Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

1,708 pending submissions to update

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Bottom of page

Chart: Pending AfC submissions

Backlog chart daily Backlog chart weekly

Some newbie questions

1. What's the procedure for accepting a article if a redirect already exists? I tagged a couple redirect pages for CSD and the deleting editor moved the entire page over, AfC banners and all, so that I had to do the accepting process manually and there was (briefly) a messy article in mainspace. On the other hand, Liz said not to request drafts be moved to mainspace until they've been cleaned up, and directed me here when I had further questions. It seems like the easiest way to do this would be to have the redirect deleted and then use the AfC script to do the actual move - is there a reason that isn't done?

2. There isn't a clear reject option in the script for cases like Draft:Mir Mohammad Alikhan where the page already exists in mainspace. The reviewer instructions aren't clear on what to do here after I've determined I should reject it.

3. What to do about drafts that are clearly notable along some criteria other than coverage, but are otherwise very badly sourced? For example, an area that's notable according to WP:NGEO and has the claim to notability sourced, but is a stub/has no other sources/otherwise a very poor article. According to the "will this be accepted at AfD?" criteria it passes, but I'd like to confirm that these kinds of articles should be accepted. Rusalkii (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As an answer to #1, and a reply to Liz, if a page is marked as {{db-move}} or similar, and that page is in the draft space, then the Article/redirect should just be deleted; there is no mandate that the deleting admin move the page, and in this sort of situation it's probably better that they don't (assuming, of course, they are not themselves an AFC reviewer that can Accept the page with AFCH).

Answer #2: yes there is, it's exists - you might have to manually input the article title (as clearly Mir Mohammad Alikhan doesn't exist) but that's how you do it (which I've now done since I was there). For the record, I would not reject a draft like that, but decline.

Answer #3: you have two options. The first is to decline as v (improperly sourced) and have the draft creator improve it further. Option two is to remove anything that isn't sourced (assuming what's left still gives a "clearly notable" indication) and then accept it as a stub.

Hope this helps! Primefac (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Re 2: Huh, why is that decline instead of reject? I've been interpreting decline as "possible to improve" and reject as "definitely not going to be accepted", and a page that already exists seems to fit the latter. Rusalkii (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Rusalkii reject is rather a new thing and was added to deal with problematic resubmission mostly to stop offering the easy re-submit button. However for this reason it is quite abrupt/rude, so to not be WP:BITEY a decline should be enough in most cases. No one likes rejection so I use only when needed, and almost never on the first submit. So rather than see decline as "possible to improve" I would say use decline unless you want/need to reject outright. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Got it. Thank you Primefac and Kylie for the explanations! Rusalkii (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Rusalkii - I will expand somewhat on the comments by User:Primefac and User:KylieTastic about what to do if the title is already taken in mainspace, either by a redirect or by an article.

In the case where there is a redirect, as was said, the redirect can be tagged with G6 - Move, listing the draft as the page to replace the article, with a reason of Accept Draft. Although User:Primefac is right that it is best if the admin merely deletes the redirect, they will normally interpret the G6 as a technical move request, and will move the draft. That means that the reviewer should perform the same cleanup, such as removing the AFC template, that they would if the accept script failed. However, before tagging a redirect as G6, check whether the redirect has a non-trivial history. If it does, then the acceptance is more complicated, and you will need the help of either an admin or a page mover.

In the case where there already is an article, the reason for the decline is 'exists', and in that case, the template adds a message saying that the draft may be merged into the article. The reviewer should check whether the draft is the same as the article, is a subset of the article, or contains information that is not in the article. If the draft contains information that is not in the article, please tag the draft to be merged into the article, or tag the article to have the draft merged into it. (It doesn't matter which you tag, because the tagging is applied at both ends.) If the draft is the same as the article, or is a subset of the article, then it is helpful for the reviewer to replace the draft with a redirect to the article.

As User:KylieTastic says, only use Reject if you want to be biting the submitter. The only times that I will use Reject on a first submission are if I am also tagging it for speedy deletion as spam, vandalism, or something else. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope that clarifies, in particular about the case where there already is an article, which either can be improved, or can be redirected to. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As an additional thought re: G6'ing the article to be deleted, there is a "reason" field as the second parameter, so if you put {{db-move|Draft:XYZ|Accepting a draft article, please let the reviewer move it!}} or something similar, it will (hopefully) alert the patrolling admin that you are well capable of moving the page yourself, there's just that pesky extant article in the way. Primefac (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried this and got told that redirects are not preemptively deleted before an article is accepted. Rusalkii (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This happened to me too. G6 Speedy Deletion seems to not work in any way, shape or form, so the above statement is wrong. I'm also tired of having the articles moved wholesale without being able to run the acceptance script, so clearly there's some significant disconnect between people patrolling Speedy Deletion and this WikiProject._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If you (or anyone reading this thread) are getting your (completely valid) G6's declined, a) point the declining admin to this discussion (or my talk page), b) reinstate the G6, c) ping me and I'll delete it. I used to keep a closer eye on the G6 category, but that's kind of fallen by the wayside, but its sounding like I need to start patrolling it a bit more heavily. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as an update, a few pings, and a related discussion at WP:AN, I am passing along the opinions of multiple admins that marking the draft as "under review" before requesting the redirect be deleted is a great way to demonstrate a) you are actually an AFC Helper, b) the draft is actually under review, and c) the draft might actually get moved after the redirect is deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest adding an AFC comment to the Draft stating that one is awaiting G6? ITcantake some time for G6 to happen and this shows the it is under review long term for a valid reason to other reviewers. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That would also be reasonable, though if the page is marked as under review and the page is tagged for G6, it might be a tad bit unnecessary to mention the latter fact on the draft page? Primefac (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Hi, just wanted to say that this is still happening for me. I am still unable to place a CSD G6 without it getting removed. This is endlessly frustrating to me as I am perfectly capable of having pagemover rights, but was outright denied that when I requested them, and now am getting denied even requests to delete pages for housekeeping. Oh, and I did place the draft as under review, but the admin totally ignored that, so... yeah. Didn't help. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Which admin(s)? I am more than happy to leave notes for folks. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Zipolopolo

Thoughts on Draft:Zipolopolo? The draft's creator has acknowledged their COI; they assert the content is licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0, though I can't see reference to such a declaration on the company's website; while it is written carefully to not advertise, the overall aim is surely to publicise his stove design. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: I feel like I'm necroing this thread but anyways; according to WMF Legal (old inquiry made that copyright cleanup has been using for ages) CC-B-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and thus that content is copyrighted. This also does not have a visible CC license on the source website, thus failing the requirements that VRT needs to affirm the licensing. I'm going to attempt to clean this up tonight, other issues probably still pending. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving userspace drafts

Quite a few times now I've noticed cases where:

1. A user makes test edits in their user sandbox, e.g. "Hello World. My name is Lisa. I like strawberries."
2. The user converts their user sandbox page to a userspace draft.
3. The user submits the draft for AfC.
4. The draft is moved into draftspace (per "Preferred location for AfC submissions"), and eventually gets accepted.

The result of this is that Lisa's test post describing her like of strawberries is now included in the earliest version of the article, which it shouldn't be. In bad cases more personal information may end up in article histories this way. I've had to request history splits for several instances of this happening. Is there a better way to address this?

PS It might be worth mentioning that all cases I've come across seem to be from the same class of students working on an assignment, so one venue of addressing the issue would be to get in touch with the instructor and make sure the students aren't being given instructions to do this. But I think discussion is also warranted concerning the general case. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we could always adopt the "who cares?" mentality. I'm not being cheeky, genuinely don't think it's worth wasting time over. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's similar to multiple uses of the same sandbox by the same user. Sometimes I find I'm credited as the article creator by weird MW software accident. I have chosen not to worry about it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't worry either, but these cases I mentioned have included personal private information like real names, real-life affiliations, dates of birth, etc. While, yes, in any case the information is still somewhere on Wikipedia, keeping it in Userspace seems much less bad than including it in the history of an article, which is much more likely to be reproduced by forks and mirrors. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In your hypothetical just now, that sounds like pii that would be suppressed (regardless of where it was located). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK such information posted by the user is deleted/oversighted without their asking only if they are minors, though... --Paul_012 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

We're getting a little off-topic here, but for the sake of clarity (since it's something I'm quite familiar with), there are varying levels of "personal" depending on the user's age. If the user is <16, we assume they shouldn't be posting anything about themselves (socials, contact info, location, school, parents, etc); older folk we drop a few of those from the list (e.g. socials are okay, but a personal phone number or home address is not). It's really a case-by-case evaluation, and if you're ever in doubt please feel free to email the OS team; we'd much rather decline a borderline case than have something slip through the cracks. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is confusing and think it should count for revdel as housekeeping under WP:CRD#6 (though I'm fairly confident it currently doesn't). An edit before a move to mainspace is only worth keeping in the page history if it adds or removes some information related to the subject. I don't think we need a systematic purge of these edits, just the ability to revdel them when coming across them. A histmerge is a better technical solution (not sure under what policy this usage would be justified under though), but a waste of time when there's nothing of value to put back in userspace, assuming histmerges are as much of a pain as they look like from the instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Selective deletion and restoration is probably a better option, as technically speaking RD doesn't fit for "hiding old versions of a page that aren't related". Primefac (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realise restoration could be selective or I would've suggested that. Agreed that it's a better move. — Bilorv (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did my article about terrance ruffin got declined?

Everything was good with the article, i checked it, i dont know why it didn't got accepted, can y'all see what the problem was if there was a problem in the first place? ClassicPhysiqueGuy (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ClassicPhysiqueGuy, the reason is in the big pink box at the top of your draft: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." You're welcome to resubmit the draft (by clicking the big blue button that says "resubmit") once you've added some reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ClassicPhysiqueGuy (talk · contribs), regrettably, nowhere gives you this advice: Do not start your Wikipedia editing with the creation of a topic that no one else has thought notable. You don’t have to follow this advice, but if you don’t get editing experience with existing content, you are likely to get short shrift.

WP:AfC offers you assistance. You don’t have to accept it. Consider WP:DUD. However, if you stay within the AfC system and keep resubmitting, it will be deleted, and you may be blocked for disruption.

Is Terrence Ruffin worth even a mention on any already existing article? He is not currently mentioned on any. If yes, you would do well to improve articles by mentioning him. If not, then it is very unlikely that he is warranted his own article.

You have been pointed to WP:ATHLETE. Does he pass it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

He is mentioned at Arnold Sports Festival. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has an RFC

Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Backlog push over the holidays?

I might hope that AFC gets fewer submissions over the Christmas/New Year period, at least from COI/paid editors who should be off work. Some AFC reviewers more experienced than me might be able to say whether this is true. In any case, we've currently got just 6 reviews in the "3 months old" pile (contrasting 248 under "2 months"). Can we push from the back of the queue a little bit to try to start the new year with a backlog firmly under 3 months? Not suggesting anything formal like a backlog drive, but maybe it's worth putting feelers out somewhere, as I could be preaching to the choir by asking for more reviewers to the people with this talk page watchlisted. — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well there was less subs on Christmas day but also less reviews - however we do have a small dip in the backlog.... we can but see. KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Three copies of the same draft in three different places

It appears that user Anovak4 has created the same draft for an organization called "Stall Catchers" at three different places: Draft:Stall Catchers, User:Anovak4/Stall Catchers, and User:Anovak/ Stall Catchers (the latter is in a different user's userspace, presumably accidentally; Anovak4 also created another draft in that same other user's space at User:Anovak/ human computation institute). It looks like it was originally at the userspace location but then moved to draftspace by Rusalkii but then recreated twice by Anovak4. Could someone help clear this up? (All three of the Stall Catchers drafts are pending review and the draftspace one was PRODded by Anovak4.) eviolite (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Eviolite, I've moved the two userspace drafts to draftspace; the PROD could be interpreted as WP:G7, but I'll leave that to someone else. This should clear up the confusion hopefully. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Which ranks count for a WP:ANYBIO pass? I've seen a couple drafts now which were borderline and I was tempted to accept them for an OBE ("no more than 858" may be appointed a year). Rusalkii (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an OBE is an ANYBIO pass on its own (a CBE might be). It certainly counts for something, though, and a good proportion of people with one are notable. See here for some recent discussions at AfD. Spicy (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I was taught that GBE/KBE/CBE is an ANYBIO pass, and OBE/MBE are not. I have some notes here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are very helpful, thank you for compiling them! Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I've always found User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours to be useful, even though it probably errs a bit more on the inclusionist side than I'm comfortable with. It counts OBE/MBE as a "second-level service award", which means it's not enough on its own but can certainly contribute to notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredibly thorough, thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sonya Beiruty

Can somebody remove this article please. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean deleting this redirect page? or, deleting the article it redirects to? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 06:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays , Happy Christmas , Happy Editing...

Hey fellow reviewers and lurkers!

I hope your all doing good and can enjoy some holiday cheer, or for those that don't have holidays have some cheer anyway

I've just had a negative LFT so will be off for the first family meal in two years! \o/

Ho Ho Ho — KylieTastic (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and everyone who celebrates, and an (early) happy New Year and/or bonus vacation days for everyone else! Rusalkii (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear your celebrations are going ahead, KylieTastic! Happy holidays and thanks for your incredibly hard work at AFC this year. :) — Bilorv (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

user:Luciapop has been shown to be a Sockpuppet

Luciapop has been investigated and found to be a Sockpuppet of User:Ugbedeg, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugbedeg/Archive. What is tremendously disappointing is that they slipped though our radar and became an AFC reviewer, accepting and declining in this list.

I absolutely do not intend this to be a criticism of their acceptance as a reviewer. They were good. Very good, but drove a coach and horses through our defences. Their article creations reek of UPE. Most have met G5. Some are at AfD prior to the SPI as UPE Spam

Should we formulate a plan to look at their AFC acceptances? And also their declines? Rewarding sock puppetry is not a thing I approve of, yet if the accepts are from genuine editors... Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. To save time, I suggest we only examine their accepts. Keep in mind they were autopatrolled, so their AFC accepts have evaded all scrutiny. Here's a list. Maybe strikethrough or tick each one once it's re-evaluated?

• Trimonoecy - * no UPE, but should probably be merged with Trioecy as it is a subset of that topic. Curbon7 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Frances Gibson Shepheard Ingram – Y probably notable; no UPE/spam concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Kabiru Rabiu - * Sourcing could use work but tone is fine. Best three sources are Premium Times, The Capital, and Business a. m.. I don't understand the Nigerian media landscape well enough to judge if this is adequate. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Italy–Slovenia border
• Ideas for India - * borderline, imo. I'd accept it if the Economist article had substantial coverage, but I can't access it. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  N with just under half the references from Youtube, I would have pushed this back for further work. The Youtube channel is stated to be that of the subject of the article. With 401 subscribers this is an insignificant channel, even though it is the channel of the principal. * I am undecided about whether this is UPE. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  I've stripped a couple of sections out Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• National Incentive Award (KVS) - I can't quite tell how many of these are local news but it looks okay to me. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• James Rochford - * only two independent sources, one of which looks good and the other one of which I can't access Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  * This hangs on the paywalled source. The other references are what I would expect from the media area the subject is in. Against the article is the picture, up for deletion on Commons as mis-licenced by an experienced Commons admin. It has a promotional feel and I would have pushed it back for better referencing. 51:49 about UPE. Oddly complete for an editor with 3 enWP and 1 Commons edit in total. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Milutin Marinović - Y WP:NPOL pass as government minister, no UPE. Tagging appropriately. Curbon7 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Semyon Kadyshev
• Rob Chandra
• Flood-Medal 2013 of the State of Lower Saxony Y obviously notable, but inadequately referenced. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Laser speckle contrast imaging
• Economy of the Inca Empire – Y notable; not problematic from a UPE perspective. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Bellator 255 - Y looks good, we have articles for all the other ones. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Joseph H. Dickinson - Y notable per WP:NPOL, no UPE. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• J. B. Blakeney House
• Jared L. Brush Barn - Y notable historic place, no UPE. -2pou (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Dione Lucas' Gourmet Club - Y meets GNG, no clear COI. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Nicholas Burton - Y notable per WP:NPOL, no UPE. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Invasive beaver policies and impacts in Southern Patagonia – Y appropriately tagged; no further action necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Blanc F. Joubert – Y notable; no concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• The Vanities
• Slow tourism
• Antoine Viviani - * I haven't looked at all the sources, but if he actually features nontrivially in all three books cited, he's clearly notable, and may be even if he doesn't Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  * the article history is very interesting. Luciapop accepted and immediately a Sockpuppet of Zaid Zayd started to edit. This has a tag team feel about it. The creating editor has only edited in this space. I have started a new SPI. I think it likely that collusion has taken place at the very least. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• St Mary al-Tahira Church – Y I've added a stub template; no further action required. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Battle of Otterlo – Y not UPE; probably notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ota (cartoonist) – Y meets WP:ANYBIO via award and GNG via translated news -2pou (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Adolfo Aizen
• Dick Gallup – Y likely notable; no signs of UPE; tone is a bit uncritical but not too problematic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Svetomir Matić - Y passes WP:NPOL as a provincial governor. Curbon7 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Matsyagandha Lake
• Patrick McGeehan
• Jami Macarty
• Philip Nichols (evangelical writer) – Y likely notable (the Oxford DNB entry is enough for a WP:ANYBIO #1 pass), and certainly no spam/UPE issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Biparental inheritance Y with the reservation that this is a very complete article from a new editir, and that none of the references have been cited with online links. THis makes copyvio checking very challenging, though I have made the attempt. UPE is unlikely Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Jerry Clayton ? This depends upon whether an elected sheriff is an inherently notable perosn. If that is not the case I smell UPE, or potential poor reviewing. This needs a better opinion than mine. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mikkel Svane
• Kerry Lauerman
• Livestream shopping
• Michael Colby
• Maruti Manpade – Y likely notable. Tone is a bit flowery, but nothing that requires deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Gymnast86

–Novem Linguae (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Went through all of their AfC works. There is a number of the accepted BLP/businesses pages have been tagged with advert/gng/unpaid editing tags by some other editors already. – robertsky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007. Here's some more we might need to check. These are ones they AFC accepted and they won't show up on their article created list since they were page moves. Should probably look at the article creators and add them to SPI too, if needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Article creators of drafts accepted by Luciapop (may be worth SPIing some of these): click here –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, those well known sockpuppet accounts known as...Doncram and CycoMa1. /sarcasm. Is there any actual reason to think literally any of Luciapop's involvement in AfC had anything to do with their UPE? Silverseren^C 21:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For organization so that we can sort through this list quickly and effectively, it'll be best if we use the Category:Checkmark insertion templates. In this case, {{tick}} (Y) is re-reviewed article has notability and no UPE, {{xmark}} (N) is re-reviewed article with no notability and/or contains UPE, and {{n.b.}} (*) is awaiting re-review or no determination made yet needs further re-review. Curbon7 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey I was pinged to this discussion what’s going on here?CycoMa1 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You apparently made an AfC submission that was accepted by a sockpuppet account. So now you're on the dreaded suspected sockpuppet list of doom! *scary doom noises* Silverseren^C 21:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Um should I be worried about this?CycoMa1 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Apologies if my sarcasm didn't make that obvious. I was using you and Doncram as examples of why this SPI fishing expedition is a waste of time. There's no evidence Luciapop was doing anything other than being a serious AfC reviewer, since there are also several articles they've written entirely on their own accord that isn't UPE. Silverseren^C 22:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there some reason you pinged the experienced editors who clearly aren't socks? In my opinion, you are misusing the list. Anyway, it didn't present the pattern I was expecting (the pattern to look out for here would be a high # of accepts of the same new editor author) so probably no useful info to be gleaned after all, but doesn't hurt to post it in case other reviewers see a pattern I'm missing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't know CycoMa1. My understanding is Trimonoecy pays well these days. Ha! :) S0091 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

More than just a sockpuppet. A UPE with autopatrol. Stop trivializing this. It's a big deal that this bad actor got past our defenses. This person's work needs some much needed scrutiny. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, do you have literally any evidence whatsoever that the UPE they were doing on their own with their account by making articles has anything to do with their activity on AfC? I repeat, the account in question also made a number of non-UPE articles on their own, so clearly they have activities on Wikipedia outside of their UPE. Silverseren^C 01:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not currently. The point of this section is to ascertain that. Surely you agree that someone who has been violating the terms of use and engaging in undisclosed paid editing with zero scrutiny (autopatrolled means their work skipped the NPP queue) should have their works considered suspect and evaluated? I'll go ahead and withdraw my SPI list though, after examining that I don't see anything alarming. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've spot-checked a couple of the BLPs/companies. So far I haven't noticed anything too egregious, but there a couple borderline accepts that even I would be kind of reluctant to make, and I think I err inclusionist. More specific notes are above. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged and came here and did/do understand the sarcasm. The fact that I am accused of undisclosed paid editing is a joke, and undermines the accusations against others. User:Rusalkii's assertion of concern based on their "specific notes" (e.g. "Ideas for India - Nota bene borderline, imo. I'd accept it if the Economist article had substantial coverage, but I can't access it. Rusalkii", and similar comments not establishing any untoward pattern) seem like a joke too. Sorry, Rusalkii, just because you can't access an Economist article does not mean it is a false source. Coming in from the outside on this, this seems like an unnecessary attack on a probably innocent and well-meaning and legitimate AFC editor to me. I think it was fine that I was pinged, and I think it is fine that I have this negative opinion about apparent attacking going on. --Doncram (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram. You were not accused of UPE, you were included on a list of AFC accepts of this user, and my goal was to check the list for anybody that might be suspicious. After examining the list, I determined that there was nobody suspicious. a probably innocent and well-meaning and legitimate AFC editor. This is nonsense, Luciapop has been verified by SPI to be a UPE. They also had autopatrolled. Surely you agree that a UPE with autopatrol is a dangerous combination and deserves examination? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: I didn't mean it was a false source, I meant "I, personally, can't evaluate this. It might be notable, and might not, so I am commenting here so that someone with access to it can look." I absolutely did not mean to accuse you or anyone else of being a sockpuppet/UPE/malicious editing of any sort. Rusalkii (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. FWIW, I am a longtime wikipedia editor, have created more than 10,000 articles mostly on historic places, and most of them being places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places which tend to have extensive documentation. Two of those were approved at AFC by the questioned editor. I happen to be under edit restriction preventing myself from putting new articles into mainspace myself. It is not particularly relevant here, but the edit restriction is itself unfair, the result of a bullying process involving a couple longterm influential bullies in Wikipedia culminating in a nasty ANI proceeding that came out with the edit restriction. About AFC, however, I have a generally good impression about the competence and professionalism of the process and the editors involved. Thank you all for being involved. And, probably this discussion too was well-meant and I appreciate the participation of AFC volunteers including Rusalkii although I disagree with their judgment in this case. --Doncram (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sorry i guess i was called a potential sockpuppet sarcastically, not called a UPE sarcastically, by Silver seren, either of which is fine by me, i like to be noticed :) . And I do see that actual Undisclosed Paid Editors and/or sockpuppets can and do try to disguise their situation by making some edits like accepting AFC articles unrelated to their actual evil agendas. I do honestly appreciate what AFC editors take on and i think youse folks including Novem Linguae and Rusalkii are heroic. --Doncram (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving article using AFCH tool shows error

Hello everyone. I was reviewing the article Draft:Gangapurna and I think the editor has done sufficient work to make the article suitable for main space. AFC for Draft:Gangapurna with AFCH tool is showing error because there already exists an article in main space (which contains a redirect). I suppose it needs admin privilege to move the draft to main space in such conditions. Can anyone please resolve the issue? I am posting here based on suggestion from Liz. Best regards! nirmal (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• The trouble appears to be these G6 requests were added in a way asking the draft to be moved - I use the plain 'houskeeping' G6 version without mentioning the draft and clearly stating the request is so AfC can accept. From this edit comment it appears Liz took it as a db-move request rather than noting the comment Accepting draft at AfC; if possible, please just delete, so that the move can be preformed using the AfC script, otherwise several actions need to be preformed manually'. Also the next decline comment would appear to be a miss understanding that submissions are marked as under review or reviewed before acceptance. So you could mark as under review before requesting a G6... however if a reviewer does not review every day that can just delay the accept for days or weeks! I would have hoped the reason given was enough but it does appear adding using db-move with a page makes it less likely the reason will be understood. I would just use the G6 like {{Db-g6|rationale=To make way so I can accept a draft via AfC}}, rather than {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}}. I would also comment on the draft that it's ready to be accepted - deletion of redirect requested. Also see #Some newbie questions above. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic@Nirmaljoshi I have deleted the redirect, the accept can now go ahead. Reviewers are welcome to ping me to do such deletions, it seems many admins do not understand AFC's processes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dodger67 KylieTastic (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• See also the related discussion at an earlier section on this page and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#db-move and drafts. I'm not sure why Liz keeps pointing people to this talk page—if there's a comment mentioning AFC acceptance then an admin just needs to G6 the page and then the reviewer can use AFCH to accept. There's no other possible workflow for a reviewer without admin or page mover status than having the redirect deleted first, and we've been using this workflow for years. — Bilorv (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  In fairness to Liz, this db-move decline was before I left her a note pointing her to the various discussions (turns out she doesn't really pay attention to pings), so don't hold it against her too much. if she continues to do it in the future, though, we can be more irate. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

-Thank you everyone for prompt response. Best regards! nirmal (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I strongly agree that it is troublesome that some admins don't understand that the AFC reviewer wants to use the AFC acceptance script, so that the reviewer is asking to delete the redirect and let the reviewer do the acceptance. So if the admin goes ahead and deletes the redirect and moves the draft, the reviewer has to perform cleanup. On the other hand, I find myself having to do cleanup behind most of my own acceptances of drafts. I find that most of the time, when I accept a draft, the AFC script doesn't finish what it is supposed to do. I find that it usually just moves the draft into article space and then quits, so I normally have to do the cleanup anyway. I am about to start a new thread about this problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Declining 'blank' submissions

I have come across several drafts rejected as blank in the last couple of weeks that were not really blank. Sometime submitters have just accidentality removed the end of comment --> but left the start of comment <!-- thus rendering the content as blank, or just put the complete text in a comment. For those submitters not familiar with markup it is not intuitive why it does not show. I would suggest every time a reviewer comes across a 'blank' submission first view the source to check it actually is. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If the reviewer encounters a draft that appears to be blank but really has the text entered as a comment, the reviewer should decline the draft (of course) with an explanation. It would be a good idea to advise them to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I don't think that it really matters whether the reason from the list used as 'blank' or 'custom' or whatever, as long as the reviewer explains to the submitter that they have accidentally commented their entire submission, and suggests that they ask for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It's far simpler and fairer for the reviewer to simply uncomment the content and review it properly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! That was what I was assuming would be done - fix the issue and review. KylieTastic (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree on reviewing it if there is content that is worth reviewing. When I have seen an apparently blank draft that has hidden content, it doesn't look like a draft, but some sort of a test. That is, commenting the text is not the only mistake. I agree that if there is a reviewable draft, it should be reviewed, but I would also suggest that the author be informed, because otherwise they may make more mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Acceptance Script Failures

I have a technical concern about accepting drafts. I personally find that most of the time, when I accept a draft using the Accept option of the AFC script, it moves the draft into article space and doesn't do anything else. It usually doesn't remove the AFC stuff, or assign a rating to the article, or add the Articles for Creation project banner to the talk page, or add the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner to the talk page. So I typically have to do those steps manually anyway. So I think that my follow-up questions are:

• 1. Is a script developer aware of this problem?
• 2. Is there a way that I can report these script failures, in addition to just doing the work of the script manually?
• 3. Is there an alternate script that can be used to finish the acceptance? (If so, it can also be used if an administrator in good faith does a technical move without using the AFC script.)
• 4. Does anyone know what causes these script failures, so that a reviewer (e.g., myself) can avoid them, or can increase the likelihood of successfully accepting a draft?

I will add that some of the steps that need to be done instead of using the script are obvious, in particular, removing the AFC stuff, but some of them are important but not obvious, such as putting the BLP banner on the talk page of a BLP, and there are some of them that I think I don't know, such as whatever is done with birthplace information in biographies.

Is there a list of steps that a reviewer should do when they see that an Accept didn't finish? Is there a way either to report these failures or minimize them? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Likely need more info in order to diagnose this. What browser and OS are you using? Desktop or mobile? Can you google how to open the developer tools console of your browser, open that, then give a screenshot of it after you click the accept button but before you change pages or refresh the page? (Any JavaScript errors should print a warning to here.) Once we have enough info to diagnose the problem, we can create a bug report on GitHub, which will put it in a queue of bugs to be fixed. How long have you had this issue? The last time the helper script was updated was August 15, 2021. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae - I have been having the problem for a few months. I am using the desktop version, using Windows 10. I am mostly using Firefox, and am not sure at this time whether I have ever had the problem when I was using Chrome. So I will try accepting a few drafts using Chrome in the next few days. It has been happening for a few months. I can go back and see when I first reported that it was happening often enough to be an annoyance. Firefox has a command called Inspect, which opens some sort of developer view; I am not sure whether that is what you want. When you say "after you click the accept button but before you change pages", do you mean after it looks as if the script has stopped after moving the page to article space and before cleaning up? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The goal is to see this kind of stuff, which will be printed when the glitch happens, but must be screenshotted before the page is refreshed (refreshing clears the console). If one of those messages is present, it's super helpful, telling us the exact line # of the code causing the problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can recall I've only had this once this year, and that was at a time the site was running slow anyway. I use FF on Win 10 as well. I feel this is going to be difficult to diagnose. Do you have many Add-ons? I just noticed I did turn of Adblock Plus for Wikipedia, but I cant remember why KylieTastic (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging Novem Linguae and @KylieTastic: I think the few times I've encountered this problem was due to a network failure or disorder seems the network wasn't strong enough to complete all tasks, so just one or two task will be done and you'll have to do the rest manually. There was a time my network failed, and it did this, and another time I was out of data so I just bought data and continued from where it stopped manually. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• User:Idoghor Melody - What do you mean about being "out of data" and providing more data? I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: Out of data means when you run out of mobile data network or when your Data plan is exhausted. If it's exhausted you'll buy another one right?? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• The only times I have experienced this I closed the tab I was working in before the script had finished. The script must have a tab/womdow to work in or it stops. It is not a task that runs independent or the browser window. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• That is true. There was one reviewer who often left articles in a state where they were awaiting closure, because he closed the tab after clicking Accept, but the problem was called to his attention and he began waiting for the script to complete or opening another tab. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I confess that was me. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • User:Novem Linguae - Please see

      

      AFC screen shot

      and

      

      AFC screen shot

      . Are these what the developers want? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • These don't look like much on this project page, but I think that they are full-resolution screen shots, and I think that they are the interior views that you were requesting. If not, please let me know what to do differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

      Thanks for taking the time. See how the developer area has a bunch of tabs, and the "Inspector" tab is selected? Can you do me a favor and repost with the "Console" tab selected? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

      • User:Novem Linguae - Obviously you meant to reproduce the problem with a different draft and repost with the "console" tab selected. So here another one is:

        

        Wade Crosby acceptance stopped

        . Is this useful? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

        Getting closer. It's cut off. Would be great to get a copy/paste of the entire console. Could paste it into something like https://pastebin.com/ or your sandbox, then provide a link. Sorry this is dragging out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

        After substituting the versions of the scripts, I am no longer having the problem. I will follow your instructions in reporting any future occurrences of this problem or any comparable problems. I am not going to make any effort to reproduce the problem now, because I encountered the problem as a user and not as a tester. I suggest that if another user has a similar problem and isn't losing their network connection, looking at Javascript conflicts might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well the first one does show 53 errors which suggests some serious problems. It looks like your using MonoBook skin, does anyone else? Could a skin cause an issue? KylieTastic (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I just tried accepting with the MonoBook skin pref and had no issues so not that. So maybe it's a clash with some other javascript - from User:Robert_McClenon/common.js you are using 'User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js' rather than the main tool version; you have 'User:Enterprisey/delsort.js' rather than 'User:EnterpriseyBot/delsort.js' (as per User:Enterprisey/delsort); I use 'User:Evad37/rater.js', 'User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js', 'User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify.js' so unlikely to be then (unless a conflict) KylieTastic (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone please point me to instructions for how to uninstall Javascripts, so that I can install the recommended versions of the AFCH script and the Delsort? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  For AFCH, you can go to User:Robert McClenon/common.js, then delete the line importScript( 'User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js' );. Then go to Preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing -> check "Yet Another AFC Helper Script". Then make sure to hit "Save".

  For delsort, similar process. User:Robert McClenon/common.js, delete importScript('User:Rhododendrites/scripts/delsort-monobook-all.js'); // Backlink: User:Rhododendrites/scripts/delsort-monobook-all.js. Then this time instead of going to preferences, stay at common.js and add this to it: {{subst:lusc|User:EnterpriseyBot/delsort.js}}. Save page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• As noted above, I think that this has resolved the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Are these articles not the same?

Saw this Draft:Donough O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond and Henry O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond, are they not the same? Pinging Robert McClenon Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There's obviously something wrong here: Henry was born in 1588, and his article claims that Donough was his father. But the draft claims that Donough was born in 1595, which makes no sense. I think the draft must be about someone else named Donough O'Brien who wasn't 4th Earl of Thomond. (Bizarre.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Sorry I made a mistake earlier. It's actually Draft:Donough O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond and Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet. Please check Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No, those two have different death dates, so they can't be the same. The subject of our draft wasn't an earl or a baronet: his claim to notability comes from being knighted and apparently serving in Parliament. I would accept the draft and move it to a title like Donough O'Brien (died 1634), assuming you're satisfied that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Idoghor Melody, User:Extraordinary Writ - It appears that:

• 1. I made a mistake in renaming the draft.
• 2. The subject of the draft is not the subject of any existing article.
• 3. The draft should be accepted, because the subject is notable, once there is agreement on the title of the article.
• 4. The author of the draft completely confused things by having a public tantrum.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Even I made a mistake by moving from 5th to 4th. However Donough O'Brien (died 1634) as suggested by Extraordinary Writ seems ok but the draft is not currently submitted. Should I ping the author to submit? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody: The editor in question already re-created in mainspace, as the biography is a matter of urgent national importance. Clearly both you and Robert need to be stripped of your "admin privileges" for doing stuff like verifying information rather than hurrying this along. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman - On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In what nation and what year was the emergency? In twothirds of the world its 2022. McClenon mobile (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

What AfC achieved in 2021

In 2021 my rough count shows that 409 reviewers accepted 12,586^* to main-space - Great work all!

^{* ignoring extra edits to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent and manual accepts}

Every single accept helps... but the big hitters of 2021: Bkissin 1360 accepts, DGG 851, Theroadislong 731 and Devonian Wombat 449 - Amazing work you four!

Unfortunately I have no easy way for get numbers for reviews as with normal deletions and G13s much data is lost to mere mortals. However at a ballpark of 20% accepts that would be ~63,000 reviews.

And let us not forget the highly successful July 2021 Backlog Drive

We also stopped vast amounts of promotion, spam, copyright-violation, attacks etc reaching main-space which is also a notable achievement.

Great work all and Best Wishes for 2022 for everyone. KylieTastic (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see I accepted so many drafts, it sometimes feels like I'm declining and rejecting all day long! Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theroadislong When I worry about what I am doing I look at https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ and find out my real ratios. Everyone's differ. They depend om what we hit, pot luck, if you like. Yours and mine differ. I woudl say each of us is pretty healthy despite the differences. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We have done well.

We can do better.

We may permit ourselves 5 minutes of pleasant smugness, and then it is on with the new year.

Thank you to the new reviewers who are really getting going with the payload Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Some brilliant work last year—the backlog drive was amazing. I hoped we could reach the year with a queue still under 3 months long, and though a few have been trickling into the "3 months" category, we have made it—let's see how long we can keep it that way. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Great to see that so many articles are being accepted, the amount of good work coming out of here by both reviewers and writers is amazing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been aware of and impressed by what the active editors have been doing on AfC. It's changed how I !vote on AfDs: there are so many articles that come to AfD in a state that normally gets deleted there that would be promising drafts over here, so I've been arguing to draftify them. I also finally got the hang of the AfC workflow, althought I still have more resistance to passing judgement on AfC drafts than I do !voting at AfD. I hope to be regularly active in the coming year. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

the usual problem remains that unless there are editors around who already care, it won't get improved at afc, while it might be at mainspace by readers who find it. But often at afd, someone is around who does care. It's much more of a problem with new articles where the original contributor isn't around., as is usually the case for most people at editathons. (I think that if you run an editathon, you are responsible for following up on the articles produced there. Pre-pandemic, WM-NYC often did; at the moment, it's hard to generate enough enthusiasm).

I ran a test run in the last few days ago: I checked 900 articles from G13 eligible soon. I found 100 which might reasonably be rescuable. (including a few that could be immediately accepted). I now need to run a test on how many that reach G13 and are more than utter junk or people playing around, actually ever were submitted. Do we have stats for how many articles are entered in draft space, or on how many get moved there, usually at NP? DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

For the latter, User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch has a weekly record of pages being moved from mainspace to draft. A quick look at the old versions suggest a rate of 300–450 per week. – SD0001 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Article authors moving pages out of draft space prior to approval?

Hi all,

I was recently approved for AfC privileges as a probationary member. I have now twice encountered a situation where *prior* to an AfC being accepted, the author of the AfC moved the article to draft space and deleted the AfC comments, claiming they have been addressed and the article is thus now publishable. Is this appropriate behavior and what should I do about this?

• First case was an article called Draft:Fresible, moved after the AfC was declined. I cleared the page and used WP:PROD for speedy deletion of the new article.

• Second case is Fred Y. Ye (Draft:Fred Y. Ye). An AfC reviewer had raised some concerns about notability as the researcher had published in at least one predatory journal. Original author made some improvements to the article and moved it away from draft space. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Any editor, including article authors, are allowed to move drafts to mainspace (though it's rude and inappropriate for someone to do that to another person's draft without their permission). AfC is an optional process that editors willingly submit to or may be required to if under a community/Arbcom editing restriction. AfC has no authority over whether articles are to be published to mainspace if the author disagrees. So, honestly, you moving the draft back after the author decided to publish doesn't seem like an appropriate action. If you have concerns over notability, then Articles for Deletion is the way to go. Silverseren^C 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Caleb Stanford, please be aware that the AfC process is entirely optional for autoconfirmed editors although strongly recommended for paid editors. If you see a completely inappropriate AfC submission moved to main space, then nominate it for deletion. But keep in mind that autoconfirmed editors have the right to create articles without advance approval. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you both for the answer, that clarifies. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Bearcat, Celestina007, CT55555, and AssumeGoodWraith: as we just had a discussion on CT55555's talk page about this and there were differing perspectives. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Silverseren. The relevant essay is WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The idea is that draftspace shouldn't be used as backdoor deletion, and that everyone deserves an AFD discussion. However, I will also add that most articles unilaterally moved out of draftspace tend to have problems. These articles go into the WP:NPP queue and get addressed there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, your answer was helpful also and provided some additional useful links! I encourage you to restore it. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. I just didn't want to pile on. I'm glad you found the answer helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

S0091, Thank you for the ping. Now, Editors manually moving articles which they once submitted for review directly to mainspace isn’t against policy but isn’t good practice either as it comes across as “being in a hurry” Caleb Stanford as I mentioned, there isn’t any policy preventing them from doing so, my thinking is if they do so, what you want to do is scrutinize the article for signs of possible WP:ADMASQ &/ checking the notability status of the article and if you find it falling short of our notability criteria, you nominate for deletion, in which in your rationale for deletion you give reasons why it isn’t suited for mainspace due to notability reasons and whatnot, then furthermore, I recommend also stating in your nom rationale that they circumvented the AFC process furthermore, if you aren’t sure, or you want more experienced eyes looking at this, you may go here & ask for feedback. I find asking for feedback there to be rather helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's allowable behaviour, but it can burn bridges. When done inappropriately, it demands escalation, like PROD/AfD. It's not generally worth descending into an argument with the person about whether they are acting in bad faith (even if they are). — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Trans Bhutan Trail

Could someone else take a look at Draft:Trans Bhutan Trail? I think the topic has some merit, but there's a lack of reliable sources on Bhutan where the Internet was banned until 1999, and there's a promotional element to the article. I have reviewed it several times. The author is struggling with referencing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User submitted a draft and then themselves moved to mainspace

User submitted the Draft:Kamrunag lake, which being not ready for mainspace I declined. But, before it could load that, the user themselves moved the article to mainspace. What to do in such a situation? Should I csd the draft and move the mainspace article back to draft? Or, let it be there since I guess it's not an AfD-able article? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You can leave it be, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. A WP:NPP patroller will be along and do a further evaluation of the article. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Article authors moving pages out of draft space prior to approval? above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I did miss the thread. Thanks. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments using AFCH

Maybe I don't know the right way, but I don't see the comments I post using AFCH. For ex., Draft:LFL (Chauffeur Company) and Draft:Kamrunag lake. Any idea? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lightbluerain it is caused by the pipe '|' in your signature.

Original

• Comment: Add some references to prove the subject's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pipe removed

• Comment: Add some references to prove the subject's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a bug caused by using vertical bar in a template without escaping it. Try going to preferences, editing your signature, and replacing pipe with {{!}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• or to reduce the need for looking up that template just use &#124; directly. KylieTastic (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fun fact: {{!}} actually a magic word, for speed reasons :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot. I didn't know about the template. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yup Novem Linguae, I had just noticed and had corrected my last by edit but conflicted :/ as you were quicker (and then got another edit conflict adding this) - I'm surprised that you can actually use a pipe in a signature like that... I expected it to have checks for such issues. KylieTastic (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Submission declined

why my article submission was declined ??? 2409:4055:2E9D:34E5:0:0:A488:6700 (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Which was the draft you submitted? Curbon7 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, this should be moved to the AfC Help Desk. Bkissin (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Does "STOP" mean "Stop"?

When a reviewer doesn't merely decline but instead rejects a draft, Template:AFC submission is plonked on top of the draft, and the reader (most likely just the creator), is both (i) told to "STOP", and (ii) invited to "Ask for advice".

The invitation is often accepted. The advice asked for is seldom if ever "I now realize that I was misguided. I'll abandon that draft and its subject. Please point me to good advice for NooBs." Instead, it's "My draft was rejected; how can I get it accepted?" (Or, more hilariously, "My draft was rejected; please improve it and get it accepted.")

Is "STOP" supposed to be a directive to stop? If it is, should the reader be simultaneously invited to ask for advice? -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Without the invitation it would read like "Stop and go away!". There are some who should go away - the paid and promo editors - but others could become productive with some guidance and we don't want to chase them off. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Roger, perhaps we disagree, because I believe that there are very many who should go away: not just the paid and promo editors but also those people, no matter how well-meaning, who demonstrate not just a faulty understanding of what an encyclopedia is but a blissful (or indignant) near-total ignorance. Such people waste our time. (Perhaps the only exceptions are the very young. The amiably clueless eleven-year-old might become a productive twelve-year-old.) While I can't summon the energy to make a systematic investigation, it seems to me that, when the invitation to "Ask for advice" has been made together with "STOP", its commonest use is about the nominally stopped draft. Has your experience been different? If it has been similar to mine, then instead of "Ask for advice", how about, say, "Ask for advice about editing other articles"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the current advice message should stay. The decline is not an authoritative "this draft will never be moved to mainspace" as AfC is not binding anyway (see above). Most messages about declines are bad, most comments by AfC users asking for help are bad, most AfC submissions are bad, and most edits by new users are bad. Nonetheless, the most useful way to consider decision-making is by the converse: what proportion of successful editors made bad edits initially? Almost all (I know I did). Chasing away good faith editors by essentialising them as intrinsically too stupid to ever become successful editors may be the default on Wikipedia, but it is rudeness based on a falsehood that causes our declining community many of its problems. — Bilorv (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv, I don't agree with all of that, but it certainly makes sense. Are you, then, happy with the "STOP" sign that appears in the same version of the template? -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Not unhappy enough that I can think of anything better. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv, I'm not yet convinced that we shouldn't have an option to the template that (i) clearly tells editors to stop, and (ii) either (a) doesn't invite them to ask for advice or (b) invites them to ask for advice for other enterprises. (Of course, such an option should be used sparingly. And if you look at my edits, you'll see that I only very rarely reject a submission.) However, I'm also quite open to the suggestion of an option between "I decline this in its current state but encourage you to keep working on it", and "I reject this in its current state; and you should stop." If you really want such an option, then having it tell its readers to "STOP" strikes me as perverse. How about, say, "Please PAUSE and think hard"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the majority of new editors who submit drafts understand that there is a difference between declining a draft and rejecting a draft. It doesn't help that the tags are the same color, there should really be a contrast between them. I look at expiring drafts, at the end of their lives, and some just have a list of pink tags on them, unless you read the text on the tag (and I would bet many submitters don't read the fine print), a rejection looks the same as just another decline. When their goal is to get their article in the main space, of course they are going to ask how to get it approved.

But what I find is the opposite problem that you describe, looking at abandoned drafts, it seems like the majority of new editors stop editing completely when their drafts aren't immediately accepted and they don't come back to work on them and improve them. You have problems from persistent submitters but what I'm seeing on my end is editors expecting a quick approval and when it doesn't come, they just leave. That's discouraging to see, especially when approval might come with just a little more work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Liz, this is a problem. I frequently feel compelled to decline a draft that's seriously defective yet very promising. For these, I try to add a comment (not just the "decline" template), and to make this comment encouraging (or at least try not to let it sound dismissive). I look a month or two later at a number of these, and a high percentage haven't been touched in the meantime. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit, Hoary, I don't know what it's like to have a persistent, well-meaning but clueless editor pester you about accepting their draft and will not take "No" for an answer.

But I see those drafts that have been declined and rejected and AFC reviewers vary A LOT in the helpfulness of their feedback to editors. Some give detailed advice on how a draft can be improved but I'm really tired of seeing the useless "This article is unsuitable for Wikipedia" flat message that says nothing on what an editor should do next. It's just a big notice that says, "No, thank you, it's not going to happen. Goodbye". Experienced editors know what it means for content to be unsuitable to Wikipedia's goals and purpose but newbies don't know what that heck that is supposed to mean.

Also, some reviewers post feedback on an editor's talk page but others just post their verdicts on the draft page and then, when the draft gets deleted via CSD G13, there is no record for the editor on what happened to their draft or why. I think it should be required to cross-post feedback to editor's talk pages so, should they reappear after being gone for a few months, they can see what happened to their drafts. But I can get a little overly exuberant about the need to post notifications on user talk pages so I'll get off my soapbox tonight! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish the STOP message would say: STOP trying to write new content on a new topic until after you have experience improving existing content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Liz, please climb back onto your soapbox, because this is relevant to the matter. The verdict (if posted to the draft in the regular way) is, I believe, automatically copied onto the user's (or anyway a user's) talk page, unless the decliner/rejecter opts for this not to be done. Or do I misunderstand something? -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that most AFCH actions get posted to user talk. AFCH accepts, declines, and rejects get posted to user talk automatically and include the reviewer's comment. AFCH comments (if no other action is taken at the same time) don't default to getting posted to user talk, but there is a check box to do so and I often check it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae - No. The AFCH comment check box doesn't do what you expect it to do. It only puts a note on the submitter's talk page saying that there is a comment on the draft. It doesn't copy the comment to the submitter's talk page. I don't know why it doesn't. This annoys me, because many clueless submitters don't then look at the draft to see the comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, there are submissions that are very close to being accepted lacking just a few rs, have to be rejected since they're not acceptable as-is. I feel like there has to be some criteria for the new editors that allows their submission be accepted while inviting improvements after they get accepted. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Related Question - Persistent Resubmission

I will bring up a related question again, in the (perhaps overly optimistic) hope that I and some other editors may get some guidance on a point that seems to have never been clearly decided. Sometimes, after a draft is rejected, the submitter simply resubmits it. That is, the submitter doesn't Stop and doesn't Ask for Advice. What are the best practices for an reviewer in this situation? My thinking is that simply resubmitting the draft at this point is tendentious, and that some sanction is in order. However, there doesn't seem to be a rough consensus as to what the reviewers should do about resubmission of rejected drafts. Should the reviewer nominate the draft for deletion? That is often what is done, and often the MFD does result in deletion. But sometimes other editors at MFD say that the subject might be notable, or that the draft should be kept for some other reason. Also, sometimes the reviewer knows that the subject may be notable in the future, but that they are too soon, and the submitter simply resubmits again and again. Should the reviewer go to WP:ANI and request a partial block? That is sometimes just archived.

So is there any useful guidance as to best practices when a rejected draft is resubmitted without trying to discuss first? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a user conduct issue and should be solved by measures such as page protection and blocks. We can see tendentious resubmission as a form of edit warring. Possibly some wider discussion to make this clear and inscribed in some essay or PAG somewhere would be good, as I can understand why admins would be uneasy implementing a reviewer request for protection/blocking. — Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there pls

Pls see here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Have_a_question. Thanks. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

AfC script requests getting skipped over.

Greetings y'all. I've recently submitted a request to get the permissions to the AfC script and two people's requests that have been submitted after mine were glossed over. I don't understand. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

One request was the alt account of an existing user, and the other was declined as a potential UPE (and sock-blocked shortly after). Declining obvious cases and accepting changes for existing members is a lot faster and easier than evaluating new requests. Please be patient, I generally work through new requests on Sundays. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand, thanks. Sorry if I came off as inpatient. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it's just usually these sorts of "it's taking too long" comments end up being posted <24h before I plan on doing whatever task it is :-p Primefac (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet AfC reviewers

Hello, AFC folks,

I was wondering if there was a standard procedure when one discovers a sockpuppet has been reviewing and accepting draft articles on behalf of the AfC. I thought that maybe their decisions to accept or decline/reject drafts would be reviewed. But I realize that there are over 2,000 outstanding drafts to review so maybe re-reviewing old drafts that were moved into main space is not the biggest priority for y'all. Let me know! Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz generally each case is taken on its merits. We do not look favourably upon the editor, but may look favourably on the drafts they reviewed. Do you have one to report thus? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. Yuck. Not again. User:Liz - To repeat the question of User:Timtrent, what AFC reviewer has most recently been blocked either for sockpuppetry or as a sockpuppet? This does occasionally happen, more often than we would like (meaning more times than zero). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the username would be very helpful. This will help determine if they were autopatrolled (meaning their accepts skip the NPP queue and need additional cleanup), if we need to WP:G5 anything, if there was UPE involved, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

One would hope the situation to arise so rarely as to be dealt with as a special case. Unfortunately, given some of the stuff we've seen over the past few years, this hope may be overly optimistic about the near future. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Question About Reason for Rejection

This is a question about what reason I should use to reject a draft, in a situation that I encountered twice today. The two submissions were both very poor quality draft biographies of living persons, and in both cases there was already an article by someone else about the same person. In both cases the draft had no footnotes, which are preferred for all articles and required for BLPs. I wanted to reject both of them, but neither 'not notable' nor 'contrary to purpose of Wikipedia' applied. The person is notable if their BLP is in article space, and the lack of sources isn't contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, just not consistent with the principle of verifiability. I wound up declining both of them, with codes of 'exists' and 'ilc' (and I could have used 'v' instead of 'ilc'). I know that we don't reject a draft simply because an article exists. We can reject a draft for being not worth the time of the reviewer, and these weren't worth the time of the reviewer, but what reason could have been used? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In these situations, you shouldn't reject, but instead boldly redirect, with a note suggesting possibly merging from the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge what from the history? These were stupid unsourced drafts. What would be merged into the history of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not appreciate "stupid unsourced" and was being very AGF that there was content with sources soon to be added. Forget the note idea then.

User:SmokeyJoe - I would not have been considering or asking about rejecting a draft that had useful content, either sourced or unsourced. If a draft is on the same topic as an existing article and has either additional information or additional sources, then I tag the article with Merge From (or the draft with Merge To) and decline the draft as 'exists', adding a comment that the draft and the article should be merged. My question had to do with drafts that do not have useful content. I would not have been asking about or considering rejecting the draft if it had mergeable content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have always believed than an accidental content fork should be speedy redirected. More recently I have acquired the opinion that draftspace should not be allowed to be used for WP:Spinouts unless done with consensus, notification at least, on the article talk page.

In all these cases, I think: forget the AfC buttons and features, just boldly redirect. If the author comes back to their bookmark, the redirect will take them to the page they should be looking to improve, and that is a pretty clear message to them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with one detail, to forget the AFC buttons, when boldly redirecting a draft. It is a courtesy to the submitter to decline the draft with an added comment that it is about to be redirected. This leaves a message on the submitter's user talk page. Then do the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur over spinouts. Push them back to the talk page of the maim article. And I concur over bold redirects, with rationale given on the redirect talk page and flagged to the editor concerned Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to resolve false Draft warnings.

I'm trying to facilitate a resolution to a problem I've noticed with false {{Draft at}} warnings being generated by published drafts. The warning is discussed here on your page Wikipedia:Drafts. Your description states that the warning is generated by {{New page DYM}}. That is only partially true, as it is also invoked by {{Editnotices/Namespace/Main}}. I currently have an edit request pending to consolidate these two invocations into {{Editnotices/Namespace/Main}}. While that's pending, I'd like to get some input on the usage of redirects in the Draft: namespace.

It is my understanding that when a draft article is published, it is moved into mainspace, leaving a redirect behind in Draft: space. Per your page at Redirects from drafts moved to mainspace, these redirects are not subject to deletion, but are to remain indefinitely. The problem is that both {{New page DYM}} and {{Editnotices/Namespace/Main}} simply test if a page with the same name exists in the Draft: namespace. It does not determine if that page is or is not a redirect.

The combination of the failure of the templates to test for a redirect, and the policy of retaining redirects indefinitely means that the warning will be generated if a draft exists or a draft has been published (and therefore has left a redirect in Draft: space) and that this warning would continue to be generated forever. I intend to propose edits to the templates that would trigger the warning only if a page exists in Draft: space with the same title and is not a redirect. This would allow a valid warning to be generated when active draft articles exist, but to not generate a warning once the draft has been published. I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution. However, a concern was expressed that there may be cases where a warning that a redirect exists might be a desirable behavior. So my question to you is: do they have a valid point??

In other namespaces, the vast majority of redirects are from one pagename to another within the namespace. What is unique about the Draft: namespace is the buik (if not all) of the redirects are from one pagename in the Draft: namespace to the same pagename in mainspace. It is my understanding (and I may be mistaken about this) that if a Draft: page is created with a title that does not meet mainspace naming standards, the rename would normally happen during the publishing page move, i.e., from Draft:badname to (main):goodname. I do not believe that the renaming typically happens within the Draft: space, i.e., from Draft:badname to Draft:goodname. Is that correct??

Assuming that I'm mistaken, and there are large numbers of redirects from within the Draft: space, the next question is how should that impact the generation of warnings ... keeping in mind that published drafts would also be flagged by the warning? Is it vital that the warning be generated for redirects in the Draft: space, or should those warnings be eliminated entirely for redirects, and just warn when a valid article exists?

Your input will help template editors decide how to best address this issue. Thank you for your feedback. PoundTales (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

PoundTales, could you give an example or three of instances where this notice shows up inappropriately? I'm trying to visualise the workflow and struggling a bit. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally have only run across it in specialized cases, but if I understand the situation correctly, any published draft should trigger it when you try to edit the published mainspace article. One oddball case that I've run into is Oregon Trail Memorial Association. This was a draft article that was published, and then subsequently merged into another article. Since the published mainspace article was later turned into a redirect, the warning is triggered by {{Editnotices/Namespace/Main}}, not by {{New page DYM}}. This is the one example that set me off on this journey, which I have readily available. But any former draft that has since been published should show the warning when the published article is edited. To be clear, it is when you edit the mainspace page of the published draft where the warning shows (not the redirect in Draft: space). If you have a log of published drafts, we could both look at that. PoundTales (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but adding an extra "isredirect" check (i.e. see if the draft page is a redir) to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main seems like it would fix the issue, no? Primefac (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I would think so, too. However, the template editors were concerned that the false warnings could potentially be "useful". What I'm trying to establish is that there is consensus to change the code to not generate the warnings if the page in Draft: space is a redirect. Can you think of a case where you would want the warning to be generated when the page in Draft: space is a redirect?? I can not, but the editors need convincing. PoundTales (talk)

To be fair, that is actually a template editor's job, to be conservative, and not make changes that could possibly have unintended consequences, especially when working with templates with global effects such as these. I think this would be an obvious change, but they do raise a valid point ... best to ask first and be sure the community is okay with the suggestion before proceeding. PoundTales (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

the template editors were concerned...they do raise a valid point forgive me again for being dense, but you have listed no discussions above, and other than your TPER which has not been replied to, I see no discussion of this issue. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I've been trying to keep the discussion simple by keeping out unnecessary noise. But the main earlier discussion was at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#False edit warning that a draft article exists. PoundTales (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Renaming of Drafts

The Original Poster, User:PoundTales, wrote: "I do not believe that the renaming typically happens within the Draft: space, i.e., from Draft:badname to Draft:goodname. Is that correct??" I don't yet understand the main issue, and am still trying to walk my way through it, but I will try to answer the question about renaming of drafts. As a reviewer, I do frequently rename drafts, mostly in two situations. The more common one is to disambiguate the title, as from Draft:Jane Johnson to Draft:Jane Y. Johnson or Draft:Jane Johnson (artist). This creates a redirect from a draft title to another draft title. The other is where for some reason the draft has a title that has very little to do with the subject of the draft. This happens if the submitter first blanked an existing draft and then filled it in, or for some similar reason. So there are redirects within draft space due to renaming by reviewers, especially in order to disambiguate the draft. I hope that this is useful information. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. This does complicate things. The main issue was an attempt to deal with false warnings being generated by published drafts. I originally saw this as a minor technical issue, but it is clearly starting to go into policy matters at this point, and is getting more technically complicated. PoundTales (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not prohibited to rename a draft, but in my experience this can be done when accepting a draft, to move it only once instead of twice. But I'm sure there are sometimes good reasons to rename a draft. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My experience is that it is often useful to rename a draft to the name that is being considered. This is true for different reasons if the original draft name was wrong, which is not that uncommon, or if the draft name requires disambiguation. If a draft is disambiguated, sometimes log information shows up, such as that Draft:Jane Johnson (artist) was deleted as G11, or as G5, or as G13. G13 is okay, but if there is a history of sockpuppetry, that is useful to know. Also, sometimes when I try to disambiguate a draft, I discover that there already is a disambiguated draft. If they are by different submitters, they should be merged. If they are by the same person, the submitter is flooding the system with multiple copies of drafts, which is a nuisance. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Odd copy vio issue

I run a copy vio check on Draft:Rona Shoes and it was 90% direct copy so I declined and G12ed. They then challenged saying it wasn't and a re-check showed it wasn't (much) any more... so assumed they had edited and I just needed to submit a revdel request... but they hadn't! They actually changed the source!? I declined and G12ed @21:18 and https://ronashoes.com/pages/history shows last updated @21:22:58. That's a first for me, Wikipedia is obviously more important that their own website history :/ I guess this is no longer a copy vio? Also this means they clearly have an undisclosed COI. KylieTastic (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That is bizarre. User:KylieTastic - I would like to be sure that I understand. Are you saying that the draft was originally a copy from the corporate web site, and that after you tagged the draft for G12, the content of the corporate web site was changed? They really really want to get their draft approved. That is a different type of conflict of interest. Strange. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup Robert McClenon that's what I'm saying and now they have gone one more by removing [1] completely! Luckily the wayback machine has a copy of the original from yesterday before my review here. The speed suggests a marketing person with direct access and authority to change the website, however I do wonder how many will question why they deleted the company history. KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is a copy on wayback, then the text *did* exist, so unless they add a copyleft to that version of the content then it is still under copyright and should be deleted. That being said, it's a pretty garbage draft and looks like it will need a bit of a rewrite anyway, so I wouldn't worry about re-G12'ing it in this instance. Primefac (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:KylieTastic, User:Primefac - My personal opinion is that a block is in order, but that a report to either WP:ANI or WP:COIN may be necessary first. Because of the blatant nature of the promotion, I think that going directly to WP:ANI is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I love it. What a brazen move. Get the editor to disclose their COI, and G12 the current draft. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have Rejected the draft. That doesn't prevent any other action. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the question here is can you copy-vio yourself? Particularly in regards to a source that is entirely under your control, such as the personal website here. If anything, you could consider it a draft for an article made on their own site beforehand. Drafting it elsewhere, one might say. A rejection argument should be based around sourcing (which is non-existent) and not on anything else. I don't think a copy-vio claim has anything to stand on here. Nor a promotional claim, since it's actually written in a rather reserved manner with just direct facts about the origin and subsequent expansion. Silverseren^C 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Silver seren - Yes, you can violate your own copyright. Yes, there is a problem. Many promotional editors think that they can use the language from their own web site in Wikipedia, but they cannot. Wikipedia is entirely under a copyleft, and a web site owner cannot authorize the use of their own copyrighted material unless they are releasing it under any of the varieties of general license that are compatible with Wikipedia's. So, yes, there is a copyvio issue as well as a sourcing issue, because it isn't enough to authorize the use of a copyrighted page in Wikipedia. It is necessary to authorize its use anywhere in the world. This is often misunderstood, and you asked a good-faith question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren I believe it stopped being just drafted content somewhere else at the point it was publicly 'published' with a copyright statement. An employee could have authority to publish material on a company website etc. but not to give permission to use used a 'free' licence. I agree with Primefac as it did exist and especially as evidence has been preserved it is technically a copy vio, but IMHO not worth worrying about as they have stopped editing and it is now rejected. KylieTastic (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Using AFC Script to Accept One's Own Draft

An editor appears to have acted both as submitter and as reviewer of a draft. They submitted the draft, and then accepted the draft. Another editor has subsequently moved it back into draft space. My question is about conduct, not content, at this time. (The content question is whether the article should be in article space or draft space, and it is in draft space.) The conduct issue is whether there is a procedure for reporting what appears to be a misuse of the AFC reviewer privilege. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This was recently brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 48#Reviewer accepting their own draft. DanCherek (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it's misuse—more like unnecessary use. The reviewer could have simply moved it and cleaned it manually since AfC is optional. I know that I have submitted drafts that I think are ready (when randomly coming across them), then turned around and accepted. I've never done that on my own draft, though, and if I submit someone else's draft, I'll usually submit on behalf of the main contributor or whomever is recommended by AFCH. In situations like that, the auto-cleanup functions of the script are nice. -2pou (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AfC is optional, unless specifically required, eg by an AfD consensus, or because a WP:COI is involved. If it was ok for the editor to move it to mainspace, then it’s ok to use AfC tools to move it to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AFCH tool nominated for deletion

Just a heads up – someone has nominated MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js for deletion. This page is the core part of the AFCH gadget. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js. – SD0001 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wha is the difference between Reject and Decline?

I read through the reviewing instructions, and it has a section near the bottom on rejecting submissions. I tried to look through the archives to get an answer on what the difference is between reject and decline, but I couldn't find anything. I probably didn't search hard enough, but oh well, I'm asking here anyway. (I'm not applying for AFC Helper right now, but looking to learn stuff incase I want to in the future). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I asked something similar halfway through this conversation. Rusalkii (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline means that the draft is not acceptable, but can possibly be made so and resubmitted. Reject means that the draft is not acceptable and cannot be resubmitted, as the chances that it could be made acceptable are close to zero. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline means that the reviewer thinks it would be taken to AfD if moved to mainspace, and that more is needed to be done, usually better sources found.

Reject means that the reviewer things to topic is inherently unsuitable, no amount of more work can fix it, and if moved to mainspace it would certainly be deleted, and the reviewer personally would WP:AfD it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, don't feel obligated to reject. I do mostly declines. In my opinion, reject is for that uncommon twilight zone between decline and CSD. Reject can also be a good option when a person is ignoring multiple reviewer's decline comments and just spamming submit without making any fixes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If a reviewer is in doubt as to whether to decline or reject, they should decline. Rejection should be used when the submission is either hopeless (e.g., blatantly promotional) or tendentious (e.g., resubmitted repeatedly without improvement. The other reviewers and I are saying essentially the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Helper script updated

SD0001 and I have made some updates to the script. Specifically, there will be a live preview while writing comments; slashes in article titles will be properly handled; some suspected copyright violations will show up as warnings; some form fields in the "Accept" page whose values were unused will be removed; and some other changes. Those I listed were all due to SD0001; some were long-standing feature requests, so hats off to him. Let me know if anything seems off with the script. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The new live preview makes writing with wikilinks so much easier for someone like me who makes a truly embarrassing number of typos, thank you both! Rusalkii (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:SD0001 and User:Enterprisey - The live preview of comments is a useful feature. I would find it equally useful to have a live preview of comments in the Decline or Reject text. Is there a reason why this has only been done for Comment, or is this a case where it wasn't thought of in advance, and so can be thought about and done now? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It can be done - created a PR now, see #211 – SD0001 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Seconding Rusalki: I've not been an active user of AFCH for long, but the inability to preview was annoying me. It was very nice to see this fixed before I got around to complaining. Kudos to SD0001 and Enterprisey! — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

AFCH script and blacklist filters

I just declined a draft because it was a copyvio of "influencive (dot) com/malak-al-housseini-a-famous-tv-anchor-from-lebanon/" I coudl not use the url I full form because it is a filtered out blacklisted url. The script gave no indication of this, completed its work on the user talk page, but did not either decline nor set the draft for copyvio CSD. All it did was refresh the page unchanged.

I cam see the technical challenge with saving a copyvipo report containing a blacklisted url! Might an error message be displayed letting the reviewer know (imm the rare cases that this happens) that the action could not be completed?

The draft in question was User:Malak Al Housseini/sandbox. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I doubt the issue is to do with your latest update, above. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Related: https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/issues/44. Not sure if we want to copy paste Timtrent's comment into that issue, or open a new one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy/paste works for me. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

AFCH behavior on testwiki

Is it normal behavior for AFCH on testwiki to only work on the user's test page? Example: testwiki:User:Novem Linguae/Testing AFCH. AFCH isn't loading for me at all on testwiki:Draft:Test.

Also, would it make more sense to have WT:AFCH be its own page rather than redirecting here? This page has 883 watchers yet my question will probably only be relevant to Enterprisey and SD0001. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I see two AFCH gadgets on testwiki preferences, which are probably both outdated. You'd want to disable them all and load AFCH from disk by running npm start. It loads for me on Draft:Test. – SD0001 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. With preferences -> gadgets enabled, there are AFCH related XHR requests in my DevTools -> Network tab. With preferences -> gadgets disabled, there are no XHR requests at all. In both situations, testwiki:Draft:Test does not show AFCH. Nothing of interest in console logs. Screenshots. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As SD0001 said, the testwiki gadgets are probably useless. And it looks like WT:AFCH redirects here - is there some helper script talk page that doesn't? Enterprisey (talk!) 03:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the server running - when you visit http://localhost:4444 does it show the code? – SD0001 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see the code when I visit http://localhost:4444/ –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction: I don't see AFCH on testwiki:User:Novem Linguae/Testing AFCH either. The yellow box threw me off, I thought I was seeing AFCH, but that's just a template. So basically AFCH is not working at all on testwiki for me.

Currently I have all AFCH gadgets turned off and this line in my common.js: mw.loader.load('http://localhost:4444?ctype=text/javascript&title=afch-dev.js', 'text/javascript'); –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I figured it out. AFCH.prefs.autoOpen was set to false, I'm used to it being set to true. All is well in AFCH land :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

AFCH

I have found a small bug, if you pick the custom decline option then switch to rejecting, you can reject a submission with no explanation. (which makes me ask why I can't just add a custom reject option, but that's not the point of this post) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and filed a bug report. https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/issues/212 –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not a bug; that's a feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

NARTIST and NMUSIC notability: What sticks out to you?

Hey all! As usual, thank you all for your hard work! I'm trying to have this conversation here, because I've found the notability talk pages can be a little bitey, and discussing in comments ends up bringing in the articles' submitter.

I was slogging through the backlog and I had a realization. When I'm looking at articles about artists, I keep my eye out for whether or not the subject has works in museum collections. That's my key for accepting. With Musical groups, I always look first to see if any awards or chart appearances.

However, I realized that many of the cases we still have in the backlog are a little more complicated. I've looked through the archives of WT:BIO and I can't seem to find a straight answer on what we would consider a significant exhibition. When it comes to NMUSIC, I want to make sure we aren't missing people who are signed to one of the more important indie labels (depending on how we determine that), people who pass GNG (it looks like local coverage fits the bill here, as long as it isn't trivial coverage), and (apparently) 1st, 2nd and 3rd place winners in music competitions.

What are y'all looking for when you address these articles? Do you have particular things to make the marginal cases a little easier? Would love some feedback.

Bkissin (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Company personnel

Hi. Somewhere, there's part of a guideline that says that a company's personnel should generally be a redirect to the article about the company, unless the person is independently notable. There's a shortcut to that section, but I can't remember which guideline it is in or what the shortcut is. Can someone point me to it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer:, I did some research, and I found WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME/WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Is this what you were thinking of? Bkissin (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

{reply|Bkissin}} Exactly that! Thank you so much! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Terry Miles (musician) - need extra assistance

I was going through the list of possible CopyVio cases and came across Draft:Terry Miles (musician), it was difficult to tell whether it was a mirror or not, so I tagged it as copypaste instead of declining and G12 speedying it. I later got a lengthy email from the article author trying to plead their case, and confirming my previously suspicions about it being a possible mirror. I hate being pushed around by original authors, but can someone with a better understanding of NMUSIC take a look at this draft re: Notability? Bkissin (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Horribly high amount of pending reviews

There are horribly high amount of pending AFC reviews. To solve it, I suggest to:

1. Make a bot, declined drafts with these problems:
   • Those without any references;
   • Those used the 1st header in the page's wikitext, which is restricted to internal title use;
   • Those without the title in the leading section or it is not bolded;
   • Humour templates; or
   • Anything that should not appears in an article but it appeared and can be easily detected by a bot.
2. Allow normal confirmed users to use the AFC helper script, while only the comment tool available, to let all editors can help to find out problems and thus make draft creators to fix them as soon as possible, lower the amount of declined drafts.

  Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 10:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While high, I've seen it much higher than it is now. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having a bot to automatically decline drafts without any references would be an excellent idea, I decline at least 10 drafts a day which are totally unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My worry about declining a draft without any references is that any definition I can think of, such as "without a reference section" or "without links" or "without ref tags", will probably end up declining some that are referenced in nontraditional formats. The easiest automated decline and the one that seems least likely to turn up false positives is completely blank drafts, which I've been declining a couple a day. I've never noticed any humor templates submitted but if you're getting those that also seems harmless.

See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 8, with the caveat that it was ten years ago and from a glorious age where 200 pages was a backlog. (There may be more recent requests, but I was unable to find them with a quick search). Rusalkii (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with creating a bot to decline unsourced drafts, but not to decline others like those with 1st header or not bolded title. These are very minor issues that can be fixed by any editor or even a reviewer for we cannot expect a totally error-free draft from a newbie. Repeated decline for such petty issues can discourage them. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 11:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues like 1st header or not bolded title are both fixable by script. My DraftCleaner script will often fix those. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ayan (actor)

Dear reviewers

I came across Draft:Ayan (actor) when I found २ तकर पेप्सी made some request regarding help. See User_talk:Itcouldbepossible#Hello_2. I feel its a totally WP:PROMOTIONAL piece of work that fails WP:ANYBIO and the article has been deleted several times recently. See Ayan Nayak (deletion log), Draft:Ayan Nayak (deletion log) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayan Nayak. It may be an attempt of evading WP:SCRUTINY from WP:AFD volunteers, because (1) the references are not connected to the subject and (2) they have requested several times for WP:NPP rights themselves. Please keep a watch. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6AC:2AC6:3466:B108:4A13:63A1 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It also seems like some of the sources are downright falsified – according to this source, the subject of the draft was not even a nominee for any 2021 CJFB Performance Award. DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: The image c:File:Ayan in a award show.jpg used in draft is also fake. 2402:3A80:6A8:47AF:C0E7:9183:93A1:C097 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)