement, mostly not.

Most drafts are not difficut to review, and are a simple pass/fail. This one is hard to review. The topic is notable (0.9 probability, perhaps better). The references are complex, and one can criticise the writing. What it has, in my judgement, is a better that 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion, based on its merits, here, now, today, and ignoring all history.

Once launched into main user space we have the creating editor with a declared professional interest in it (please put it on your user page clearly, not just your talk page) rendered unable to edit it further according to our rules. We have a community of fine editors who will choose whether to edit it, to strip it bare, to enhance it, to offer it for deletion, to do unto it what we all do to and with and for articles.

So to my simple point. We cannot, ourselves, review to perfection. "Why not let it, with imperfections perceived and real, take its chance as an article?"

As Forrest Gump might say about it, "And that's all I have to say about that." Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A Helper Script 'issue' or really a request for enhancement

I'm not totally surprised thsia was not considered by the script authors.

Please see Draft:Pleasant DeSpain whcih I show here not to ask you to comment in the draft, but to ask you to look at review comments. I used a set of reference analysis templates for the first tme when commentong iin this draft {{source assess table}} and {{source assess}}. And they went well into the comment I added. They illustrate the referencing very well. THis diff shows the addition.

Later I added a comment to the draft, and the analysis table was removed. This diff shows the removal, by script.

I think it woudl be useful if that removal did not happen, though I accept that these templates are not (yet?) in common use by reviewers.

I have not attempted to SUBST the templates, and I don't think it ought to be necessary. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts for Draft:Color coding technology for visualization‎ please

I don't think it's OR because of the references, but it might be WP:SYNTH. I've left a comment for the creating editor, but am not capable of reviewing this Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, there are some sections that look suspiciously like copyright violations of the author's published articles, particularly of this and other articles in applied optics. I don't have access to the articles, and have asked the editor to clarify where they got the material. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I checked it on Earwig. There is no copyvio, but it looks almost like a report, which the editor has maybe done off wiki. The tone is all wrong, it reads like report, its not linked and duplicates content in other articles. It is not encyclopedic. Somebody could rescue it, but it would be a lot of work. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, yeah the copyright I was concerned about was the author's published work, which is paywalled so doesn't show up on earwig copyvio. But it turned out not to be a copyvio anyway and the editor was just using the same language as their papers. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: It could be that. He states there are 26 guidelines, and then it almost like a report of a review of research. If the stuff is paywalled, which I only learned this about a 2-4 weeks ago, you must assume WP:AGF, assuming the other reference are valid. Taking a look, e.g. Wong, B (2011). "Typography". Nature Methods. 8: 277 which is this: [8], so that checks out. scope_creep^Talk 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of it make a mockery of WP:CITEKILL e.g. [70][71][72][73][74] [75][76][77][78]. scope_creep^Talk 19:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

We all know this...

Reviewing paid editing is a very challenging task for the reviewer. I've accepted some paid drafts and declined many. I think we all have. Sometimes it can sink its teeth into us and bite us badly as reviewers. A case in point is Ahrefs which was accepted as a draft and is now going through a very solid AfD. It will be deleted. It's close to a Snow verdict.

Behind this is something where I will not get into the rights and wrongs. A case has built up that needs to be answered that involves the reviewer accepting the draft. I think this will go to Arbcom, and will be difficult in all possble directions.

What this says to me is that I, personally, am put off accepting paid contributions unless and until I see them as squeaky clean. Now I knew that. I also know that I have to be able to justify acceptance as well as decline or rejection.

It's a grade of review above "Will have a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process" and I knew that, too.

The only thing we can do to protect both ourselves and AFC is to be scrupulous about our suspicions, to flag them up where appropriate, to template suspected paid editors, and to deploy ourselves {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on draft talk pages. We also need to look out for sock farms.

Old hands do that. Our newer recruits may be more circumspect about reporting suspicions, raising sockpuppetry cases.

And that is why I'm posting this item here, for our newer and less experienced reviewers. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Timtrent. If what you are saying is that we should almost never accept a draft that has had paid edits, I agree. Paid editing corrupts what it touches. My own thinking is that, even if we are reasonably sure that a draft passes notability, there are at least two remaining concerns. The first is that the tone might not be neutral. A clever paid editor tries to make a draft seem neutral but be favorable. (You don't think that they would really pay for a neutral draft, do you?) Second, there might be half-truths or distortions. (Why do you think they paid a paid editor?) We, the volunteers here, are responsible for keeping the encyclopedia honest. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I come at least 80% to your view. The 20% is where a corporation is wise enough to know that its presence here is all it wishes for. I hope I am wise enough to spot the difference, and know I am not always.

That's not 20% of the drafts, that's 20% of not being cingruenbt with your view. Fewer than 5% of paid drafts are 'wise drafts'

My main point is that we are vulnerable as editors if we get it wrong and launch a PR article by accident or inexperience. I am hoping to educate the inexperienced quicker, and to prevent some accidents by this post. Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the requirements for being an AfC reviewer need to be tightened with being good at distinguishing between spam and RS being an essential skill. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

responding to TryKid's since-deleted comment TheImaCow's AFC acceptances need re-checking because of their block (TheImaCow's block log) [9] Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, I see no problem with that except for resources. I know I ran across at least one in a swathe of UPE I sent to AfD yesterday.

I was making a much more general point about all of our skills, and using this unfortunate set of events as a general example. I didn't see TryKid's deleted comment. The one I can see is wholly valid. But how does one test it? Everyone's allowed a couple of mistakes, even when experienced. We all make 'em, we just make fewer as experience grows. We have to attract new reviewers, and it's a task that leads to burnout. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The trick to make an article seem "neutral" by the more experienced COI or paid editors is only adding favorable sources. Unfortunately, often for not well known companies or people, these are the only reliable sources that exist. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Steve Covino Host

There are far less qualified with a wiki. He is a well established host of 2 national shows on Sirius XM & ESPN on television. Carl Carlington (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Carl Carlington Please see other stuff exists The existence of other similar (or worse) articles does not automatically mean yours can be included too. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Feel free to point out some of these other articles to be addressed if you wish. As noted by the reviewer, you have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Added more references (maybe I did it wrong?). His national radio audience was making fake edits which led to the removal. As a fan for 16 years I’m trying to take initiative to reinstate it. Ty Carl Carlington (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Carl Carlington, More references? No. Excellent references? Yes.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make a draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

People magazine, espn, IMDB, all access, daily mail, your own wiki page of Covino & Rich highlighting the longest running show on a platform of 35 million people isn’t suffice? Doesn’t make sense as again less qualified have pages as did Steve for over 10 years Carl Carlington (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

New York Post isn’t a good reference? Carl Carlington (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly reviewed Draft:Steve Covino (radio) Carl Carlington, but I can make some comments o9n sourcing. Neither IMDB nor the Daily Mail are considered reliable sources at all, and simply should not be cited in any Wikipedia article or draft. People is sometimes a good source, often not. Many of its articles are based largely on interviews with the subjects, and so do not count as independent coverage, and do not help at all with notability. Others are trivial coverage. ESWPN coverage varies widely. Much of it is trivial coverage that doesn't help with notability, some of it is quite good. The "Union Native Making Waves" story seems to be primarily an interview, and so is of little value towards nobility. Facebook is almost never a high-quality source. The subject's own Facebook can be cited for the subject's opinions, and for simp0ly non-controversial facts, but for little more. The facebook pages of anyone else should not be cited at all. Prnewswire mostly distributes press releases and so its contents are not considered independent and are of limited value. SNY.TV was Covino's employer, so nothing from there is independent. Better sources than those are needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

All those Rishi Kumar Drafts

I've been working with some folk and Draft:Rishi Kumar (most complete article, preferred submission) (subtle, huh?) is the one with the most chance of acceptance. The editor has some work to do. I've withdrawn my most recent decline and offered commentary on it. Give them a few hours because right now it's an instant decline Fiddle Faddle 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I respectfully disagree as to whether to give them any time. There is obviously off-wiki canvassing going on, presumably at the Kumar campaign office. They have a right to do off-wiki canvassing, and we have a right to be wary of it. This does not seem to me to be a case where we should make an exception and accept an article on a candidate before the election who wasn't notable before the campaign. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, happy one way or the other. I was trying to cut through the welter of drafts.Obviously this was not the way Fiddle Faddle 06:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Backlog drive?

Hello, AFC Team. I'm a new reviewer, and as I've further explored the project pages, I noticed the red  Backlog Drives tab. When I applied to review, I noticed that there were a lot of applicants citing a desire to help with the backlog. A recent discussion on "acceptable" backlog levels seemed to indicate that backlog levels can drop significantly. Is it worth setting up a new, upcoming Backlog Drive? It looks like there hasn't been one in six years (which is probably a good thing overall--the project has kept up for the most part). Is there a lot of overhead in organizing/managing the drive, or is it fairly self-sufficient? I.e. is it something volunteers can assist with, or does it need heavy admin support? -2pou (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

2pou, I would support a formal drive Fiddle Faddle 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@2pou: - there have been at least a dozen proposed backlog drives during just my time and they always peter out, often over tracking performance without dropping quality. If you can find a way to drive it on I'll be a big advocate. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, The last time I participated in one was in June 2014 which was fun and pressed a vast number of drafts, mostly with decent quality. The management seemed to be at least semi-automated? Fiddle Faddle 22:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Could you elaborate a bit? I'm reading a few different possibilities when you say they peter out over tracking performance without dropping quality. Anything to do with the administrative work of maintaining the tally, and no desire to do the "re-review" checks? Or do you mean that the quality of the reviews themselves may drop as people just blindly Accept/Decline without being thorough? I imagined the re-review process was was intended to be a counterpoint to that concern. -2pou (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@2pou: so I don't think there was much concern of outright just clicking yes/no, but an increase in rash decision-making (either way), needing time to be spent monitoring/spot-checking (plus handling more AFCHD disputes), causing aggravation plus a loss of efficiency. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What if the "drive" became more of an ongoing contest somehow, similar to the Montly Dab Challenge? Instead of a one- or two-month surge where quality concerns may arise, it becomes a marathon of maintaining a decent review rate. Making it long-term might make it harder to try and change the normal review patterns near term. Granted, the incentives and implementation would have to change somehow, but we'd have to get there later; this was just an idea for now. -2pou (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a major sock farm creating drafts

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61 and report any further suspicions. The report archive is enormous. It is likely a source of COI at best. Drafts are... poor and promotional Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jang Yeeun and Draft:Jang Ye-eun

The submitter seems to be trying to confuse the reviewers by submitting two drafts with different spellings. I don't know whether the subject is individually notable. It is the responsibility of the submitter to demonstrate individual notability, which is why I declined the first draft with a request to state the reason for individual notability. The submitter then removed the record of that submission, and submitted with a different spelling. Since the singer might be notable, I did not Reject the draft or submit it to MFD. The problem is one of submitter conduct, and I have reported it to WP:ANI instead. I don't like to have to report conduct at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You should. It should be outlawed. It seems to becoming a pattern now, in the three months. A change in policy is needed, perhaps where one is automatically deleted, the worst one, and the better one kept, or something like that. It is WP:GAMING. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even that active at AfC and I've seen many of those. Draft:Mugen rao / Draft:Mugen Rao, for example. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yip, Definitely a thing now, for sure. I've seen about six-eight examples including the one above. I wonder how to came about. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the policy on gaming the system, you will see that I added the section on gaming of names several months ago. It is happening for the simple reason that the troublesome submitters are not stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I know that, apart from the gaming of names. I was alluding to fact, why is the software not detecting duplicate article names. scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

AFC Participation Question

Hi, it's WikiMacaroons. I'm interested in becoming a AFC reviewer and have read the guidelines, but I figure I lack experience. I am currently in the CVUA. What next steps can I take to build my experience? Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you should write some more articles, that are notable. Participate in the Afd for a few months. Looking at SnailSpace.scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your heading for admin, although I think spending more time at Afd would be useful. scope_creep^Talk 16:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice @scope_creep. I don't know if I trust my interest in editing to hold all the way to admin, haha. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

AFCH bug?

Not sure if this is best place to post this, but I have found what looks to be a bug on AFCH script. I reviewed and declined Draft:Campbell Pithie, and the decline message was sent to incorrect user. It wasn't sent to the article creator, but was sent to the user that moved it from article space into draftspace. Surely the person we should be sending the decline to is the article creator? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Not a bug. The user who's supposed to receive the decline message is the user who submitted it for review, and that's exactly what happened. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Elisabet Engdahl

This is an interesting history which worked out all right, but what happened is that Draft:Elisabet Engdahl was apparently declined in February 2020 as not satisfying notability, but there has already been an article since 2012. It is true, by the way, in my opinion, that she doesn't satisfy general notability, but that doesn't matter, because academic notability is orthogonal to general notability. She is the sort of scholar who illustrates why academic notability should be separate from general notability. I haven't looked in detail at whether the draft that was declined had enough information about the honors that she has received so that it should have been accepted (except that it couldn't have been accepted, because she already had an article). She should have had an article as a distinguished scholar, and a member of certain academies in which membership is a recognition of great academic distinction, and she had an article since 2012. It is interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

On further examination, I think that there was a harmless error in declining the draft on February 26, because it did say that she was a member of two Royal Swedish Academies, and they should be sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Would this count as conflict of interest? Need second opinion.

My great grandfather, Ismael Lares was notable, having a page on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I’m unsure if Great grandfather is close enough connection to be a COI.

I don’t normally submit through AFC, as I usually take the role of reviewer. Eternal Shadow Talk

Eternal Shadow I'll just briefly touch on COI: you evidently have an interest in him (we all have an interest in what we work on in some way; otherwise, we wouldn't be doing it), but I'd say that COI or not probably depends on the case. He is a direct relative of yours, so using AfC just as a precaution isn't necessarily a bad idea; however, I'm guessing you never knew him personally, so I doubt you have an especially close connection with him. My bigger question is whether you have any sources on him; I'm seeing none at the Spanish article (link). LittlePuppers (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, I’ve been looking for sources as a long term goal and ultimately it seems like the only sources are in Spanish (I’m not too great with it and only know a few major words) so I’m still machine translating them. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow That's perfectly fine, I just thought I'd make sure there were some out there. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, declared cautionary COI, will leave it on userpage until AfC submission is in mainspace. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, Excellent. I did something similar with Keith White (yachtsman) after he turned from someone I met once while doing my job into a friend Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"8232" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 8232. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#8232 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Eumat114 (Message) 10:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AFCH and "blp" decline reason

The text of the "blp" decline reason makes it sound like you're supposed to blank the submission when you use it, but when you choose that reason with AFCH, it uses it without doing so, or even offering a checkbox to do so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have worried about "blp decline" before. WP:BLP applies to all namespaces. If a page can't be mainspaced due to WP:BLP, then doesn't that mean it can't be left in draftspace? I suspect some misuse reference to WP:BLP policy when it is a WP:BIO notability issue. BLPPROD can see unsourced BLPs moved to draftspace, but the reason is lack of a single source, not a BLP violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Template nomination

Template:Afc b has been nominated for deletion and relisted a few times. If you're the type of person that cares about such things, please give your opinions at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew S. Bishop

Need a second opinion on this draft. On the one hand, there is no significant coverage presented. On the other hand, this is a black man living and acting in the first quarter of the 20th century, and there are a half-dozen references to verify the facts in the draft. I don't think there will really be significant coverage from that time period. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think in the scheme of things he is probably notable. Most of the references from about 1910-1923 period very very early in cinema are very basic and there is not a huge number of notable people with articles from that period. One of the sources also state he was the star, which is a good indication, even if its one ref. Actors particularly are so obscure, as they were generally working class at that time and not reported on, generally speaking. Georges Méliès Le Voyage dans la Lune is only 1902, so its that period. He stood out as surrealist. But he was firmly middle class so even without the special effects/illusions there would be more coverage, and would be notable. But even with all his work of special effects, which were stellar, he was almost forgotten. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is contingent on us to to at least try to find and document some of these early film actors, stage and film folk. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, with the prior comments I think the draft has a better than 50% chance of withstanding an immediate deletion process. Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on Draft:Davo (Musician) please

It's not that the draft is hard to review, it's that it is a troublesome draft whose creating editor is having difficulty understanding that it is not yet ready to be an article and that the references chosen are all PR pieces or performance videos. I've done all that is sensible there as have several others. I was tempted to send it to AfD this norning when I saw it in main space by the creating editor's hand, but chose not to. Another editor was kind to it and moved it back to draft space.

It feels as if there is some release deadline that is being worked to, with an article 'required' for some potential PR reason. If the gentleman is notable this is not the article that reports and verifies it. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - There is such a thing as taking the assumption of good faith too far. I do not think that the assumption of good faith applies to an editor who both pushes a draft into mainspace more than once AND removes an AFD tag. There are two possible explanations. The less likely one is that the editor is incompetent and is not capable of being here to work on the encyclopedia. The more likely one is that the editor is paid, and is in a hurry to get paid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes you try too hard to be kind to editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I try hard, yes. We lose nothing by trying. Doing my best to think the best until I am disappointed is very similar to there being no deadline. We can undo any mess here with the mighty thump of the ban hammer at the right time and wielded by the right person Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, they mentioned another article to me on their talk page. Would you mind taking a look and forming a judgement on it? I think it is their sole other contribution Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - What other page? Do you mean Ciera Rogers? They seem to be trying to confuse you by mentioning it. They moved that article into article space two years ago, and it belongs in article space. I don't know whether there was a valid issue at the time, but at this point that article should be in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I do. I agree that it should remain an article. The lady is notable. The talk page is interesting, though, the the spirited conversation on it Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:David Friend further opinion please

Not sure I've chosen to review by comment, not to accept nor decline. I'd like other reviewers to take a look and see if I'm being overly pedantic, please. I'm sure JakePeraltaB99 woudl appreciate other eyes, on it, too. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - A serial entrepreneur is, in my cynical view, a way of describing an unsuccessful businessperson who keeps trying. If they keep succeeding, they would be described more positively. I don't know whether the subject of that draft really is a success or a failure or in between, but the draft is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, We are differently cynical, but the outcome is similar. Perhaps you would offer that as a review unless you find notability? Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Declined for tone reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Second Opinion on Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay

Will another reviewer please take a look at Draft:Anirban Bandyopadhyay? I declined this draft twice. The firs time, I declined it basically because the draft is almost incomprehensible. It appears to be written to amaze or confuse the reader, but it also makes claims having to do with the artificial brain that, if confirmed, I would have expected to read an abstract of in Scientific American. The second time, I read it more carefully, and came to essentially the same conclusion, but also to the conclusion that the subject probably is notable either as a scientist, or, more likely, as a pseudo-scientist. I checked some of the references that mentioned Roger Penrose, a great mathematician with some eccentric philosophical views. The subject did present papers at conferences that Penrose also presented papers at. However, I did not research whether the papers were peer-reviewed prior to presentation, or whether the conference was for brain-storming, and might have welcomed unproven work. I would appreciate the opinion of another reviewer. Maybe the opinions of two other reviewers, one with a scientific background and one with a humanities background, would be ideal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, happy to take a look Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, as a generalist my head exploded. I read every word and understood each one, but not necessarily in the order it was written. That says it needs a copyedit, but main space will almost always take care of that.

I agree with your review. I think the sole difference is the end result where I would have said "Better than 50% chance of surviving immediate deletion" and chosen to accept it. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - When you say it made your head explode, I suppose that you agree that it was and is incomprehensible, and seems to have been written to amaze and confuse? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think it was written by someone standing too close to the subject, and I was definitely blinded by the light, yet I think it probably to be a valid article... or a darned good hoax! Fiddle Faddle 05:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Oliver Whitecastle the creator says it is not an advert

I moved it from his user page since he is insisitent it be considered a draft. Google suggests that he probably misses our criteria. Since I'm in danger of delivering a trout, perhaps someone else would review this submission 🌷🌷🤪 Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's a clear decline on so many criteria, if they resubmit just ignore (I try not to reject more than twice in a row, so they don't feel it's you vs them) and someone else will decline (or some will probably reject). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  KylieTastic, I'm going to ignore it totally, but I will watch with wry amusement. I had already flagged the picture on Commons as a potential copyvio. I do that as a matter of course where pictures in drafts are suspicious. Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Crypto Currency Radar Alert: Draft:Coin Cloud

The creating editor has now self declared paid status. For those new to reviewing, the crypto area is one where there is a huge onslaught of badly sources spam articles. Extreme care in reference checkkng pays dividends here. At present the sources on thsi one are all execrable (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Question About Draft:Muzamil Mahmood

Maybe this is a stupid question, or maybe it is a question about stupid behavior. This draft was twice moved from draft space into article space by the author, and was then moved back into draft space by the author. I understand when a draft is moved into article space by the author and then pushed back into draft space by a reviewer. But what is the author trying to do by moving the page into article space and immediately moving it back into draft space? Is there some promotional reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think it is wisest to take it at face value, at least for the moment Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Face value of what? Are they playing around, or what? Why? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, What I mean is that I think the simplest explanation is that they made an error. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect it's either testing it out or a mistake. Not everything has a nefarious purpose. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac, User:Timtrent - When it is done twice, it is not a mistake, but, as I asked above, it may be playing around. Stupid behavior, perhaps, not sneaky or nefarious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace

I have created Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace to capture content fitting that description. If, in your travels, you happen to come across drafts which should be in this category, please add them. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:BD2412 - How do I add a draft to this category, either if I draftified it or if I see that someone draftified it? Do I use a tool, or do I have to do a complicated edit? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a complicated edit, it's just adding the category. I have actually asked the bot owner who maintains the bot that tracks articles moved to draftspace to do this automatically, hopefully they will be able to carry that out. Otherwise, it should just be added to any draftified content from mainspace, no matter who draftified it. BD2412 T 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I went into the category to see how you were handling documenting the category, and it looks like it's now handled by adding this template instead: {{Drafts moved from mainspace}}. Is the the preferred method to add to the category now? (Presumably so the bot does not add the colon trick to this category.) -2pou (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. I expect that eventually it will be divided into monthly subcats, but that's for another time. BD2412 T 13:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandboxen and Article History

Please have a look at this history which came to my notice because it is on my watchlist though I have never seen it before. It is not unique.

Is this a problem in terms of attrbution and licencing? Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Double-Duplicate article

Hi Folks. I noticed we have this draft Draft:André Prunet-Foch and André Prunet-Foch. The draft has been rejected. Can somebody please take a look at it. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, just scrapes in. Your mileage may vary. I considered a PROD, I looked at other language articles. Nothing to expand from. I hate articles of this length with an abiding passion.... Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Me too. Thanks to JJMC89 for fixing it, but putting a redirect from the draft to the article. I've looked twice now, and still don't know what it means. The Le Monde ref is heavy duty. It could do with some more. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, there are some other refs in the French language version, but I fall into the 'if the drafter can't be bothered....' school on this one Fiddle Faddle 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I did plan to move it back to draft as its scrap. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, The sole current reference is a passing mention. There is more about the other guy. I get the gut feel this the bloke is notable, but can't be bothered one way or the other Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't known enough of French political culture to say one way or another. Whether a French magistrate is notable per WP:NPOL, or indeed, if it is French magistrate, or its some kind of check and balances position between the president and the region. I'll do a check to see if there is more references. I think Le Monde may be the paper of record, so its more an announcement. I'll check. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Numbers are heading upwards

Every day I spend some time in the oldest submissions category. I have managed sometimes to get through to the middle of the second column, acceptimg, declining, or passing on where I feel incompetent to review a particular draft. I can usually review 10 or more of these in a day, plus any other reviews and 'stuff' that I do on WP.

Every day that category is swelling. Apart from the fact that I feel unable to offer reviews on some I am perplexed that the great majority I have seen have arrived there before even their first review. We cannot all of us be unable to offer revews on them, because we have good breadth and depth of reviewer, and we have new reviewers arriving all the time.

For a new reviewer the older catageories can feel scary. How did they get to be that old, they must be hard to do! But they aren't. Obvious acceotances and declines are easy, and we ask our new reviewers to get their eye in on obvious ones.

How do we handle the increasing age of the pool if drafts to be reviewed? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Same way you eat an elephant - one bite at a time. I agree that "old" doesn't always equal "hard", though I do note that often those drafts will have foreign-language sources (Google Translate exists for a reason, folks!). As far as numbers increasing - with it being summer, and two of our most prolific reviewers taking a wikibreak / break from reviewing, I'm not overly surprised at the number of unreviewed drafts increasing; both of them usually looked at those oldest drafts. We've been here before, we'll probably be here again, and we just need to keep doing our individual parts as best we can. As an aside, I am glad to see a lot more "second opinion" posts being made here; it almost makes me want to re-open /Reviewer help! Primefac (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I agree it is disheartening to see the number of old drafts steadily building up like an unstoppable tide. It must be all the harder if you've spent significant time trying to stem the tide. We can take some comfort from Primefac's perspective on this. For me, I have to be in the right frame of mind to tackle the harder ones, with the uninterrupted time to read and weigh up the sources, run the translations and do the searches. With it being summer there are the distractions of the outdoors. We can all chip away, and at least hopefully keep the number of unreviewed drafts fairly constant, until someone comes along who can blitz them again. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer,Primefac, What I'm hoping to achieve is encouraging our less experienced folk to dip their toes into the older waters. I find I can't do more than 10 difficult ones a day, so I play in other ponds for light relief!

I agree about needing to be in the right mood. I stop as soon as I'm jaded! Some days jading happens earlier than others Fiddle Faddle 14:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the best wine to have with an elephant? Fiddle Faddle 14:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Elephants prefer Tusker (beer). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Worldbruce, Ah, I thought we were eating it, not raising a glass with it 🤪 Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, I would be willing to help with the older drafts. I sorta take the stereotypical role of ‘less experienced reviewer’ due to having only 200 reviews with a months tenure. I have been particularly nervous when dealing with these, making me somewhat cautious even reviewing these but your rationale for why newer reviewers do is generally accurate. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, That would be superb. I try to actually review 10 a day, often don't make it, because they lead to ancillary work, like checking pictures on Commons for copyright, permission, that sort of stuff (I do that whenever I review, but it's not mandatory. I do get a clue about the class of editor the author is that way, though). I pass on the ones I feel uneasy about.

Just do the same with whatever your own target happens to be, and go easy on yourself, Some are hard, most not so much Fiddle Faddle 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, I also think some changes at AfC are needed, such as the proposal below where AfC reviewers pledge to make a certain number of reviews a day. I try to generally help at AfC, despite my occasional mishaps. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Decline" template – more references, or better references?

I first posted this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, where I was recommended to come here with it.

Often I see an editor write at the Teahouse about how they've been told their draft needs more references. They've learned this, reasonably enough, from a template that declines the draft for lack of notability, with the words "Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these [notability] criteria should be added." But the template isn't asking for more references, it's asking (as we here all know) for better references.

Inexperienced editors waste a lot of time through this misunderstanding. We might argue that we don't care if they waste their time, all we care about is improving Wikipedia. But it's cruel to misinform people like that. I would like to see the template rewritten. At the very least, the word "additional" should be removed. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to just replace "additional" with "better". I mean, technically, it doesn't imply that existing references aren't good -- just that they do not establish notability. But I suppose the fine distinction is irrelevant to new editors. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're looking at this, many submitters are confused when we "Decline" a draft, feeling that it has been "Rejected" (see AFC Help Desk for examples a-plenty).

Can we start to consider changing the "Declined" concept to "More work required" in some way? Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Maproom's idea, as I did at the Teahosue talk. I also agree with Timtrent above. Could we possibly use some version of "not yet accepted" or "not currently accepted" in place of "declined"? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I should have said I agree with a message for better references. I care about time wasting for any editor. Wikipedia is a huge time sink anyway, a fascination, an addiction. The more we can help folk enjoy editing here productively the better. I include me in that! I waste my own time advising folk about better vs more and declined vs rejected Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's an unfortunate thing that there is the notion out there that more references are better. More references make it harder to review, and the additional references are usually worse. It only takes two or WP:THREE good references to AfD-proof an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• I have never liked WP:THREE and I think that often three sources are not enough, particularly for body-of-work notability, such as WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. But I surely agree that too many sources, particularly where most are relatively weak sources, actually harms the ability to demonstrate notability. I have taken to advising article creators to point out their best three to five sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree that three WP:GNG-meeting sources are not good enough, but even if there are cases where more will be needed, the point is that if the author's choice of best sources does not include *any* WP:GNG-meeting sources, then it should be failed, deleted at AfD, or rejected at AfC. If the draft creator is told to point out their best 3-5 sources, that would be fantastic. I wish that it was clearly and explicitly placed on the creator the requirement for them to point out the best sources, as opposed to expecting a reviewer to check the twenty reference for two GNG-required sources. While most Wikipedians seem to know to start their articles with a nicely sourced stub, which matches WP:THREE, I suspect that newcomers are influenced by reading WP:Good articles where the article lede, which seems to match a typical Stub expectation, is completely unreferenced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox changes

I have made sandbox edits to achieve the above goals at Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox and Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox. Please look these over to see if they look like improvements. I have changed only display wording (and added links to WP:SIGCOV in the comments) I have not changed the template logic at all. Can these sandbox changes be accepted and moved to the working templates? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think these templates are the wrong road, and the more work done on them the further down the wrong road it is going. I think that newcomers need untemplated messages.

These templates seem required to process the many bot-like UPE creations. I think real newcomers respond much better to being treated as humans. It is regrettable that most draft writers are not real newcomers. It's hard to come with with solutions to this; my current favorite idea is to require a telephone number for authentication for registration, and to require registration to create any new page, including draft pages. The telephone number number would be private information only accessible to checkusers. I believe that no person in the world with access to the internet does not have access to a telephone that can receive an SMS code. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• DESiegel, In the template sandbox I think I would like to see "additional references" replaced with something along the lines of "better references" throughout, otherwise, unless I am missing something, I am not sure we are making the progress we wish for.

In the decline sandbox, I would like to see "Submission not accepted" to be varied along the lines of "Submission not yet accepted - more work required" Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Timtrent I actuall;y used "better references" throughout throughout. You didn't see it, because Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox uses the documentation page from teh live tempalte, and doesn't show any sandboxed changes. didn't realize this yesterday. See Template:AFC submission/comments/testcases (which was empty yesterday, but isn't now) to see the effects of my changes, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have picked up your suggested change to "Submission not yet accepted - more work required", I like it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  DESiegel, If it needs to be shorter, drop the word before 'not yet' Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  DESiegel, Who knew? Looks good to me now! Fiddle Faddle 13:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  DESiegel, Template:AFC submission/comments/testcases looks good. There are entries in Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox that still could use work along these lines. I don't understand the relationship between the two pages. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe I see your point above. When I review AfC submissions myself, I often use the tempaltes but supplement them with non-templated comments. When I do informal reveiws at the Teahosue or the AfC Help desk i don't mostly7 use templates. But I am only an occasional reviewer, and I review rather slowly. If all reviewers acted much as I do, the backlog would be growing fast, I think. And I don't think that the backlog consists largely of bot-like UPE creations. There are some of them, and some not-so-botlike but probably paid creations. But there are also many who are fans of a performer, organization, or topic and want to put an article up. Many of these drafts are more or less promotional. Many are about non-notable topics. But I think a significant number are about notable topics, and can be converted into valid articles. I have worked on a few. I fear that the templates are needed to handle the number of submissions, although I would strongly encourage reviewers to supplement them with more individual comments. In any case the templates are now used by almost all AfC reviewers. I can't see that improving them makes the situation any worse. It may make it somewhat better. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  As to the idea or requiring registration and a phone to create articles, this isn't the forum for that, but I don't see it getting consensus in any case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  On use of templates. Actually, I don't have a problem with using templates, they do make it really easy for reviewing. What I object to is their output being markup-heavy and being at the top of the draft page. I think the output should be markup-lite, and on the daft_talk page, where the draft authors can better respond.

  On requiring registration and a phone (access to, not ownership of) to create articles, I have proposed it in village pump discussions with only a little comment. I know it would be a big change, but in the meantime, I blame the production of much of the draft_cruft on the great ease of creation of throw away accounts for the large number of bold drafts created contrary to WP:COI. I think the standard model of low quality UPE is for a low-experienced Wikipedian to create a throwaway WP:SPA for every job, which they submit through AfC. More experienced UPE editors don't use AfC or draftspace, and know how to evade checkuser detection of connection to their main account. Inexperienced fans of a performer, organization, or topic, they are quite a different matter; I think they are one who need to see the advice to first edit around their topic of interest improving existing articles. Inept UPE, and inept fans, the two sets can be hard to tell apart when writing about an upcoming young actor for example, but you can tell the difference by talking to them, UPEs don't engage in personable discussion. Personable discussion posts produce permanent evidence of WP:SOCK violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Have we moved forward with this small change or is an even fuller consensus required, please? Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  We might wish for a simultaneous slight alteration to the script's red DECLINE button along the lines of "More work needed", but I think we are bright enough to cope with a transition period Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of Template:afc comment

At the same time, please can we look at what happens when the reviewer adds a multi-para comment? The first para is correctly indented, and the remainder outdent. I tend to go back in and tidy, but I wish I didn't feel that I have to. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent. This can now bee seen at Template:Afc comment/testcases, because I added a multi-paragraph test case. I don't see a good fix, i have asked for advice at WP:VPT. In the meantime, either do manual cleanup afterwards, or le3ave a separate comment for each paragraph. Because the entire comment is passed to the template as a single text string, I don't see an easy way to insert bullets, colons, or any other indent markup for each paragraph in the comment. {{afc comment}} was never designed for multi-paragraph comments. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting as far as you have. I think things start in simpler times and we always push the limits Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel and Timtrent, I've taken a shot at making it indent new paragraphs, you can check it out in the sandbox and let me know if I've broken anything. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That looks good to me, LittlePuppers. The result can be seen at Template:Afc comment/testcases. I didn't know that {{Replace}} existed. What do you think of the result, Timtrent? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know of it specifically either, but I figured that it had to be possible, somehow. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, DESiegel I love it here. There is alwasy someone who knows more than I do! Now I have to try to learn! Unless anyone objects please can we implement that at once, assumkng it breaks nothing? Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent, LittlePuppers, and DESiegel: This is a bad idea because it mixes list types, violating MOS:LISTGAP and confusing screen readers. In fact, MOS:LISTGAP says Definitely do not N attempt to use a colon to match the indentation level, since (as mentioned above) it produces three separate lists.

The correct thing to do is to use {{pb}} to make a new line. <br /> will also work, but it has different semantic meaning. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber Good catch. What if the leading bullet were removed? I'd rather not have a solution like {{pb}} because it requires an action on the reviewer Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent, AntiCompositeNumber, and LittlePuppers: I have changed the sandbox version to use {{pb}} I don't see that any action by the reviewer is needed. The replace call now simply replaces a pair of newlines with {{pb}}. The output is visually the same, but should be better for a screen reader. Any objections to this version? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC) @Timtrent, AntiCompositeNumber, and LittlePuppers: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 lgtm --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am content. This is a skill I do not have Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AntiCompositeNumber (this is why I always have people check my work, especially in technical areas). @DESiegel: LGTM as well. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have further comments here or should I go ahead and open an edit request? LittlePuppers (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: The template is now updated. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!! (Thank you) 👍🌷🥕 Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, I fear this diff shows that it does not always succeed. Fiddle Faddle 08:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, It's set to only create a paragraph break from two newlines, not one. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with single and double newlines at the same time - I'll think about it. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, good luck. I knew it would be easy to spot, yet less easy to fix Fiddle Faddle 18:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I've made an attempt - now instead of replacing every two consecutive newlines with a {{pb}}, the sandbox replaces every two newlines with one, then every one with a pb. It seems messy, but it should work. DESiegel, thoughts? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, not that I have decent experience of them, but can one use a regex in template syntax? If one can then I wonder it it might be, well, not easier, but elegant Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Not unless you're using a module, though most of the string formatting templates like {{replace}} do use Lua and accept regex. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking more a regex might actually be a pretty elegant solution. I didn't realize that {{replace}} could take a regex (it doesn't appear to be documented there, although there's a bit on it at Module:String's documentation. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Primefac does {{replace}} take a regex? It looks like you have to pass plain=false to Module:String, which it can't. Do you know of any way to do that short of invoking the module directly? LittlePuppers (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought it did, but I can see you bypassed it altogether (smart idea) to just call the module directly. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I forgot to let you know, but the template is now updated so you can use howevermany newlines you desire between paragraphs. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, And I saw with pleasure and forgot to thank you! Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nirmal Munda

Draft:Nirmal Munda led an uprising against colonial exploitation. The British government retaliated with a massacre which is now known as the Amco-Simco massacre. The massacre is clearly notable, but what about the leader of the revolt, Nirmal Munda? My understanding is that WP:1E applies, and about half of the draft is about the massacre anyway; but I'm not very sure since I've been wrong about application of 1E previously. So, should I accept the draft in this state or after converting it into an article about the massacre? Any advice? Thanks in advance. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, It looks too tiny a draft to be either, but it is assuredly not both. I think the massacre is significant, and the gentleman is too. I would prefer to see two different articles spawned from this. One for the gentleman and the other for the event

My usual go to folk for matters Indian are Sitush and Bishonen, so I mention them here in the hope that they have thoughts to bring to the party Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, I left it for a while to (a) sleep and (b) think more, then declined it suggesting it be split in twain. I think the leader of the revolt is likely notable because he led it, and because he was then hounoured in some manner in the 1970s Fiddle Faddle 07:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Francis Baraan IV Eyes please

I find I can't review this on the basis that I think the man is right about the current president there, so it's hard to be objectve. I think it's a puff piece intended to raise the profile of the getntleman, at least based on the references present. I know it's a declared paid piece, but that isn't biasing me against it. I know it deserves a review by a reviewer who wil take a disapasionate look at it. If declined I think that is for sourcing more than anything else. I do not see rejection, certainly at this stage Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I have just completed a review. I declined it as the sources are largely unreliable and the coverage lacks secondary analysis. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, I'm grateful. Sometimes we find ourselves in a blind spot Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Clark (conservationist) Eyes please

Was previously declined, but I see potential notability in it. Unforunately there were concerns about the tone in the past, which I don't have full confidence in being resolved yet. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, He's very close. I chose to decline with advice. Good call on your part. Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Probationary members - is there a point?

In the past, I have removed users from the AFCH list when it was brought to my attention that they were not performing the sorts of reviews that we would expect of them. After a series of contentious removals and discussions about removals, we to a "probationary member" system; much like the WP:PERM system, it seemed like a good way to gauge the abilities of users who met the technical requirements of AFCH access but might not have the desired "demonstration of notability criteria", and those that performed poorly could be removed without the huge, contentious discussions that have plagued us in the past.

Now, the point of this post is because it seems like every time I post a "check their reviews" thread, there are few (if any) replies. I feel like we can't have it both ways - I get criticized for bringing up removal of reviewers when concerns have been brought to me, but yet when I ask for feedback on newer users (bad or good) I get stony silence. Should we just not care about the quality of reviewer and go back to the system we had pre-2017, where any ECP editor could add their name to the list and start reviewing? Am I just concerned about nothing? Is anybody there? Primefac (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly a point. I think we're probably all concerned about the quality of reviewing. Sorry for having missed your post about two probationers a few months back. If you continue to do the same I'll do my best to check some of their reviews next time. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. As I was looking back through the archives to find those threads, it looked like there were a lot of posts that went unanswered. With more spirited discussions happening lately I guess things have turned around a bit. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, do we make any formal or informal checks and give feedback? Fiddle Faddle 14:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The last time I asked for it I received zero feedback. The default probationary period is two months, but the most recent crew haven't had any formal (or informal) review of their work. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in reviewing the work of new editors. That said, put the onus on the new editors. If their reviews are questionable, flag them for probationary status and let's require them to gain sponsorship from established reviewers in the space of 60 days or lose any ability to review. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

People review drafts even when not on the list, so there's no point unless it's enforced. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I recommend having the default state at the end of probation being loss of privileges until there is an endorsement.  Continue to post a request for feedback, and if there is no response, the privileges are lost, and post this to their talk page. If the editor truly wishes to maintain privileges, place the onus on them to seek out another AfC reviewer on their own to review their work. They can use the AfC participants list, or seek an admin they are familiar with from other editing work to request a review. Alternatively, this can be pre-empted by posting a request for feedback here, and simultaneously posting to their talk page recommending they take that course of action to receive an endorsement. Whichever way, I think a canned talk post response can be created here for easy use. I think this is similar to what Chris troutman is saying above, but I think the question was meant for people already on probation and finishing their probationary period, correct? -2pou (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't retroactively "screw over" anyone who is currently on probation, but I kind of like that idea - after all, with temporary PERM granting, the user has to re-request access. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

2pou accurately portrays my point, perhaps better than I did. DYK manages to get reviews done by putting the onus on the submitter, via QPQ. There's been talk at WikiProject Good Article about the same thing. Here, the person on probation has to seek their own release and they might even gain some needed mentorship from the experience. I'm not trying to "screw over" my fellow game players out of points; rather, I recognize that manner in which we handle the new editors submitting drafts serves as the basis of whether or not those new editors stick around. Bad reviewing either adds junk to our encyclopedia that has to get cleaned up later or unnecessarily bites the newcomers who are experiencing peak sensitivity while their very first draft is on the bubble. Let the reviewer falling by the wayside seek their self-improvement. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my parlance, I simply meant I wasn't going to change the rules out from under anybody. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, QPQ (etc) would be hard here. We indulge in a masochistic form of gruntwork

When AFC was new I don't recall probation. Maybe I served one? What I think happens is that those of us who enjoy it carry on, those who don't, well, don't. So we get our quality by the regular dropout.

When I was new I reviewed low hanging fruit. Some days I review tough calls, other days random drafts, other days the oldest category. Ok, that's a ramble!

So a radical thought. "Probation is a concept where new reviewers feel on probation" and thus it makes them better. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I will try to look at these when I see them. If you get no responses, no need to wring your hands over Warnock's dilemma; just assume probation has successfully expired; if no one bothers to respond, worst case, we're reverting to the old system. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: formalizing probation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Okay, here is my thought for any users put "under probation" due to any concerns about their meeting of the subjective criteria (i.e. knowledge of GNG, deletion, etc). Those that are put on probation (standard time 2 months) will, upon reaching the end of that period, fill out a form similar to that used at WP:PERM/TPE, indicating:

• Number of drafts declined (ignoring deleted)
• Number of drafts accepted
• Number of accepted drafts still in article space
• (up for debate) a link to their CSD log

They would then post their request for indefinite participation here. Barring any major concerns, they can be re-added to the list.

I figure this will give us ("the regulars") enough to go by as far as experience and demonstration that they actually understand the policies. That being said, if all everyone wants is just a generic "I've been on probation and I'd like to keep working" post that's fine too, I just figured having some "hard data" would make it a little easier for a quick review (as multiple people above said they had no interest in doing the digging themselves). Feel free to make tweaks/suggestions for changes. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, are you sure we need to formalize this? Is there a problem you're trying to solve? I think probation is good as it solves your problem of getting flack for revoking permissions. Are you having problems other than unresponsiveness from other reviewers when deciding probation outcome? ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there's a need for any process or formalisation. If no concerns were raised during the probationary period (or its expiry), it can be assumed that they did nothing wrong. SD0001 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This backlog is insanity/ a pledge

The fact that there are hundreds of old submissions unreviewed, some of which were submitted in June is insane. We’re backlogged beyond any fix, and our most active reviewers are away. As Timtrent mentioned several days ago, it’s strongly disheartening, especially from the POV of a newer reviewer. What we need to do is to stabilize the backlog - I.e. by winning the war on all fronts, while maintaining our integrity as competent reviewers.

I don’t want to bore the rest of the reviewers with statistics, but at the rate we are going, within a couple of months we could be at a backlog of 4,000 pending submissions and 3-4 month waits for those whom are unlucky enough. My point is, there is something we all can do to prevent these things from happening, by stepping up. If we could have a pledge to make a certain number of reviews a day, we could halt the backlog, even lower it.

This is why I make this proposal: A pledge, promising to make at least x number of reviews a day at AfC. (I will let the rest of you decide the exact number of reviews pledged.)

I don’t know for sure, it’s just a proposal for now. I just thought this could help all of our reviewers here at AfC, and a lot of reviewers seem somewhat demotivated sometimes. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, I like the concept, but I also think folk may be wary of setting themselves up to fail. I can tell you what I try to do. I try to go the oldest age category we have and attempt to accept or decline ten drafts a day. But some days I am not in the mood and other days I do a couple more.

When the oldest category feels tough I go and cherry pick low hanging fruit.

When I accept a draft I also go to Wikidata and see if there's a data record there I can link it to.

Accept or decline, if there are pictures I click through to Commons (usually Commons) and check whether it needs permission or is a copyvio, or whether I suspect that, and nominate the iffy ones for attention by Commons gurus

I see AFC as for more than accept/decline drafts. I've ended up mentoring a couple of editors who have been in dark places because of drafts. I get involved with UPE, sock puppet reports, and it is. to me, all part of my own route through AFC

So I pledge to make a strong attempt at ten of the oldest per day, plus anything else that takes my fancy Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, my goal is to stabilize this mess and get reviewers to do better. I do think quality can be improved at the same time, meaning less of a mess for people like me and you who have to be at the help desk a lot. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, Go for it. My opinion is just that, my opinion! I'd forgotten the help desk!!! I use that for light relief! Fiddle Faddle 21:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, yeah the spammers love it 😂 Eternal Shadow Talk 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This sort of pledge has been done before and I leave it to new editors full of enthusiasm to do that work. Just because you're hot about the backlog does not mean you should make a call to the rest of us who have been working the issue for years before you arrived. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I think we jaded old hands are probably not ES's target audience, Chris. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That backlog isnt that big. The queue is big enough for a five months backlog, we are currently on two. It is absolutely nothing like what it been in the past. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, True, but imagine what it must feel like to be a new editor just waiting..... Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I find the zero day entries the most illustrative: if we have 100+ drafts on zero day, then that's the pace we would have to review daily to keep up with it. When many of the people around the world believe that every person, place, thing, and event should be described in a stand-alone Wikipedia article, the real fix isn't reviewing drafts. What we need to do is push a public message into newspapers and magazines telling everyone to stop writing drafts and improve extant articles instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate seeing this idea here. —Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'll just comment that We’re backlogged beyond any fix is false - we were at sub-2-months about two months ago (max age was 7-week); it might be nitpicky but the "fix" is just having folks do more reviews, which seems to be the plan listed above. I'm mostly commenting because the doom and gloom is a little hyperbolic and rather unnecessary. Yes, there's a backlog. Yes, we should all do our part to help get it down. No, we're not completely borked. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Copy-Paste from Draft into Mainspace

I have more than once recently observed an issue, and I don't know whether it is due to sloppiness or to meatpuppetry. First a draft is created in draft space, sometimes for a minor actor or other minor person in the entertainment sector. It may be declined once and resubmitted. Then the draft is copied into article space by a different editor. An example is Draft:Elijah Canlas and Elijah Canlas. The result is that we have an article in article space that has not been reviewed, and is not really the work of the person who is listed as the author. The loss of attribution by the original author calls for a history merge. However, a history merge, when done in the usual fashion, causes the article to be marked as reviewed. At the worst, this may be a way of deliberately sneaking the article into article space and bypassing normal review. At the best, this may be a vehicle that accidentally sneaks the article into article space and bypasses normal review.

The usual way to deal with an article that is not ready for article space is to draftify it. The article cannot be draftified because the draft is already in draft space. I see that in the case of Elijah Canlas it is waiting for review.

If the subject of the article is completely non-notable, the article can be tagged for A7, but I would prefer not to use A7 in doubtful cases. I would suggest that PROD may be the best way to deal with these copy-pastes. Of course, a PROD can be removed, and taken to AFD. Any other suggestions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sounds like a slight variation of what we discussed here only recently. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Curb Safe Charmer. I am cynical or cautious and am inclined to suspect meatpuppetry, possibly paid meatpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would be inclined to the making of a sock report, considering asking for Checkuser verification, and not informing the parties,

With the main space article why not draftily with a suffix (drafitified version), which removed the problem from mainspace and allows the history merge to take place there. I have not checked the gentleman for notability, but the picture is up for deletion on Commons as a copyvio Fiddle Faddle 18:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Curb Safe Charmer - I think that there are two scenarios at least. In one of them, the account that copied the draft into article space is a semi-established account. In that case, it looks as if the copier is ripping off the draft writer. In the other scenario, they do look like sockpuppets. If you are suggesting reporting them and letting CU check it out, okay as long as it looks like it might be sockpuppetry (e.g., it has feathers but doesn't quack). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this is a slight variation - the draft absolutely must be histmerged with the article, but it should go the other direction: delete the draft, move the article to the draft space, and then restore the relevant/original draft space contributions. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Primefac. But what if the article just copied the draft and didn't add anything? Histmerge anyway? Okay. If so, I will note in the histmerge request that it is to be merged into the draft, in which case the copy doesn't gain anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the history merge already happened, and the current final location is main space. Therefore, it looks like a move without redirect back into draft space is needed. (Or move and R2) -2pou (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Especially in that case the article should be merged back into the draft (through whichever means necessary, likely via the method described by 2pou). Primefac (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a thought about this after I went to bed, if the only edit is a copy/paste, with no extra edits, then it should be deleted as a G6/G12 (especially if there was no attribution). Generally in these cases, though, there's the "copy" edit and then subsequent edits that would need to be merged back into the draft. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I would skip PROD considering that if something was recently created, it is unlikely to go uncontested for seven days and wouldn't be "uncontroversial", so I'd then go to AfD recommending outright deletion because it is a copy/paste that violates WP:ATTREQ, and draftifying is not an option since it was already drafted. (Or take the approach linked in the previous discussion to redirect to Draft, and then WP:R2 that redirect.) Submitting the Draft for AfC on behalf of the copy/paster seems like an above and beyond courtesy. -2pou (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2pou - Please explain what you are saying is above and beyond courtesy. I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: In the previous discussion linked by Curb Safe Charmer, there was mention of another step where Cabayi tagged the draft with {{subst:AFC draft| username}}. I just meant that submitting the draft for review on behalf of the copy/paster was a kind thing to do that I personally wouldn't feel the need to do (partly because they can do that on their own, partly because other editors working on the draft may not share the feeling that it was ready)—unless of course, it was clearly something I would accept, and there's no reason to keep it out of main space. Basically, I'll review something officially submitted, but if I catch you bypassing the process, I'm not going to follow the process for you, I'm just going to revert to what was status quo. -2pou (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That tag doesn't submit the draft for review - it adds the template to the draft which allows the author to submit it when ready. It's only a kind thing to the extent that it points novice editors to the preferred way forward, hopefully deterring them from moving the draft to mainspace without independent review. Cabayi (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I clearly misunderstood the template being substituted when I didn't look it up! -2pou (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to propose a new speedy deletion criteria for these cases. BD2412 T 02:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Done, at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criteria for articles copied from draft to mainspace without attribution. BD2412 T 02:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion I think some sort of flowchart / decision tree / truth table would be handy as a means to map out the various scenarios and the possible speedy deletion / move options. It would help in the proposal for a new speedy category. It would be useful even if (especially if?) we don't get a new category for this. The diagram could live on a page within the AfC project? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is at least some commentary in the speedy deletion criteria discussion that an unattributed copy can be speedied as a copyvio. Technically, that's not wrong, so let's go with that until a determination is made otherwise. BD2412 T 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Urgent rereview needed on Draft:Jana Lund

I rejected this (the second rejection) and the creator is claiming that it was unfair. Need another reviewer to take a look and see if somehow notability is demonstrated (doubtful but who am I to judge).

I think it's "borderline". And at this point, it should be just moved to mainspace; if someone then believes it isn't notable, they're free to AfD it. This will generate a enforceable consensus. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, fair points. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Eh, promoted. There are a metric ton of hits on Newspapers.com, which is a pretty good assurance of notability. BD2412 T 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of GBook refs as well, enough to construct a small bio article. I think there is enough for an article to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Are there any guidelines people use for flagging copyright violations? I think it's easy to tell when whole sections are lifted from somewhere else, but this is the first time I'm having trouble interpreting the Copyvios report here. This is for Draft:The Unanswered Ives, which was previously declined for a violation. It's one of the older film pages in the queue created by AAlertBot (Side question: is the queue age based on original creation date, or by AFC submission date?) Onel5969 removed at least part of the violation here, but the report still has a lot of red (and it's gone through a lot of edits since). Does anyone have any tips on how they typically interpret these reports? Thanks, 2pou (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ooft, that's a bit of a loaded question. First off, I wouldn't decline this a copyvio; there's enough there that even after removing the majority of § Content there's still "a draft" that can be reviewed. Second, regarding the match by the bot - when it looks like someone highlighting notes in their book (as opposed to just the entire paragraph) that generally means either they've changed a word or two, or there are phrases that just can't be written any other way (for example, I've seen hits off things like "The School of Natural Sciences and Engineering at the University of X" because it has "a lot of words"). This is a case of the former, so I removed it. If you were to remove it, you want to request a {{revdel}} so that it can be properly redacted.

When I find drafts with copyright issues, I ask myself a few questions (in no particular order):

• Is the content really a copyvio? Some times a list of publications will throw off the detector, but those aren't copyrightable. Long quotes sometimes mess with the search. If it's really bad, I'll actually remove the offending text temporarily to re-run the cv check.
• (as mentioned above) Is there any other way to phrase the content triggering the violation? If no, then it can be skipped/ignored (example: I've seen hits like "in school he played basketball, baseball, tennis, and rugby" - there isn't a non-trivial way to rephrase that)
• What's left if/after I remove the content?
  • If all that is left is a sentence or two (e.g. "Jimbo Wales is an..." and nothing else) then decline as cv and tag G12.
  • If there's still a reasonable draft, but you've cut out a good portion of it (e.g. you've removed 3 of 4 paragraphs, or the lead, etc) simply decline as cv, which will trigger its own version of a {{revdel}}
  • If all you've removed is a small portion (like with this draft, or this version of a page I cleaned up myself), then it can be reviewed as normal, though you may need to do a little trimming if you're going to accept (e.g. Special:Diff/969727693). If you're going to decline, just leave it be and the creator can fix things.

So yeah, that's about how I deal with copyvios in drafts. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Another good example is Draft:Dragoș Iliescu, which was a "99.7% match" on the copyvios tool, but only because about 85% of it was a publication list that triggered the match. It's also a good example because the current check shows about 25%, but it's all titles and proper names that can't be written any other way. After removing the list (and, incidentally, a paragraph or two of actual copyvio material) the draft was perfectly acceptable for review, and shouldn't have been declined as cv. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I hope it is OK to just decline a draft when we have sufficient evidence of copyvio. I think it is important for authors to get the message that they can't copy or closely paraphrase sources. If we clean things up for them, that message won't be delivered.

@2pou: I review anything the earwig tool reports as 10% violation or greater. Primefac has given good guidance on what to look for. I tend to err towards declaring a copyvio and occasionally the good folks at WP:CV will tell me so. Better to have false positives than miss violations, I assume. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is sufficient evidence of a copyvio, but you cannot or choose not to clean it, but it's not a G12-worthy draft, then please make sure one of the decline reasons is "cv" so that it ends up in the right category and can eventually be cleaned by someone with the time and/or knowledge necessary to do so. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole process for processing CV declines. It starts with selecting CV as the decline reason and then there are further instructions in the resulting decline message. ~Kvng (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring feedback

I was wondering if anyone monitors Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback and does anything with the comments? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, I've watchlisted the page, but have never taken action on any of the comments. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I never even knew it existed... At least link it from the main page! Eumat114 (Message) 11:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't know it existed. It receives as many pageviews as edits. Is this black comedy? I am watchlisting it now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anushka Sen - a message on my talk page suggest I have been harsh

Please see User talk:Timtrent#Draft:Anushka Sen suggests my recent review to have been unfair. I'm very happy for others to comment on my recent review in which I declined it and criticised its sourcing. I have upset an editor who has invested time in the draft so far. We reviewers do that, of course. It's part of the territory. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I think that your wording was unnecessarily harsh. You referred to the sources as all useless. They are all useless. You can find a way to say that more diplomatically, but truth is a defense. I would have been differently harsh in telling the submitter that they were wasting their time and ours by resubmitting. I do now wonder something. Are there two Indian actresses with the same name? There were two AFDs previously for Anushka Sen, but the first one does not refer to her being a non-notable child actress. Either she was a non-notable child actress and was deleted in 2013 but without a mention of being a child, or there are two actresses with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I accept your comments. Thank you.

No idea about the pedigree of the 'current' actress Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would be very happy if you chose to leaven my comment on the draft with a more sensitive one of your own. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - My comments as a reviewer and as an editor are very seldom known for their sensitivity. I sometimes try to be diplomatic, and sometimes the job of a diplomat is to insult a foreign diplomat so that only a third party realizes that it was an insult. I might have said that the sources had no substantive value to establish notability. Sometimes words of three and four syllables are preferred over words of one and two syllables. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, ROFLMAO Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Attempting to answer your question about whether this is the same lady, each prior AfD could be about pretty much anyone. I searched Google for images of "Anushka Sen" Actress which gave me a large number of pictures (suggesting potential notability, or a fanbase, or both). The current redrafting may find that notability

Pictures? Of a girl, a girl-woman, or a woman? (I like pictures of women.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My SERP had overtly sexualised (by conservative Indian standards) images of a what appears late teenager at best, perhaps even younger. So a girl-women I guess. It looks extremely exploitative to me. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The person in the most youthful appears to be the person in the least youthful Fiddle Faddle 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been uselessly resubmitted again. I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ouroboros (protocol)

We have been reasonably cautioned to be wary of drafts about cryptocurrency. I would like a third opinion on a draft about cryptocurrency. It is Draft:Ouroboros (protocol), which appears to be a peer-reviewed protocol, and so not just promotion. However, in view of the amount of spamming and blowing smoke about cryptocurrency, I will only accept if another reviewer recommends an acceptance (or they can accept with my recommendation). If there are any concerns about conflict of interest, we should decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear whether the paid editing declaration here User:Monica Poucheva-Murray refers to this draft? Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong - What isn't clear? Thank you. You answered that. I think it is clear. She has declared that she is being paid by IOHK, and IOHK is an implementor of the protocol. It's another honestly paid for and honestly declared paper on cryptocurrency. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Adeeb Ahamed eyes please

I keep oushing this back to the creating editor for over-referencing. My antennae are also starting to twitch over possible COI. I'd appreciate stepping back and having someone else look at this one in some detail, please Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeeb Ahmed. I am seeing coatrack issues again, whcih includes the major contributing editor Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor quite reasonably denies COI. Fiddle Faddle 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have Rejected it for having already been deleted. As I say in the Rejection, they now have the choice of: (1) obtaining and providing the delete article for comparison; (2) pointing to something dated after June 2020 that is more recent than the AFD; (3) appeal the deletion. Those are the choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

new(?) spam tactic

The submitter of Draft:Caringo first removed Robert McClenon's comment using a deceptive (can't really AGF on a corporate SPA) edit summary and then resubmitted the draft in such a way that the previous decline notice disappeared. I've seen the comment removal for the first time, but the making the previous decline notice disappear is something that I've noticed in a few drafts previously. Are other reviewers aware of this issue? And how should we deal with it? Thanks, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can have a bot log such instances. In theory, it would just be a matter of logging the initial decline, and then noting when a previously declined draft has a submission template omitting that information. BD2412 T 00:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to derail the discussion too much, but slightly more common and less likely to be bad faith is resubmission without changes - obviously it's a bit different, but it'd be nice to have something to log it and I haven't seen a simple way to do so (attempting to use Petscan didn't work out, not only because I'm terrible with SQL, but because it only stores edit metadata - not the actual content). If we had a bot to check if AfC comments/submissions were removed, perhaps that'd be a fairly simple thing to tack on. Or perhaps not. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In this case, I have taken to opening the history, finding the last AFCH edit, and then clicking the "cur" link foot said edit. This shows a diff of all the changes since, but I guess that only shoes the difference between submissions if there have been no additional edits post submit. I have also found myself locating the last submit edit to get a manually selected diff. -2pou (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I do usually end up looking through the history, especially if it's not the first submission - I find it very useful to see what's been changed in respect to the previous decline reason - but it'd be nice if there was some larger-scale mechanism to automatically check if it happened and either warn the user or put it in a category or report of some type for reviewers to go over. LittlePuppers (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I just ran into this (resubmit with no changes) on something I declined (which is new for me), and I simply removed the submission template with a note: Special:Diff/973841449. Was that inappropriate? Is it proper to let it go to another set of eyes? I didn't want the queue further clogged, but now I'm worried about being unilateral. -2pou (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

An edit filter might do. One could regex the submission and comment templates and then either warn/tag and fully prevent removal from non-extended confirmed users (the minimum requirement for being an AFC reviewer anyway). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A bot could catch the rare deceptive editor with more than 500 edits, but the edit filter is a better solution overall imo. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I reinstate the messages and consider what I will say on their talk page. I also often add an AFC comment about not deleting review messages. It takes a lot more to make me accept a draft where the editor has been underhand, but I wiki if it has sufficient quality Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Timetrent, I think you're right. An edit filter would allow us to research the problem, at the very least (i.e. see how often no one catches it). Sam-2727 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this really new? I feel like every fifth draft has deleted comments and declines. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hellknowz, I don't think it's a new problem, but to me, is an annoyingly persistent one. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TryKid - It's not a new tactic. I've seen it before. I consider it to be a sufficient reason to nominate the draft for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI I've requested an edit filter to monitor this. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Local press coverage in BLPs (Re: Draft:Tammy Exum)

Question: Are there any coverage requirements specific to BLPs that advise using sources that are more widespread than local coverage? It seems that WP:LOCAL and WP:LOCALCOVERAGE are intended for places and events, respectively. I ask to help with a borderline decision at Draft:Tammy Exum (with additional details in my last AFC comment there). I'm considering state-level House of Representatives as more local politician than national, so I'm going by bullet #2. I interpret the annotation for this bullet as saying separate outlets coming from journalists is required, but it doesn't specify how widely circulated the outlet should be. Any tips are appreciated! -2pou (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what the question is. My reading of the significant coverage provisions is that they apply to general notability, but she isn't being submitted as general notability. She is a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives and so has ipso facto notability under political notability. If we decide that regional or national coverage is required for state legislators, then we will be negating the coverage of state legislators. Is there a reason why political notability is not applicable, or is this another case where an argument is being made to subordinate a special notability guideline to general notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I guess I was getting confused by the first bullet in WP:NPOL that you are citing. I think the parenthetical was getting in the way of my understanding. For some reason, my first several readings were focused on international and national offices being the only ipso facto cases and that anything lower (such as the state-level Conecticut HoR) would fall to the second bullet. I'm not sure if I just totally missed the state/province–wide office altogether, or if I for some reason thought members of legislative bodies at those levels wasn't applying to state/province levels... Seems obvious now... I was unaware of WP:IPSOFACTO until now, thank you for linking! Even though that is an essay, it seems to be worded much clearer, and easier to understand than the actual NPOL. I'm also confused by Note 12 in NPOL where it says This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. If that bullet is secondary... what exactly is the primary criterion? Anyway, thank you for your help! -2pou (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The primary criterion here is WP:NBIO. Our overarching primary criterion is WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

For persons not meeting WP:NPOL, this recent AfD discussion seems to indicate that local coverage is not sufficient to meet notability requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:POLOUTCOMES also provides some good guidance. ~Kvng (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, so much clearer and easier to understand thanks to its examples. I shouldn't have dismissed that from the further reading callout. Thanks! -2pou (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RfD opened which could affect WP:RDRAFT

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Draft:The Pilot Newspaper. I've posed a question in this discussion which may benefit with input from editors who are versed in the purpose of the "Draft:" namespace, specifically regarding redirects and WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, you could have just asked here and saved yourself a ton of time and effort... Primefac (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I thought about that, but ultimately, Draft:The Pilot Newspaper is a redirect, and thus the de facto place to start a discussion for a redirect is WP:RFD. Also, WP:RFD ultimately seemed like the best place to post the discussion in order to prevent something like this from happening again. (You may recall that scenario; the "time and effort" cost to prevent a similar post-discussion from happening is definitely less than having to participate in another discussion like that one.) If some form of consensus is formed in the RfD, or if no consensus is formed there due to possibly lack of participation, then the discussion can be referenced here (or Wikipedia talk:Drafts) to create a change and/or update to the guideline if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jye Bolton

After a query on the help desk, Collingwood supporter asked me on my talk page to help them with their their draft, Draft:Jye Bolton. There are obvious good intentions here, but the article is in kind of rough shape and I am neither an expert in football (which makes reading it rather difficult) nor an expert in football notability (sourcing is a bit of an issue; I don't think he meets WP:NFOOTY but I'm not sure, so presumably I would want to ask for proof of GNG, but again, not my area of expertise). Is there anyone here who would be willing to help? Thanks, LittlePuppers (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You actually want WP:NAFL as the notability guideline (i.e wrong footy), which I don't think he meets - he's played in the WAFL but not the AFL, and his time in the VFL was post-1990. Winning the Simpson Medal might help his chances, but given that most of the information in the draft is either unsourced or poorly sourced, there will either need to be further trimming of information OR more/significant references added. It's a borderline case at best but I think GNG is the direction to point them in. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

AfC sorting: updates

Recent changes made to WP:AfC sorting:

• Entries in the table are now sorted by date of submission by default
• For the drafts that have short descriptions, these will now be included in the table. Only 365 out of the 3545 drafts have shortdescs at the moment, though.
• Presence of {{COI}} or {{Undisclosed paid}} templates are flagged in the "Notes" column, so that you can go after them or avoid them as you wish! For those interested in the numbers, there are 42 COIs and 15 undisclosed-paids at the moment.

Suggestions for other improvements are welcome. Regards, SD0001 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

One suggestions I have is for the subpage table (e.g. Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Media/Video_games): I wouldn't mind having talk page links. That way, you can see redlinks and thus drafys that don't have WikiProject banners. (Ideally, the existing banners could be listed too, but that's a huge feature.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyabahire Ishimo Patrice Emery

Name:Cyabahire Ishimo patrice Emery Known as:Cody Trice Occupation:Song writer,Singer,Business man Nationality:🇷🇼Rwanda Label:Trice Nation Father:Bizimana Venuste Mother:Murekatete Julienne Marie Pauline Songs:Non stop

        Ntawundi musa
        Like i do
         So sweet
         Slow down

Born on:7/5/2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirungi julio (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Kirungi julio, this isn't the place for draft articles. You should read through WP:YFA and use the Article wizard to create a draft or sandbox page. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Neurosexism

I am asking if another reviewer can provide a third or fourth opinion on this draft. My first thought is to accept it as a reasonably detailed discussion of a term that is being used for a topic that has had considerable scholarly attention recently. However, I can't simply ignore the history of the title, even though it was ten years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurosexism. This looks like a genuinely terrible AFD. Maybe it was a genuinely terrible stub, and I will request that the stub be undeleted so that I can compare. I certainly can't see how G3 follows, either as vandalism or a hoax or an attack page. I would take the old AFD to DRV except that I know that the regulars at DRV will tell me just to resubmit it in draft, or, in my case, just approve it from the draft. Does anyone have any advice about what to do about a good draft whose title had a terrible AFD ten years ago? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

At the time of deletion it was a one-sentence, unsourced definition of the term, basically the first two sentences of the draft. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Primefac. Even as you describe it, it was a terrible AFD of a terrible article. I went ahead and accepted it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Phase space quantum mechanics

In connection with a different scientific article that I also didn't understand, someone mentioned the possibility of accepting a questionable draft and seeing what happens to it in article space after the real physicists get at it. I welcome any scientists or non-scientists to review Draft:Phase space quantum mechanics. I think that, after having declined it twice, I will this time accept it with a note at WikiProject Physics asking for comments, and will see what happens, including that it may be stubbed down, or it may be AFD'd. However, comments from literate non-scientists (or anyone) are welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo on WP:AFC

In the intro of Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation, one can currently read "AfC created new pages as drafts which are then submitted for review." I think there is a typo there ("created" should be "creates"). I cannot fix it myself because of the page protection. − 2003:D9:EF10:B00:4D89:4810:3FAD:575E (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eumat114 (Message) 09:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on changes to AFC submission template

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template_talk:AFC_submission#revisions. SD0001 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Article creator moved article out of draft space

Hi all,

I just saw Chioma_Ikokwu. The author moved it out of draft space herself. When I see this happen, should I redraftify the article and then notify someone? --Slashme (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slashme: No, this is perfectly fine. AfC is optional for anyone that is autoconfirmed. – Joe (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Slashme (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot update

Hello WPAFC, there is a request to update a bot configuration related to AFC, User_talk:Theo's_Little_Bot/afchwikiproject.js#entry_types_to_remove. It seems straight forward, but I'm not very familiar with this - if there are any objects or comments please drop a note at that edit request. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible cross-wiki abuse

It looks like there may be some cross-wiki IP-based abuse at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, particularly from addresses starting in 92.184 or 2A01:CB0, which geolocate to Paris, France. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YtoSu for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete copyright violation handling

Could all Reviewers PLEASE make sure that if you decline something on copyright violation grounds that aren't G12-worthy, to still do the following:

1. Blank offending content
2. Request revdelling of appropriate revisions

There is a large category of AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. A couple are still pending flagged ones, and a few more that just didn't get marked as cleaned by the admin who revdelled, but most are ones declined as copyvios but not acted on. Lots of these get resubmitted and so-on, so it's not just a matter of waiting 6 months and they'll be gone. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Partial copyvio handling summary

Manual Copyright cleanup instructions

     (i) remove all of the copyrighted material from the draft, noting in your edit summary where it is from ("Remove copyright violation of http://www...."). Where the copying is from more than one source, it's often easiest to remove each infringement in a separate edit;

     (ii) post to the draft's talk page {{subst:cclean|url=URL(s) copied from}}; just place a space between the URLs if there's more than one (note: this template automatically signs for you so place no tildes);

     (iii) mark the revisions in the page history (typically the first edit and second to last edit) for redaction by an administrator by placing and saving at the top of the draft page this template: {{copyvio-revdel|start = earliest revision ID (that is, the number at end of the revision's URL after "oldid=") | end= end revision ID}};

     (iv) change the decline parameter in your AfC copyvio decline template from cv to cv-cleaned – or remove that decline entirely, since you've just cleaned it, and re-assess the draft on its other merits; and

     (v) warn the user, such as with {{subst:uw-copyright-new|DraftName}}.

Later in my time as a non-admin reviewer, Enterprisey came up with User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel which made life much smoother. The page includes the relevant instructions, which are nicely brief. Please note, as I only discovered just now, it does not play nicely if you are an admin (the various visibility bits get in the way), but obviously it is less necessary here. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I admit to being a very recent offender here. I'll go back and sort that one out As an old hand I should know better. Please remind old and new hands alike of the process for requesting a RevDel. It's not entirely obvious. Fiddle Faddle 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing - I've dropped in the manual and script methods above Nosebagbear (talk)

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole is not listed.

My draft is not listed.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian, Please define "not listed" Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle, When you see the category AfC submissions by age 0 days old, you will not find Draft:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole. It was not there since nearly 1/4 of an hour. Regards. Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nihaal The Wikipedian, strange, but it is in Category:AfC submissions by date/30 August 2020. A gremlin, probably Fiddle Faddle 10:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's because it hasn't been submitted. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's because it was submitted, reviewed, then returned back to the draft space by the same reviewer, all in the span of about 13 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto

An editor of Draft:Tamayo Kawamoto sent me a message pointing out that the topic seems to meet WP:COMPOSER #3 per this source. Given that, do you think the article ought to be accepted? Thanks for any help/advice. Noahfgodard (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Noahfgodard, yes per that source. It is also a well-written article. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: I think it is too, just wanted to make sure my ducks were in a row. Thank you! Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Vladimir Janković (football)

There is reasonable disagreement as to whether the subject of this draft has either played or managed (head-coached) at a fully professional level. Because there is reasonable disagreement, a rough consensus process should be used to decide whether an article is in order. For that reason, I will be accepting the draft, because AFD is a rough consensus process, and there isn't a rough consensus process in draft space.

I have suggested that there should be Drafts for Discussion, but I usually get some agreement and more disagreement.

So I will accept it, and am aware that there may be an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:JioTV

Will another reviewer please review Draft:JioTV? The author has requested another review, and I think they mean by another reviewer. For background, the author is a declared paid editor for JioTV. JioTV is currently a redirect to its parent company, Jio Platforms. One question is whether the division has corporate notability independent of its parent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I was about to look into corporate notability, but before I even have, I'm concerned about WP:NPOV. Not sure if perhaps I should simply reject it on that ground. I'll probably take a look through the refs nonetheless. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd call it borderline, but JioTV might have WP:NCORP, in my (admittedly faulty) opinion. That being said, I think it would likely be better off as a section/sections of Jio Platforms regardless. The one thing keeping me from suggesting that solution outright is that several other divisions of Jio Platforms are already their own independent articles (for better or for worse). Given that, might it be better to simply merge all these articles (along with Draft:JioTV) into Jio Platforms? It would be fairly bold, and I'm not yet certain it's a good idea, but it might be the most efficient/effective solution... thoughts anyone? (This all having been said, my concerns regarding WP:NPOV in Draft:JioTV remain.) Noahfgodard (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Noahfgodard - Thank you. Since the draft has been written by a paid editor, it is even more important for us to ensure neutral point of view than with a draft submitted by an inexperienced neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jake Auchincloss

The submitters of this draft are arguing that he should be considered a Congressman-elect because he is in a safe Democratic district, and that the draft should be accepted. I will be declining the draft.

I will note that if the submitters want to test how Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, one of them can move the draft into article space, which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor. There may be an AFD, which will decide whether to send it back to draft space until November. However, if the draft is resubmitted again without a better reason than they have provided so far, I will be inclined to request sanctions of some sort. I don't want to Reject the draft, because it probably will go into article space after he is elected. I certainly don't want to take the draft to MFD. But I might go to WP:ANI if it is resubmitted again. Hopefully they can wait until 4 November. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

One more thing. The submitters were both trying to expand the redirect into an article and submitting a draft. I consider that to be a form of gaming the system. I gave the two submitters American Politics notices, which presumably disqualifies me from any further reviews of this draft anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

So do I. scope_creep^Talk 07:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings. Good read of the situation. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Waiting for the fat lady to sing is fine, knowing that if it is an Italian opera, there is no fat lady. Italian sopranos are Italian actresses who can sing and who look like Italian actresses. It is better to wait for the fat lady to sing than to have a duck sing or a swan sing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but if it's German you might at least get someone well-endowed. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And I. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sajjad Jafari

Probably a close call. I recommend another reviewer take a look at this. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another reviewer commented that he is notable if the pro appearances are true. I'm not sure what the wait since then was for, but I accepted the draft. Every player in the team Naft Masjed Soleyman F.C. is notable per the sport notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

More importantly, I just noticed that it was made by a sockpuppet in violation of their ban. I tagged it for speedy deletion. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

When to Request History Merge ?

I have a question about requesting a history merge. I reviewed Draft: Age regression. Age regression was formerly an article, but has been stubbed down to a redirect to age regression in therapy. I know that if I accept the draft, I need to request that it be history-merged with the redirect with history. So should I make that request as soon as I see that there is a new draft on the topic (now), or should I wait to make that request until the draft is ready for acceptance? I declined the current draft for tone reasons, but if those are dealt with, it might be ready for acceptance. So should I wait until the draft is ready to accept before requesting history merge? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I would wait until the draft is going to be accepted. Otherwise, if the history is merged to the draft, the history could be deleted with the draft (G13). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with JJMC89 regarding waiting until a draft is ready. I would mention, though, that if there are parallel histories, a merge cannot happen. if there's only one significant contributor to both pages, then a histmerge isn't necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple drafts

Is there a standing rule on what to do if we have multiple drafts (from different creators). Would the same rule apply if they were both in the AfC queue, or just one of them?

Might be preferable if they work together, but can that be forced? How is the one chosen? etc etc Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no rule. Once the first is accepted, the other should be declined with a suggestion to merge. When making a merge suggestion, I usually also leave a message on the target article's talk page letting the editors there know about it in case the original author abandons their draft. ~Kvng (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Boy Band or Girl Group Tendentious Resubmissions

I would like comments on how we should handle repeated tendentious resubmissions of individual drafts of members of boy bands or girl groups who are only notable in their groups. I decline them, saying that the submitter should explain, in an AFC eomment or on the draft talk page, how the individual satisfies musical notability. So far, that is the usual business. The submitter then typically adds one or two more references and one or two more sentences to the draft and resubmits it, with no specific explanation of how the individual is notable outside of the group. This is also what happens with an actor. With an actor or other person with fans but no real accomplishments, I sometimes Reject the draft, because it needs to be blown up and started over to establish notability, with a warning that I am ready to take it to MFD. I don't want to do this with band members, and in particular I don't want to take the offending draft to MFD. At MFD, I know that the MFD participants will correctly say that the draft should be kept, because the subject might be notable. So how do I deal with tendentious resubmissions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The bands are often Korean, but that is only important in that there are multiple Korean idol groups who have a lot of fans.

Two recent examples are Yoon Sanha and Moon Bin, but they are representative of a more general question, which is tendentious resubmission of individual group members by fans. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Making these drafts wait the full 2+ months in the queue on resubmission in my opinion adequately addresses this behavior. Some reviewers like to use the reject option especially if the behavior is flagrant (e.g. prompt resubmits without improvement). ~Kvng (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Salin Supaya

I declined Draft:Salin Supaya a few days ago on the grounds that its sources did not establish notability, and I received some rather strong comments here and here in return. The editor removed the notice of my declination on the page, and also resubmitted it for review. Would someone mind taking a look at the draft to let me know whether they think my assessment was appropriate? Thanks, Noahfgodard (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Noahfgodard: My initial gut reaction was that this would be an accept, as there is enough material for a stub and it is reliably sourced. There is coverage in multiple sources, but I've yet to find anything in depth. For example, at page 189 of the 229 page A Short History of Burma by S.W Cocks of there is a section '240. Thibaw's Queen' which simply says "The eldest daughter of Mindon Min, Princess Salin Supaya, who had been selected as queen of Mindon's successor, finding Thibaw enamoured of Supayalat, became a nun." There's three sentences about her in the PhD dissertation by Soe Aung 'MYANMAR POLITY (1819-1885)'. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Monarchs and nobility says there are no special notability guidelines for monarchs or nobility. So I think you are probably right that while perhaps an interesting story, she only played a bit part in the history of Burma. I think the best approach would be for the author to merge this into Mindon Min and/or Thibaw Min and then a redirect created from Salin Supaya to the relevant section. The last section could be merged to Burmese royal titles#Princesses. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

My inclination is to accept any dead person from the nineteenth or earlier centuries who is documented by historians. That is my answer; your philosophy may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, emphasizing documented by historians. Generally the other species of long-dead-person-draft I see is the genealogy-draft of someone who is in genealogy-type books and primary sources but nothing else. Otherwise, I feel that long-dead people who merit minor mentions in histories at least should be discussed by the community, or elevated to the community through proposed deletion. (This parallels my general inclination to accept drafts lacking a potential profit motive that have at least a couple of reasonable sources.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a living person from the nineteenth century is an entirely different issue. Either they are 121 years old, or they are said to be at least 121 years old, and are either the sort of hoax that Wikipedia publishes or the sort of hoax that Wikipedia must avoid. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: @Robert McClenon: Thanks to both of you for your input. My thinking in declining the draft was simply that the sources really only mentioned Supaya in passing, with at most a couple sentences. But I think you have a good point that dead people from so long ago achieving any documentation could warrant notability, so I'm not opposed to the article being accepted by another reviewer. Best, Noahfgodard (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How to suggest

Have studied all this for some time & still cannot figure out how a user with a COI can suggest that an article be created by someone else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi SergeWoodzing there is Wikipedia:Requested articles but there are so many requests I'm not sure it improves the chance of an article being written much. In general I have seen people just say that if a subject is notable, someone will get around to writing an article someday. Also I guess if it falls under an area covered by a WikiProject posting an the projects talk page with as many good sources as can be found would possible work. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Creation of an Article Ipo Arakeji

Kindly help look into the creation of this article that has recently been moved to Draft:Ipo Arakeji and suggest a possible solution please. Thank you. Anonymoussix (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymoussix, To suggest a solution one needs to know what the perceived problem is. Perhaps you might elaborate? Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth requesting XLinkBot crawl draft space?

I see a lot of IMDB referencing for Film and Television articles, and quite a bit of YouTube as well. I came across what the XLinkBot does via the RSN. I haven't seen any particular rules about draft space yet, but I have to assume it doesn't monitor drafts based on how often I see these references. Do people think it is worth requesting this bot monitor drafts from new users as well to try and make it clearer to new users that they shouldn't be using these sources? A potential downside, according to the User:XLinkBot/FAQ, is that the bot would undo all of the edits that were done in sequence, having potential to effectively blank pages. This might set off alarms, but it might also bring attention to the sources the new editor is using, and when made aware, undo the bot's revert and fix the references. Thoughts? -2pou (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but I agree with your concern that it would potentially undo large edits and cause panic in editors who don't know why their entire edit was just reverted (similar to those using {{help me}} saying "my changes were erased!" when it was just reverted for being garbage). Primefac (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Template wording

There's a discussion at Template talk:Afc decline#Volunteers which could use some more input. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Greenfield

I've just declined two versions of a draft BLP for this United States Senate candidate. I have also given the submitters of the two drafts the notice of American politics discretionary sanctions, not because they are interfering with neutral point of view, which is the usual problem, but just because tendentious resubmission of candidate BLPs is a nuisance, and I now plan to give the same notice for any more campaign biographies, for the next seven weeks.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying Scripts

This isn't really an AFC question. It is more a New Page Patrol question. However, my observation is that there seem to be two different scripts in use for draftifying articles that do not belong in article space yet. One of them normally pushes the article back into draft space in a state of Submitted for Review. The other one, which I have, pushes the article back into draft space in a state of Unsubmitted. I think that the latter option, unsubmitted, is better, because the New Page reviewer obviously thinks that the page does not belong in article space, or they wouldn't draftify it. If it is pushed back as being waiting for review, it needs to be declined. Well, if the AFC reviewer thinks that it is ready for acceptance, then another reviewer disagrees, and they should discuss rather than move-reverting.

Do you agree that a draftified page should be in an Unsubmitted or Declined state, rather than waiting to be reviewed when we know that it should be declined? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yip. It should be left in the unsubmitted state. Why submit it, when its been moved into draft due to some problem, which will still be evidenced. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• I never understand why someone would move to draft and then submit. If it's bad enough to require a move to draft rather than maintenance tagging it not ready and asking for a review is just asking to put the boot in to the creator. On a similar note I don't like it when AfC reviewers find drafts I assume they think are notable and just submit without reviewing themselves. If its acceptable submit and accept and if not don't submit it's just adding more work.... we have enough! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the article did not come from AfC, the author probably has no idea how AfC works and is dumped into the middle of the process without instruction. If the goal is to flush these out through WP:G13, moving to draft without submitting will help move this along. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear, User:KylieTastic. No one is submitting the draftified page. There are two different draftifying scripts that different reviewers use. One of the scripts has a misfeature and leaves the page in a submitted state. This means that an AFC reviewer will come along and see that it is waiting for review and will decline it for the same reason as it was draftified. The other script is the one that I sometimes use, and it puts the page into draft space unsubmitted, so that the originator has to decide when to resubmit it, presumably after working on it. So is there agreement that the script that moves the page into draft space in a state of submitted has a misfeature? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon probably, but it depends what the script creator intended it for... if it's to draftify then yes it should not submit, but if they wrote it for people who write drafts in the user area and it's meant to move to draft and submit when they are finished it would be correct. KylieTastic (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:KylieTastic - I was referring to pages that had been draftified, using a draftifying script, moved from article space to draft space. If I see those in a state of waiting review, I look them over and then decline them for the reason or reasons that they were draftified. If I thought that an article that had been draftified should be approved, I would discuss it with the reviewer, because that would be a case of two reviewers disagreeing. I was not referring to moving a page from user space to draft space. If I see such a page, I review it, and do one of three things: accept it; decline it; or take the lazy option of leaving it alone for another reviewer. But I think that every time I have reviewed a page that was draftified, I agreed that it needed declining. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Kvng expresses the concern that the author has no idea how AFC works and is dumped into the middle of the process without instruction. Both scripts leave a message on the author's talk page. We can review whether those messages are adequately informative. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there more questions?

@Robert McClenon: Can you provide a link to those talk page messages? ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Kvng - I will provide links as soon as I come across them again, meaning as soon as I review a draft that was an article. Probably within a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Kvng - Here is the version that I use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XMTWIKI&diff=prev&oldid=977421856&diffmode=source Some of the text was overriden, but the part about editing and resubmitting is canned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the message from the other version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessie_Lavington_Evans&type=revision&diff=978493573&oldid=976518156&diffmode=source Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

These messages are thoughtful and clear. Thanks for calming me down. Yeah, if we're going to be moving NPP detritus to AfC as an alternative to deletion, I now agree it should be in the unsubmitted state. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If they are brand new editors, the process is to send them to the Teahouse. I think it was always the process. I admit that up until recently I never used it, but the teahouse is the ideal place for advice in this situation. I've examined a lot of message in this scenario and they are well equipped for it. There is a script. You can install importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js")on your common.js page to post a Teahouse invitation or talkback with one click! Hope that helps!! scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Double

Hi Folks!! Can somebody take a look at this: Draft:Dobromir Slavchev and Dobromir Slavchev. The article is absolute mess and needs to be draftified, but there duplicate in draft already. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, I moved the mainspace article to draft, and did a histmerge. I'll leave it to somebody else to clean up the rest of the mess. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith:. Thanks. I wonder if the software can be updated to stop this happening. scope_creep^Talk 21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, I'm sure it's possible, but I don't see it happening. What belongs in mainspace and what doesn't is still a judgement call. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:scope_creep - When a draft is displayed, the software does mention that there is also an article, or a redirect at the article title. That is useful information for the reviewer. There is no reasonable way that the software could prevent duplicates, which may be the result of two editors working on the same topic in good faith, or the result of an editor working in ignorant good faith on a topic that already exists, or the same author creating pages in both spaces to game the system. If there are both an article and a draft, and the article is satisfactory, the draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is unsatisfactory, then it cannot be draftified, so I normally either propose it for deletion or nominate it for AFD. If there already is a draft, draftifying is not an alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, please check the Draft:Noon_khe page

Noon Khe page is related to the series and also has a Persian Wikipedia. Thank you ±←→° — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadhosseinrr4 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Mohammadhosseinrr4 - Try WikiProject Iran, where you are more likely to find a reviewer who can read Persian, since it appears that none of the references are in English. You are not required to provide references in English, but your draft should not be approved until it is read by a reviewer who can read the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mohammadhosseinrr4: The refs need trans-title added and expanded to full references. Please see WP:REFB. The translations into English need done everywhere. It makes it very hard to verify these articles if they are not in English. Nobody will review it until that is done. There is hundreds of other articles that need reviewed and are easier to read and it is human nature to take the easiest path first. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh goodness, I've seen this a few times now recently. If one uses Chrome (or Google Translate's page) you can automatically translate just about any website and get the pertinent information off of it. Sure, some reviewers won't bother if the sources are not in English, but we shouldn't just throw our hands up and say that a draft will never be reviewed quickly under those circumstances. Reference checks are for verification of the content and reliability of the source; the former is simple with the above translators, and the latter can be determined by looking at what's on the page (and maybe a check with WP:RSP). Primefac (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac - I am assuming that you were replying to User:scope_creep's complaint that the references will never be checked rather than to my suggestion for where to request the review. When there are thousands of article drafts waiting to be reviewed, an editor who comes here to request that their article be reviewed is being a little pushy, and we have a right to ignore then politely. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Advise removing sources

When reviewing resubmitted drafts I occasionally see reviewers advising authors to remove sources that are not helping to establish notability. Articles can be improved by removing trashy sources so this advice is well intentioned but, in many cases, I fear it gives authors the impression that the extra sources are impeeding approval of their draft.

If you want to give improvement advice, please be clear whether acceptance is contingent on your suggested improvements. The advice they really need to be given in these cases is to find and cite additional sources to establish notability. The original sources don't need to be removed; WP:CITEKILL is not a reason to decline a draft; WP:PRIMARY sources can be useful for WP:V.

If there are too many references for you to wade through, either review a different draft or ask the author to highlight WP:THREE sources that establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But sometimes an editor will reference-bomb a draft with low-quality sources when they were not asked to provide more or better sources. I often have notability issues rather than simply verifiability issues, and have learned that I need to tell the author to explain, in AFC comments or on the draft talk page, what notability criterion is satisfied. Too often an author thinks that more sources are the answer, and they should be told to refer to notability criteria instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a delicate balance between "add moar sources!" and "add more quality sources". In my user note I try to be very specific about what sort of references they should be adding. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

When I come across a draft with more than a dozen or so sources, I request the author highlight the WP:THREE best sources. The discussion that results is more engaging that me telling them all their sources are crap and increases their understanding of what a WP:RS is. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

THREE is definitely usually my way of going. I have required kill some sources before, most notably when there were 220 sources, and having checked the first 30, still hadn't found anything suitable. Along with 3 sources, I felt it worthwhile to have them trim down things like 12 references on the first sentence. But almost always, even in the cases where I do say it (which is only a subset of when I'd like to say it), it's a "it would be better if X". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect for Name Not in Article

I think this is a two-part question. The first part is about a draft, since we review drafts. The second part is about a confusing redirect. Obviously the first question is whether the draft should be accepted, but the more puzzling question is what to do because there is a redirect for a name, to an article, where the name nowhere appears in the article.

The draft is Draft:Sharon Bell. The obvious questions are whether she satisfies academic notability and whether the draft is neutral. The non-obvious question has to do with Sharon Bell, which is a redirect to an article about a terrorist incident, to the section about the victims, but the article does not mention a Sharon Bell. Presumably one of the sources does, but the redirect is not a useful search term if it leaves the reader wondering what newspaper to read. By the way, I am assuming that they are two different people. If the subject of the BLP had been wounded in the terrorist attack, the BLP would probably say so.

Normally I would put a hatnote at the top of the article, saying that it is about the Australian professor, and for the woman killed in Tunisia, see the article. But the article on the terrorist attack doesn't mention her name. Should I nominate the redirect for deletion, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There were 160 pageviews of the redirect in 2019, which is less than one view every two days. There is no way of knowing how many of the 160 views cursed about being sent to an article that didn't mention the person they were looking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I would say if the article does not mention and their is no obvious connection then delete. The name is going to be common enough that I would suspect most are not searching for the same victim of that incident, and if they are jumping to the incident and her not even being mentioned I would suspect would just be upsetting. So personally would say it should go - let them rest in peace and not remembered as a victim not worth mentioning directly. However I also think that if anyone has questions directly related to another editors actions, unless they have a reason to think it would cause escalation of issues (such as discussing problem editors) then if the original editor is still active ask them for input. Shakehandsman created the original redirect and is still active. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oh and yes she was a victim see BBC link KylieTastic (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the redirect for deletion. I have declined the BLP draft because it needs better sources. Three of the references appear to be interviews, and the tone needs to be worked also. But I think that she satisfies academic notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

New backlog?

Not so long ago, it seems, that we are at a very healthy 1,200 pending drafts. Then I left for a while, stopped by here, and now we have 3,500 pending drafts. That's a big backlog. But at the same time, Wikipedia seems to be having more activity because of the lockdown imposed around the world; so at this time, I think we, as a project, should be upping our game, and hence I am suggesting some sort of a backlog drive to serve this surge of users. Is it a good idea? Yours, Eumat114 (Message) 09:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with having a backlog drive. I became an active reviewer again recently and I am shocked at how large the backlog is. SL93 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114, I think this could lower the backlog a bit. Eternal Shadow Talk 02:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Two months ago we were at 1200, and two months before that we were up around 3000. Over the last month or so we've had two highly-active reviewers take breaks. This has been discussed in at least five threads in the last two months. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Facepalm but it certainly is different from the others, in that we regularly had 4-month or even 5-month-old submissions which aren't present now. A different type of backlog? Eumat114 (Message) 01:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the project has always gone into massive backlog for the same reason: one or two very active reviewers stop and the project is way too reliant on individuals. Two in recent times because they were blocked, the latest looks like current real life issues so they may come back. In fact about half of the biggest accepters are blocked or not editing much (source). Before the latest change we were doing 200-300 reviews daily recently it's more often below 200, hence the climb. I think a backlog drive is worth a go if one or more people want to organise it. I had hoped to write a bot to keep track of AfC related actions (accepts, declines, re-drafts, deletions, etc) but life/work has changed radically and I just don't have the time. KylieTastic (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the thing that is concerning is not the backlog per se, but the number of unreviewed drafts that are arriving in the oldest date category. They are by no means always difficult cases, though many require deeper thought Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the daily totals, there are generally between 40-80 pages per day that are not reviewed, and this is pretty static between days 2 and 21. Multiply that range by 7 and you'll get the numbers we see on weeks 2-8. Random reviews (which I would estimate based on my past stats-recording) see about 20% of pages between 2 days and 8 weeks reviewed before they hit the 2mo+ categories. In other words, we're looking at somewhere around 30-50 articles hitting the 2mo category per day (keeping in mind this is all on top of the reviewing that folks do to get the ~200 drafts that are submitted daily down to the aforementioned ~50).

I guess my point is that the number of unreviewed drafts that are arriving in the oldest date category is pretty static, but we only see the "growing backlog" in that oldest category because it's the only one that looks like it "changes" on a day-to-day basis. I do, of course, know what you mean by "requires deeper thought;" I cleared out 25 drafts in about 2 hours from the 17-day category earlier this week, but I can usually only do 3-5 of the oldest before I give up. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I try hard to do 10 of the oldest per day. By that I mean I have not yet succeeded. I open a lot, but feel incompetent to handle them. I am not good at music nor at sport, for example Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I hear ya; I've got so many fingers in so many pies, I'm almost on a schedule of what area of Wikipedia I'll be focusing on each day! Primefac (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I find it is very easy to get distracted. Doing a complete job, or at least the way I try to do it, includes:

• Following pictures to Commons, and nominating many for relevant deletion processes
• Considering COI/UPE
• Making Sockpuppet reports
• Answering AFC Helpdesk questions
• Offering guidance to new editors
• Getting distracted into areas of editing that amuse or interest me

This means one acceptance or decline may be very simple, or it may take ages. It's also part of my rationale for not ever desiring the mop and bucket, though sometimes janitorial supplies would be useful for me. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorting declined drafts by topics

I have created {{draft topics}} and the associated module, to be used for categorizing AFC-affiliated drafts with ORES topics. (WP:AFCSORT currently does this for pending drafts only, there's no equivalent for declined ones). The last time I brought this up, some editors said WikiProject tagging on the talk page would be preferable -- however that isn't feasible for an automatic bot as ORES topics don't exactly match wikiprojects. Any objections to going ahead for a BRFA and creating the category tree? Categories will named like Category:Draft articles on North America, Category:Draft articles on biographies, Category:Draft articles on chemistry, etc; all of these will be sub-categories of Category:Draft articles by ORES topic classification.

Once we have the system running, it opens a lot of opportunities like being able to combine these with other filters on tools like petscan or wikipedia search to narrow down on specific sets of drafts one may be interested in. – SD0001 (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• SD0001 sounds good to me just two comments: It would be good if AFHC removed it and also if the module checked that the page namespace was draft or user so it does not show up if it does get to main or template space. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  For AFCH, I've already filed an edit request. Namespace checking is a good idea! Implemented. – SD0001 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

BRFA filed – SD0001 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wording of paragraph on subject specific guidelines

Right now this has a section that reads like this:

"Wikipedia has some subject-specific notability guidelines. Read through the submission and consider if one or more of the guidelines below applies. If it does, and the submission does not meet the relevant guideline or the General Notability Guideline you can decline the submission for that reason. The following table shows the notability guidelines for specific subjects. If the subject of the submission you are reviewing is not listed in the table below, only apply the general notability guideline. "

Um, isn't that actually... backward? If a subject specific guideline can be applied to the subject, even if it does not meet the General Notability Guideline, then it should be accept it, not declined it, no? The way this reads right now, if a subject falls into one of the categories but doesn't meet the GNG, it looks like it should be declined. My experience with AfD is limited, but I've seen subject specific guidelines used many times to justify retaining an article which does not meet the GNG by any stretch! What does this paragraph mean and shouldn't it maybe be rephrased? A loose necktie (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's oddly worded but says exactly what you're concerned about; to rephrase the quote, "if the draft subject is eligible for an SNG, but meets neither the SNG nor GNG, decline the draft. If it is not eligible for an SNG, use GNG." I think the If it does, and ... does not meet... is the confusing part, because the first part refers to "is in that genre/category" and the second part refers to the actual criteria for approval. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then couldn't it be reworded so there's less ambiguity? I read it over several times and still came away confused! If the wording is odd, let's un-odd it! Yes? A loose necktie (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Are the articles we accept subject to further work by NPP?

There's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#New article created through AfC that affects us. My understanding was that drafts we accept go onto the NPP queue and are therefore subject to further work like cleanup, categorisation and tagging. It now appears this is not the case, which puts extra onus on reviewers to do those sort of things. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it's just for editors who are auto-patrolled. I'm personally fine with tagging every issue, but my main problem is when I approve an article that has been sitting in the oldest by age category. It is often hard to determine actual notability of those subjects which is why many reviewers keep on skipping over them repeatedly. NPP could give an extra look to those articles - because for some reason, there is no easy reliable way to do such a thing. It almost makes me want to skip those articles myself. SL93 (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not 100% sure if for non admins if it was having 'autopatrolled' and/or 'New page reviewer' perm. If anyone has only one it would be good to clarify. Certainly if you have both it does, but if you want a second set of eyes on you can add back to the NPP queue with the "Add to the New Pages Feed" option in the left have menu (you used to have to do via the curation toolbar). If you only have 'autopatrolled' and it does marked reviewed can you still do this? If you can't it seams wrong, autopartolling your own cretions as trusted is one thing, but assuming you do a complete review just moving an article is a stretch. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I just checked my permissions and I completely forgot that I had New page patroller on them. I feel stupid for forgetting something that happened a few years ago at most, but I was able to check and I saw the "Add to the New Pages Feed" option. I am also autopatrolled. That helps me with my personal issue at least, but I can't say the same for everyone. SL93 (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the recent accepts and Bad Temper Joe was accepted by Curb Safe Charmer who has NPP perm but not autopatrolled and it is marked reviewed, they also accepted Witold Wnuk and marked it unreviewed after. Sayak Chakraborty was accepted by Devonian Wombat who has neither and it is not marked as reviewed as expected. The Alice Network was accepted by MapleSoy who has autopatrolled by not NPP perm and the article is marked as reviewed - so the question to MapleSoy do you see the "Add to the New Pages Feed" option in the left have menu and can you mark it unreviewed? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Gah, must stop trying to do things quickly at work :/ KylieTastic (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@KylieTastic those two weren't my accepts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer oops! I'll re-visit, they were both SL93 who has both perms. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

From the direction that the conversation is going, if an AfC reviewer is autopatrolled they'll be expected to perform the Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Categorizing and fixing of Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Other issues as there won't be a subsequent cleanup performed by a NPP patroller. The alternative is to mark the accepted article as unpatrolled so that it goes back on the NPP queue.

I wonder if the AfC gadget could have a checkbox to override the marking of the new article as patrolled? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have NPP and AFC rights and I was not aware that I was responsible for basic cleanup when I accepted an article at AFC. As a WP:VOLUNTEER I choose not to do this. It's also not mentioned in our reviewer instructions. I keep accepted articles on my watchlist for a while and have noticed that non-NPP gnomes often do the cleanup. If these need to be run through NPP, I would appreciate having a checkbox that would set that up for me. ~Kvng (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• We all WP:VOLUNTEER but we do so having to work with the guidelines. However no one has to do the NPP clean up, but as it currently stands it may be that if someone choses not too and is autopatrolled they do have to either clean up or add to the NPP feed. Personally I think that if an autopatrolled person moves a page it should not be taken that they have taken full responsibility for validating it. Maybe that should be reported as a bug and then this whole situation goes away. KylieTastic (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think we should remove the NPP bypass for autopatrollers and admins. But in the meantime, how do I add something to the NPP feed after accepting? I'm not sure how to do this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Before This Hits the Fan

The results reported above about Korean drafts are about to "hit the fan", maybe at Village pump (policy) very soon, and we can expect stupid calls to abolish AFC. It will not be abolished, because there is no obvious alternative for IP editors and conflict of interest editors, but there may be reasonable calls that we should discourage good-faith registered editors from using AFC. I and most of us who are regular AFC reviewers presumably think that AFC is worth preserving. We need to be ready to handle the resulting storm. We have been declining drafts that should not have been declined. Two of us disagree as to whether the fault is primarily with AFC itself, or secondarily with AFC and primarily with GNG, but that disagreement is less important than that we agree that AFC has declined too many drafts in some areas, including in some areas where there is systemic bias.

I think that we need to reaffirm the principle that the criterion for acceptance is simply that there should be more than a 50% chance that the article will survive AFD.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends what you mean by good faith registered editor. Many people obviously create garage band articles in good faith. But for people like this Korean literature project, or anyone who submits a vaguely reasonable draft on a traditionally encyclopedic topic, mybe there should be some checkbox in the AFC review interface that says "next time just mainspace it" so we dont end up with good peopl repeatedly ensnared by undue gatekeeping. But I'm not sure I even trust our AFC crew to check that box appropriately given the treatment of the Korean drafts here.... BTW I volunteer at AFC mainly because I am *not* a fan of AFC and want to make sure good editors are not ensnared in it. (Maybe I need to create my own default message to that effect to leave, even if this proposal is not adopted...) I don't think AFC has any value for people like the Korean project contributors. You could equally set up some "please give me advice on my article" page/process that could assist newcomers without throwing away their work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This incident shows that AfC is in dire need of reforms. I think someone has already suggested this before, but what if instead of reviewing whole articles, AfC downsized to only reviewing notability and sourcing? Nominators would submit a topic along with 3-4 of their best sources, and then reviewers can approve the article for further development and creation. This will greatly reduce the workload on reviewers and cut the red tape for the article creators. I think this system is also adequate for filtering out spam/PR/SEO junk; most of that is submitted with junk REFBOMBs. This will also cut down on reviewers declining for formatting and layout issues, which should never ever happen but sadly is not uncommon. Thoughts? Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

i like this idea. It would also result in less wasted effort by people who write drafts that will never qualify for inclusion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe part of this source check is deciding what process to steer a contributor toward: create directly in mainspace (traditional encyclopedic topic) or submit drafted article for pre-mainspace review (articles with high spam potential). This gets away from review solely for notability but might be an option to consider if people think the pure source check will not be sufficient for spam gatekeeping. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that if we don't accept articles with only a 50-75% chance of surviving AfD one group of editors will complain, but if we do another set of editors will complain. If some editors are calling for getting rid of AfC completely it seems to show they don't understand the level of crud (100+ a day) that is submitted, which I assume is a fraction of what would be created if not having to submit to review. It seems that these editors mostly see the failure to accept OK articles and not the crud, and those on the other fence mostly see the crud and not the missed good articles (some just see us as the sewer of Wikipedia, with AfC just trying to catch any good stuff they see floating by). Although ideally I would just like to get more reviewer, and more wikiprojects involved so the job is done better I think that is a pipe-dream. I think a possible solution is too take reviewers partially out of the marginal accepts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 redefine AfCs role from "judge and jury" of articles (as Calliopejen1 and others have said), to crud rejectors, speedy acceptors and improvers. This could be done by just saying if an submission is not declined or rejected in x weeks a bot automatically moves, tags, categorises and adds talk page notes so it's status is clear. The clearly good and bad would still be accepted/declined hopefully in the first few days of submission, and it would be worth making improvements to make possible notable but terribly formatted more acceptable if auto moved to main-space. If AfC has come to no conclusion in x weeks, effectively NPP and consensus takes over. It's a compromise between the two camps that I'm sure would be rejected by both.
• Proposal 2 same as above but each article needs to be tagged by an AfC reviewer in some way to effectively say "this is not a clear accept/decline but has been reviewed" - this would stop things just being missed, but the downside is some would still complain that is was obviously "obvious" that it was a clear accept/decline. Also we would need a bot to stop random people adding the tag
• Proposal 3 as either of above but also clarify as per TryKid above that the key is a notability/source check (and basic formatting, i.e. not all caps in bold) - make it easier for reviewers to accept marginals without the abuse and complaints.

i like these proposals too. One basic question: currently, does an article that is accepted by AFC go into the NPP workstream? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yes, unless the AFC reviewer is also an autopatrolled user or admin. – SD0001 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely unrelated, but I'm not sure that it's good to have autopatrolled/admin articles bypass NPP. I certainly promote stuff that probably needs some maintenance tags, and I was not aware that NPP wasn't seeing my articles to apply the standard tags.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: @SD0001: and that was the idea behind having a bot do it, they all stay non patrolled and non human approved and should be just like any other non autopatrolled additions. It means that just for new editors, or those forced to use AfC, we add an x week (max) review time to the process to filter crud or quick accept and thank/welcome/encourage new editors with good submissions. I wanted to keep the proposals short but I was think starting at the number of weeks we are at now and slowly reducing to say 2-4 weeks. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

From the very first comment at the Miscellaneous village pump, it looks like there will be a pile on against AfC no what the AfC supporters say. Does it matter what the criteria are if they aren't being applied? I've seen articles with 100% AfD survival rate being declined (mainly FloridaArmy drafts with reliable proof of NPOL notability), more times than should have been. But I still see AfC as a very necessary part of Wikipedia, perhaps with a few reforms. Expanding on my previous comment, my ideal of AfC is a hybrid of "Requested articles" and a pre-AfD. All submissions, consisting of a short paragraph description of subject along with just a few best sources, listed on log pages (one for each day, just like AfD). Participants that vote either Accept or Reject, spammy content gets SNOW rejected and obvious stuff gets SNOW accepted (for further development and creation). All within a day or two. Contentious stuff can be sent to mainspace for a broader consensus. AfD with extra steps to keep the spam out of mainspace, basically. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I like this best of all. I'm starting to mock instructions up at User:Calliopejen1/AFC overhaul if anyone wants to contribute. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I really don't see how you can say one comment is indication of pile on? Frankly this is why although it appears many if not most pro/anti/neutral AFC people are for change it's never happens because everything becomes so polarised.

As for FloridaArmy and similar as indicated in the recent ANI discussions AfC doesn't like this sort of thing being dumped on it either, but its what the consensus decided. Yes some of thier NPOL have been wrongly declined but they do not help themselves by always posting the minimum, and calling people racist. I have accepted all of their NPOL submission they post that I can find, and have a couple still bookmarked to do, but I do not just accept as I have found errors such as taking the date of the newspaper rather than the date the newspaper reported on. I don't see the benefit of Wikipedia being the place of 6+ million articles but so many are very short stubs with possible inaccuracies in.

However a large benefit of this proposal would to be to also vastly improve Requested articles as that appears to be way more of a dead-end than AfC. If people cant or wont write full articles, but can write a couple of sentences and provide sources that could hugely improve the number of notable requests that get started. Although as above, I worry it could turn Wikipedia into an Encyclopedia of stubs.

I had previously been thinking on similar lines but with people to submit any size article but basically turn AfC from a only single reviewer too selected single reviews can speedy accept, but everything else is run like the AfD process. So the only difference between my first suggestion and this is do we pre-vet and auto roll over to main-space/AfD or replicate AfD consensus for draft first. The only reason I hadn't suggested was because if single editors like FloridaArmy (who do produce so much worthy content) can effectively get kicked from AfD to AfC, would there be enough people willing to do the consenusu process with 100+ crud submission a day? Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The "pile on" comment was from reading comments about AfC at discussions about paid editing/COI at various venues, this Korean drafts incident probably gave more ammo to already pile-on levels of anti-AfC sentiment. But perhaps I misunderstood the situations and anti-AfC response isn't that high. Anyway, yes my second comment was long the lines of Proposal 1 and Prosopal 3, a mix of both. I don't think low participation levels would be a problem, obvious stuff could easily get 3-4 votes within few hours and speedy closed, just like at AfD. The threshold for SNOW closes can be adjusted to match participation. AfD has proved itself to a robust system, free of backlogs, even with swings in participation levels, we should surely at least try replicating that here. If a basic agreement on need for reforms arises here, a formal RfC should be held at village pump, since AfC affects the whole Wikipedia very broadly. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• So people know as it hadn't been mentioned above that Calliopejen1 had already started a discussion at the village pump yesterday before Robert McClenon started this see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Major_AFC_fail_re:_Korean_literature KylieTastic (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is aways amusing when we step away from building an encyclopaedia to work out ways that various areas that beaver away contentedly and do good can annoy other areas that do the same. Navel gazing seems to be a perennial WP issue. We've started with a web site pretty free from rules and created a huge and inconsistent set of bureaucracies. Go us!

I edit here for fun and relaxation. I think I probably do the edifice a service, too. We all do.

I don't much care whether AFC changes or not, nor whether it's run its race. I'm not even sure it's important. This is a hobby, sometimes made less enjoyable by rules impossed for reasons that some folk understand.

AFC is good enough. It keeps a load of ordure out and sometimes fails to allow good stuff in.

PROD, CSD and AfD sometimes delete the wrong stuff, usually not. Very few folk think we should do away with those. WHy am I rambling? Well, because WP is bewildering. As long as I can kee having fun and feeling I am of some value thn the final line of Gone with the WInd is appropriate. Or what I have long believed to be the final line. I try not to take life seriously. Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, AfC is a very important part of Wikipedia. I also have this general feeling that AfC's fail rate is higher than say, AfD or any other alphabets where multiple people give their input. All systems have an acceptable error rate, and maybe AfC's is higher than that. I don't think the unilateral system is the best one. I don't have any data to back this up, only vague personal observations, and some anecdotal reports from so many nay sayers; I could be very wrong, as I've been many, many times. And of course, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, the wellness of its participants is the most important thing. Without them, there would be no drafts to accept or reject. P.S.: do the various MfDs (AfF, RfD etc) feel more bureaucratic than AfC or less? Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, more, very much more. Fiddle Faddle 21:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Really? They feel a lot more "just" to me. I think that ensuring everyone gets a fair assessment of their work is democratic, not bureaucratic. Unilateral rejection based on often vague reasons is much more Kafkaesque. It goes against a lot of stereotypes, but to me, autocracies with unilateral, "quick and efficient" decision making feel much, much more bureaucratic than democracies. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, autocracy and bureaucracy tend to be different. The former is "my decision" the latter is the decision of the enormous and unmanageable rule book which has not yet been written and is confusing. Fiddle Faddle 07:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair it's not "AfC vs AfD" but "AfC vs AfD+CSD+PROD" - most of the daily crud submitted to AfC would be a CSD in mainspace, or a PROD, or as now has become more popular draftified for AfC to deal with. It's the not a clear cut decision stuff in AfC that in mainspace some would go to AfD other stuff just left. But yes I've never liked the unilateral judging in AfC for the middle cases and would rather it be like main-space where we can accept (equivalent to leave), or decline (equivalent to CSD or PROD) but what AfC misses is the AfD equivalent for borderline cases and having consensus. If that is a new consensus mechanism for drafts, or automatic move to mainspace where it could go to AfD I don't care but it does feel like AfC does a great job on the good and the crud, but fails bad in the less obvious. KylieTastic (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on Draft:Salt Edge Inc. please

I was torn between a decline and MfD, or even to accept and let the cmmunity decide at a potential AfD as an advert. I chose decline. There is a huge comment tranche at the head. I was considering collapsing much of it. Please will other eyes determine what to do with this draft. It has been lingering too long and probabky needs a better decision than simply being pushed back for improvement. Fiddle Faddle 07:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I see that you went ahead and declined it, which was all right. The question is now what to do when (not if) it is resubmitted. I am not sure why you think that it needs a better decision, than what? There was a decision, which was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt Edge Inc.. The submitter hasn't said that what has changed since October 2019. The submitter hasn't said that the AFD was wrong (although they should be saying that to DRV). I think that it would be an insult to the community to accept it. I think that it might be kept at MFD, because there are some regulars who say that the company might become notable. I think that the best approach when it is resubmitted (not if it is resubmitted) is a Reject. When there was an AFD, I normally Reject the draft, as Not Notable, because the AFD has decided on notability. If it is resubmitted after a Reject, which should not be done, then we take it to MFD. Another option to consider in addition to Rejecting it is a report to COIN. It appears that the submitter has avoiding answering the question of COI, and that should not be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Grateful for your eyes. I hoped for exactly what you have given me, an audit of my actions plus suggestions for whoever reviews it next time, thank you. This is one of the few occasions I would find admin goggles useful, to see what has gone before at AfD.

Additionally, now you have reminded me of possible COI, I have left a level 1 UPE warning on the creating editor's talk page so they may declare whether they have or have not a commercial interest here. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bug in Decline Message

After looking at Draft:Jo Yu-ri a few weeks ago, I looked at it again today. I concluded that the draft does not establish that she is notable apart from the girl group, and so I declined it with 'music' and 'mergeto'. That should have been routine, but then I looked at the talk page of the author to see if the decline message was what I intended. It wasn't there. So then I looked through my own contributions, and I saw that I had created User talk:Jo Yu-ri, a user talk page of a non-user. So I copied the decline message to User talk:Kelvinnnnnnn. But my real question now is why did it send the decline message to a non-existent user? Should I ask here, or at Village pump, or where? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

When you submitted the draft you put in |u=Jo Yu-ri, which then when you declined sent it to that user's talk (even though they don't exist). As a note, using AFCH to submit a draft gives you the option of which editor you want to "give credit" to in the |u= field of the template. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Thank you for an explanation. I did not intend to do that. That is yet another error that can be made somehow. I am aware that I can submit a draft as myself, the Page Creator, or someone else. Maybe I selected Someone Else and left that blank, and it invented that. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick Takeaway from Ongoing Flap - Add a Comment

I would like to offer a quick takeaway with reference to the ongoing discussion of the Korean drafts and other issues. The quick takeaway is that a reviewer who looks at a draft and does not accept or reject it should leave some indication that they have looked at it and not made a decision about it. It should be obvious to a reviewer that a previous reviewer looked at it if they moved it, either from a sandbox to draft space, or by disambiguating it. Any comment or tag, such as a copy-edit tag, or a COI tag, makes it clear that the reviewer looked at it. I would suggest that, in the future, a reviewer who looks at a draft and takes no action could, as a courtesy to other reviewers, leave a comment such as "Leaving for another reviewer" at a minimum, or identifying the notability guideline that seems to apply, such as, "Does the subject satisfy acting notability?" I will try to remember to do that myself. I haven't always been doing it, and will try to do it in the future. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Why? What does that add, each reviewer has their own areas of interest, expertise, current mood. More importantly how does this relate to the Korean drafts issue as I see no link? KylieTastic (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:KylieTastic - It doesn't directly relate to the Korean drafts, but it relates to some of the comments being made, having to do with "reforms" or speeding up of AFC. If you don't think it adds anything, that is one of the reasons I asked for thoughts. I still sometimes think that sometimes leaving a comment, such as about what needs to be looked at, is helpful, but maybe only sometimes. I was thinking. We should all be thinking about how to improve AFC, but we knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that sometimes if a reviewer has specific thoughts/opinions that do not result in an accept/decline decision that could be helpful to share with other reviewers. At first read it sounded more like a submission just having a dozen comments that just said "I looked and made no decision". So yes if it's about reviewers who look enough too have incite but not enough to accept or decline then I agree reviewers sharing their views is possibly helpful. KylieTastic (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be any sort of requirement, but I've seen (and have left) comments to that effect, along the lines of "I'm still mulling it over but here is what I'm seeing..." It's almost an informal 2O. That being said, I also agree with the sentiment that simply having "viewed and passed on reviewing" marked on a draft is rather pointless. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, as a minor point, pretty much the only people who have commented on the VPM thread are the two of you above; no one else has commented for three days now. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I expected the worse but none of that happened. "A surprise, to be to sure, but a welcome one." TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that the lack of stupid comments at Village pump (miscellaneous) shows that the usual Wikipedia editors who are ready to dump on some other group of volunteers in Wikipedia are not active at VPM. Maybe that means that they are at VPP. Draw your own conclusions about where to post what if you do or don't want a lot of stupid comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I may do a further post about this situation later, maybe at VPP. I don't think my message at VPM was terribly well-drafted, and it was easy to be missed. I do think that this needs broader attention, because it's a pretty major process that is failing. But perhaps it makes sense to keep working on some sort of alternative proposed system here, so that there can be a proposal on the table at the same time we outline the problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I do a WP:COPYVIO check as a first step of reviewing and then sometimes I don't get further than that. I leave a comment indicating that I've done the check to save reviewers that step. I don't see a reason to leave a comment if I've bailed before making any progress. I've noticed that DGG has been leaving lots of comments. These appear to be helpful. DGG deserves a cookie. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Transcluding AFC Comments

one thing that would help here, is that if the box for notifying the submitter is checked, the comment gets automatically transcluded. A few years ago, the decline templates were re-coded to do this, so there can't be a reason for not doing so here. Not all comments are aimed at the contributor, especially if they have obviously long left, but a good number of them are--they shouldn't have to see the notification that there's an notice, and then find the article again to actually see them--they should be prominent, which increases the chance they they may actually be acted on. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have put a Level 4 heading above this comment by User:DGG about comments to call attention to it because I strongly agree with it. It doesn't do any harm to transclude the comment onto the talk page, and, if the submitter is active, it may give the submitter an idea for how to improve the draft. If it doesn't give them any idea of how to improve the draft, at least they will know that a reviewer read it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad Reviews

Bad reviews are sometimes (often?) a consequence of reviewers "going off the reservation" and declining for reasons that are not specified in the workflow given in the reviewing instructions. For example I've seen drafts declined for using a "non-standard" referencing method and similar invalid reasons. Declines (and rejections) should be based strictly and narrowly on the criteria specified in the instructions. There is probably room for reconsidering and perhaps tightening up some of the instructions too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with User:Dodger67, although I will note that sometimes the reason for the decline has to be explained beyond the standard reason, and sometimes a 'custom' reason has to be used. Non-standard references are not a decline reason. Malformed references should be a decline reason, and I decline them as 'v' with a note. However, I think that most declines should either be for no references, for no footnotes in a BLP, for promotion and advertising, or for notability, and that it should be mostly notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not consider malformed references a valid decline reason, unless they are so malformed that the items cannot be identified. At Articles for Creation the criterion for acceptance is only whether the article is likely to pass a community discussion at WP:AFD. . I have never heard of an article deleted at AfD for merely "malformed"references; a great many have been deleted for having references so poorly presented that hey cannot be identified, or that cannot be shown to document material, or providing only general references where specific references are needed, such as in BLPs. But, Robert McClenon, "malformed" is possibly vague, so perhaps you could give some examples:. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:DGG - By malformed references, I meant references that cause a big red reference error to be displayed. I don't know what would happen if an article with red reference errors were taken to AFD. Actually, on thinking about it, I do know, which is that someone in the AFD would either correct or delete the reference. Does that fall within the scope of being too difficult to verify? Oh yes. I mean a red reference error in the body of the article. I don't mean one of the miniature red indications in the Reference List. Those can be cleaned up in article space. By malformed, I was referring to errors displaying in the body of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If it's a "big red error" along the lines of title= has a website in it, not allowed or whatever nonsense the {{cite}} family of templates spits out, that is 100% NOT a reason to decline. If there is a reference or two that isn't readable... use the others? Formatting and style should never be a reason to decline something, so as long as there's an indication (and hopefully a URL) pointing to a reference, just go with it (and maybe even clean it up yourself!). Primefac (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No. That is a miniature red indication in the Reflist. The next time I see a big red error in the article body that would make the reader curse, I will point it out. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because its big does not make it important - empty ref tags in draft are shown as a big nasty ref, I can;t think of others tbh at the mo, but thats the one I see most and its a trivial removal KylieTastic (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, it rather depressing to see formatting, or lack of lead, or containing external links as reasons given, or appear to be given. I think sometimes someone may decline for instance on sources (for valid reasons) but the comment talks about format issues that makes it look like that's the key issue. A lot of the time I think comments are missing the explanation of the real reason before the other points, or even if reviewers added something like "As well as the referencing issues...." or even just "Also..." would be better. I got so tired of seeing formatting being used, or confused with, the reason for rejection when I have time I usually try to tweak basic format to stop such things. KylieTastic (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

When I review an article (which I haven't done recently, admittedly), I ask myself three questions:

1. Would this article survive CSD? If no, decline.
2. Would this article survive AFD? If no, decline.
3. Would this article surivive AFD if worked on the article to address the concerns from the AFD? If no, decline.

Otherwise, I accept it. I don't consider AFC to be responsible to create "perfect" articles. The {{wikify}} sub-templates exists for a reason. But expecting full Wikipedia articles can border on BITE territory, and unfortunately I've seen some of the results of that on IRC.

P.S. I'm slightly old-school. I actually remember when we didn't have a full set of guidelines, or the Draft namespace. So take my notes with a grain of salt. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen much of this lately. I do see reviewers that discuss article quality with their comments and potentially lead authors to believe the bar is higher than it actually is. Mostly I see timid interpretations of WP:LIKELY WRT what would be expected to happen at AfD. There are at least a couple of contributing factors:

1. A reviewer gets yelled at by experienced (deletionist) editors for accepting marginal drafts. A reviewer has little exposure for rejecting. They, therefore, err towards rejection.
2. Not all reviewers have significant AfD experience and therefore they may not appreciate that crappy articles on notable topics are usually kept. ~Kvng (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Why can’t we edit these pages? 75.83.68.155 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure which "pages" you ask about; however, this page, Wikipedia:Articles for creation, was protected about two years ago with the edit summary: "(Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Articles for creation": highly visible page with no reason to be edited on a regular basis ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)))". Hope this answers your question. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)