:::If you look at the [[Eleazar (painter)]] article history, you will see that it was originally created as an unacceptable autobiography by editor User:Eleazar1954 in 2009. There was back and forth re: the AfD tag and DGG userified it to his own user space. I didn't know the draft existed until I was pinged, and I offered to help with the draft since I am quite familiar with notability criteria for visual artists. I then made improvements to bring it up to WP standards. According to article history, you tagged the draft as a user space draft on 13 May 2023, then User:CNMall41 moved it from User:DGG/Eleazar (painter) to Draft:Eleazar (painter) where I continued to work on it. On 30 May 2023 I moved it to article space (knowing that several other editors and admins were aware of the draft and it's longer history).
:::If you look at the [[Eleazar (painter)]] article history, you will see that it was originally created as an unacceptable autobiography by editor User:Eleazar1954 in 2009. There was back and forth re: the AfD tag and DGG userified it to his own user space. I didn't know the draft existed until I was pinged, and I offered to help with the draft since I am quite familiar with notability criteria for visual artists. I then made improvements to bring it up to WP standards. According to article history, you tagged the draft as a user space draft on 13 May 2023, then User:CNMall41 moved it from User:DGG/Eleazar (painter) to Draft:Eleazar (painter) where I continued to work on it. On 30 May 2023 I moved it to article space (knowing that several other editors and admins were aware of the draft and it's longer history).
:::I did this in good faith to help out with David's drafts and did not think I did anything inappropriate by moving it to article space; moving it didn't seem like a "big deal" to me. I don't believe David (DGG) would have userfied the draft in the first place if he had not seen its potential, given his vast experience. I did not mean to step on your toes, and if I did, again, I apologize for that. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I did this in good faith to help out with David's drafts and did not think I did anything inappropriate by moving it to article space; moving it didn't seem like a "big deal" to me. I don't believe David (DGG) would have userfied the draft in the first place if he had not seen its potential, given his vast experience. I did not mean to step on your toes, and if I did, again, I apologize for that. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh, no. You didn't step in my toes, honestly. Well... we've lost our beloved admin, no doubt. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 18:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
== No new pages added to Afc sorting since 25 May ==
== No new pages added to Afc sorting since 25 May ==
This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Improving the AfC process
As I write this, the number of AfC submissions has reached over 4,200; over half have been waiting for more than a month, and more than 500 have been waiting over three months. AfC has gotten lots of criticism, in large part due to its long wait times. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've come up with a few ideas. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on them, and any other ideas you have.
How we can make AfC better for reviewers
Encourage cooperation between reviewers. Right now each submission is reviewed by one reviewer. If a reviewer is unsure about a draft, they often skip over it, leaving it for someone else. One solution to this that I've seen proposed (at User:Enterprisey/AfC brainstorming) is a checklist; this could include a copyvio check, notability, MoS, inline citations, etc. If a reviewer is unsure about a draft, they could check off the boxes they're sure about, and leave the rest for someone else. This would require a significant rewrite of the AfC helper script, but if there's consensus to do this, I'd be happy to help with it.
More reviewers are always better. We could potentially let all users with the new page reviewer right review AfC submissions. Since the bar to become a new page reviewer is higher than that to become an AfC reviewer, this shouldn't decrease the quality of reviews.
First and foremost, significantly decreasing the amount of time it takes to review a submission. AfC is the first thing many users go through when they start editing Wikipedia; often, when a review takes a long time, they get frustrated and leave, when they may otherwise have turned into a productive contributor.
Make creating drafts a more user-friendly experience. For example, the AfC helpdesk wizard (see here) was recently implemented, making it less confusing to request assistance.
We need to make it clearer that AfC is an entirely optional procedure for autoconfirmed accounts, unless there is a clear conflict of interest. Any such autoconfirmed editor is entirely free to move their creations directly to main space, and the tender mercies of the New Pages Patrollers. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How the AfC submit wizard can be improved
When submitting, provide additional guidance on notability, what constitutes a reliable source, how to add inline citations, etc.
(this falls under the above two categories as well) get submitters to point out the best WP:THREE sources when submitting.
What I'm thinking is making the submission wizard into a three-step process: first, show the guidance above, and the user should click an "I understand" button before continuing. Second, show the forms for title, WikiProject, etc. Third, optionally get the user to point out the best three sources. They can then be shown a screen saying "Your draft was successfully submitted", and providing a link to the help desk. Again, if there's consensus for this, I can help implement it.
Discussion for How we can make AfC better for reviewers
I think giving AFC rights to NPPs automatically sounds really promising. Let's say we have an AFC backlog drive. By making it easier for NPPs to jump in without having to apply and get approved, it could help attract more reviewers. And it'd be super easy to code into AFCH.
Drafts that are obvious declines or obvious accepts get through quickly. It's the borderline ones that linger, waiting for a reviewer to click through the 20 mediocre, foreign language, or offline sources provided, evaluating each for GNG. I'm not sure what the fix is, but that seems like the part of the process we should think about optimizing somehow. If we graphed it out, I'll bet reading sources is what takes the most reviewer time and brainpower. Solutions that focus around this somehow could be helpful.
I feel the GNG guideline itself is kept intentionally vague, which makes it hard to teach to newer editors. It is possible to write it with more detail, but people don't, and a difficult process of reverse engineering is used by experienced editors to master its nuances. Worth a try teaching what we can about notability via the wizard though. Even just putting an emphasis on "3 newspapers or books with 3 paragraphs of detail about the subject" could perhaps be the difference between a draft writer ref bombing a bunch of unusable sources, and a draft writer adding 3 top quality sources that make the article an easy pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree for multiple reasons: Our entry conditions are lower because pages are then patrolled; Many prefer to get a second opinion so would not want this; As has come up multiple times including in the "AFCH updates" section above many choose not to do the basic tidy up and tagging etc that is part of the NPP flow. Anyone who wants to can request to get the "new page reviewer" perm and this should be encouraged of seasoned reviewers to reduce NPP load. Also backlog drives are criticised by some for a drop in quality so removing NPP checks for a drive would be bad IMHO. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DOH! I miss read that as giving NPP to AFCers not the other way around - so yes I agree I see no big issue with auto adding NPPers to AfC. I assume this would be done just on having the perm so could not exclude trials per S0091, otherwise it would need to bot to update the participants list both add and remove. Using having the perm like we do for admins would be easier. KylieTastic (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a minor nitpick, if their access restrictions are higher then there should be no problem with them joining here. One of my "quick-pass" criteria when evaluating an AFCP request is whether they are an NPR. Primefac (talk)
"If a reviewer is unsure about a draft, they often skip over it, leaving it for someone else" - This is a huge time waster. I am guilty of this and I know most reviewers are as well. That is how some drafts make it way down in the queue. I am not sure if writing new code would solve the problem, but if there is ANY solution to help notify reviewers what has/hasn't been done, it would save a lot of time.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not really at a space premium, so it would probably make more sense to rename b1/b2/b3 to more accurately reflect what they stand for (e.g. |cv_check= or something). Primefac (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the checklist would be a good idea, that way everyone can contribute the bits they're comfortable with, and even if one reviewer doesn't reach a conclusive answer, they may make it easier for the next one to finish the job, and that way their 'partial' effort won't be wasted.
As for giving NPP'ers AfC rights by default, in principle this seems fine, and while it would make the combined NPP/AfC reviewer resource more flexible, it wouldn't necessarily increase the total bandwidth as there is limited capacity in both teams, with a resultant large backlog. In other words, if we get NPP to chip in at AfC, then the NPP backlog gets that much bigger (and v.v). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In instances where we have reviewed a draft but are unsure or only gave a it partial review, what I about using comments so the next reviewer knows? At least for trial period to see if it is helpful before pursuing a redesign of the script. As for NPP automatically getting AfC rights, I like the idea but I would limit it to those that have permanent NPP rights and are active reviewers. It is not uncommon for folks to be granted the right only for a trial period but not get the right permanently due to issues or have right but are not active. I also think we should run it by the NPP folks to get their thoughts. S0091 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: adding NPPers, I'd be unambiguously in favor if there was some waiting period, maybe a month. I'm worried about a situation where someone is accepted to both and then this makes it easier for bad articles to slip through, since there wouldn't be that second check on the AfC articles. But if that's infeasible or unpopular I'd still support it, it seems like an easy change with little downside and potential upside. I know I sometimes swap between the two when I'm bored and would if I didn't have NPP perms go do something else, so it's not just sloshing capacity from one backlogged system to another backlogged system. Rusalkii (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I lost my AFCH script rights and because I haven't been particularly interested in helping around at AFC, I haven't gone through the effort of re-requesting them, especially if they'll just get removed again if I don't get around to helping again. It's at the very least an inconvenience on the reviewers' end, especially if they haven't done anything wrong. I feel like 6 months of inactivity before removal of script rights might be a bit short – it also makes me feel like if I'm not going to be actively reviewing AFC submissions, I shouldn't put a request in that someone has to take time to look at and approve so I don't waste their time, even if I might occasionally come across a submission here or there where if I had the rights, they'd be useful and I could approve or decline an article.
Automatic addition of AFCH rights for new page reviewers would solve this problem for me, because I am a new page reviewer, but not every minorly-active AFC reviewer is also a new page reviewer. I can't think of any downsides to giving new page reviewers AFCH rights, however, given the higher standard for the former. Skarmory(talk •contribs)02:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could potentially let all users with the new page reviewer right review AfC submissions. Seems like there's no objections. Primefac, are you OK if I patch this into AFCH? You do all the AFC perm stuff, so wanted to check with you first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this should go to all NPR, regardless of whether they are on the AFCP access list. An MMS to everyone will do two things: first, let non-AFC-reviewers know that it's an option, and let current AFC reviewers know why their name is off the list (and/or let us know if there are issues, like there was for DGG). Plus, it might spur some of the NPR who have stopped reviewing to re-start! Primefac (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGGs issue was because he was using 'User:APerson/afch-dev.js' in there common.js rather than the updated version, but sensibel to alert people just in case others have similar. And yes we should use the MMS to also highlight to the dire state AfC is in at the moment and relentless climb in the backlog.. Most days recently we have not him 200 reviews let alone the 250+ needed - I'm back but I'm not going back to doing 1000+ a month. KylieTastic (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, was this patch deployed? Been a few days now but be good to get this done given the general consensus for it. I could write the MMS, if that's helpful, for you/Ingenuity/Primefac to send?
Discussion for: How we can make AfC better for its users
Discussion for: How the AfC submit wizard can be improved
I would like to see the user have to tick of that they believe the submission passes the basics before they can hit submit: i.e. "I believe this subject is notable per WP:NN ✅", "I have included references for the content ✅", "This article is in English ✅", "It is written in a neutral tone and is not promotional ✅", "It does not include copyright violations ✅" etc. KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some will just tick, tick, tick.... but maybe/hopefully it will stop some of the junk submission. Also it's difo from ticking "I am over 18" when a site cannot check... in our case we can say that if any of these are untrue your submission will almost always be declined. KylieTastic (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae/SD0001, a week after this conversation has gone stale, would you be happy to add these checkboxes into the AFCSW? We could trial it for a week, potentially?
I looked into coding this feature just now, but couldn't get AFC-submission-wizard working on my localhost wiki. I created a ticket if anyone wants to help me with setting up an AFC-submit-wizard test environment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there potential for warning editors for repeatedly ignoring these checkboxes, if implemented? Someone constantly submitting unsourced AFC drafts is probably not someone we want on the project. I don't think we should warn people on their first (or maybe even second) time blatantly ignoring the checkboxes, but at some point, it probably becomes worth it. It also gives the checkboxes an actual purpose, as opposed to just being another thing you have to tick off before you submit your article.
I do realize this could be quite harsh, so I'm quite hesitant, but... if you have to click the checkboxes, and it takes multiple times ignoring them before you get a warning, it's really only your fault. You could also add at the bottom something along the lines of Repeatedly submitting drafts that clearly do not follow these guidelines could put you at risk of getting blocked.
Another idea: Generally, the most time consuming drafts for me are those with sources in a non-English language and also most often those I end being unsure about. Can we create categories for these maybe or some other tagging mechanism to call attention to them so a willing reviewer who is competent with the language can easily find them? S0091 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This could probably be expanded to cats for "AfC submissions that could use a reviewer with...." be that a language, or for some of the more technical or specialised topics. A new AFHC function to add/remove from a list would be good. KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From having a look through some of the submissions which have been waiting for the longest time, I suspect this is an issue for others too - quite a lot of the ones which have been waiting a while have almost entirely non-English sources. Turnagra (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, as long as reviewers competent with the languages (or other topics) would actually use the categories to find articles to review. Probably worth trialing. Skarmory(talk •contribs)02:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think one cause of the large AfC backlog is that people keep spamming resubmit without making any real changes to the article. It makes it more likely for reviewers to just "give up" than deal with a persistent creator of a non-notable page or put in the research to confidently say it is unfit for Wikipedia. Maybe if an article is rejected more than once in a certain amount of time, there is a cooldown on resubmission. For example, "Please ensure the resubmitted article follows Wikipedia guidelines. If it is determined not to, submission will be blocked for one week", etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we would end up debating what X is. If a draft is declined, and five months later they resubmit with no changes, that will likely be longer than X. On the other hand, someone could get a decline notice, bash out a genuine improvement to the page, and resubmit later that day, and it would get flagged. Yes, I realise those are the extremes of what could happen, but these sorts of edge cases will just clutter the cat. For what it's worth, it's not a terrible idea, just difficult to implement. Primefac (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a start. :) And we may need some underlying software change for implementation. How about "No edits since last submission and less than X time has passed." Yeah, we'd have to hash out what X is for sure, but I'm looking for the drafts that could not point to updated off-wiki events to increase the notability of the subject and have not been edited to demonstrate an increase in notability. Certainly, a minute could go by and notability could change, but that's much less likely than 3 or 6 months passing.... but you know... while I'm writing this, the amount of time really doesn't matter. Time is irrelevant. The "No edits" part is really all that matters. If there's a change in notability status, the draft should get an edit to indicate it. There is an exception to this, and that's drafts such as upcoming films which can have no edits and just needed the film to move into actual production before the draft can go live. But even having those articles in this same category will be fine: all the drafts in this category should either be quick declines or quick accepts. - UtherSRG(talk)10:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another idea: Add an additional review for style/formatting/etc issues... the things the gnomes would work on if the draft were in the article space. It keeps irking me whenever I see a draft get accepted that I can easily tag with a handful of cleanup issues or that have poorly structured English grammar, etc. Have an optional pre-review to get those issues straightened out by folks who are not interested in or do not have the capability to perform the "real" review. Output of this process would be a cleaner draft that is ready for the review and, possibly, automatically submitted for it. This could even involve the language/technical issues listed above by S0091. I envision the "click to submit" button split into two separate buttons: one for a technical/cleanup "pre"review ("I want to present the best case to the reviewers"), and one for the current "I think it's article ready". Neither is required, as the current review is generally optional, but a strongly but kindly worded recommendation to have the pre-review done even for articles that are not going to go through the more formal review would be really helpful. - UtherSRG(talk)18:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if it would be possible to have parallel maintenance/cleanup tagged templates in draftspace (so like, drafts in need of copyediting instead of articles in need of, etc). That way people who actually fix those specific issues, though not sure if many people would choose to work on those, even if they work on the same issues in mainspace. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be for something along these lines. I'm plenty happy to help copy edit an otherwise good draft that wouldn't be accepted because of MOS/etc., and I'm sure plenty of editors would be willing to help out with similar stuff. I think it would need to be made extremely clear that templates like {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} should not be used in draftspace, however, unless the community decides they're okay, and we'd probably need to clarify which ones can or which ones cannot be used in draftspace. (I can already see the amount of articles tagged with those blowing up...) Skarmory(talk •contribs)04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking basically allowing specific templates, though I'm not sure they currently actually do the sorting in to categories at the moment in draftspace. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and Article with Same Title
It is not an uncommon situation for a reviewer to encounter a draft that has the same title as an existing article. I would like to review the different reasons why this can happen, and my advice as to what a reviewer should do:
The article and the draft are about different topics, such as different people with the same name. The draft should be disambiguated. When the draft is accepted, a hatnote should be added to the primary article.
The article and the draft are about different people with the same name, and there are also other articles on people with the same name. When the draft is accepted, a disambiguation page should be created. If there are already multiple articles and no disambiguation page, it might be a good idea to create the disambiguation page anyway, regardless of whether the draft is accepted.
The entry in article space is not an article but only a redirect, such as from an album title to the recording artist or from a song title to the album. If the draft is not ready for acceptance, then the redirect should be tagged {{R with possibilities}} if it is not already tagged.
The article and the draft are the same or almost the same, but have different authors. Check to see if the article is a copy-paste from the draft. If so, tag the article for history merge of the draft.
The article and the draft are the same or almost the same, and have the same author. Redirect the draft to the article.
The draft is a subset of the article, and does not have any content that is not in the article. Redirect the draft to the article.
The draft expands on the existing article, which may be a stub. The article is a subset of the draft. The draft should be tagged to be merged into the article, or the article should be tagged to be merged from the draft. Decline the draft with a message inviting the author of the draft to merge the draft into the article.
There is sometimes a special case of a draft that expands on a stub article. The draft has been developed as a class project to expand the article. This is sometimes the case with a stub entry for a biological species, and a more complete draft on the species. The problem, which I sometimes see, is that the instructor and the class are trying to use AFC to expand an existing stub article. That is a good-faith misunderstanding as to what AFC is for.
The draft and the article are by different authors, and have some overlapping content, but the draft and the article each also have their own content. The draft should be tagged to be merged into the article, or the article should be tagged to be merged from the draft. Decline the draft with a message inviting the author of the draft to merge the draft into the article.
Does #4 cover copypaste moves? (These drive me up the proverbial wall!) Is it just me, or are these getting more common recently (possibly because of the large backlog)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, #4 includes copy-paste moves by the same author. I agree that they are getting more common, because authors get tired of waiting for review, and copy the draft into article space. I redirect the draft to the article, but I usually decline it with {{twocopies}} before redirecting. That message is erased from the draft when the draft is redirected, but it also goes onto the author's talk page. I think that it may also be a good idea to tag the article with {{notability}} for the attention of the NPP reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History-Merge Notice
On the subject of history merge, I will repeat a comment that I have made before. When a reviewer requests a history merge, the template on the surviving article advises putting a canned message on the talk page of the editor who did the copy-paste. I have said that the message is too wishy-washy. It implies that doing the copy-paste was all right, and that moving the article would have been even better. Doing the copy-paste was not all right. We want to discourage it. We don't want to be excessively bitey, because sometimes the copy-paster didn't know better, but we don't want to imply that it was all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article creation hypothesis
Hello
I'm Trizek, community relations specialist working with the Growth team.
The Growth team is exploring a project idea that aims to improve the experience of new editors by providing them with better guidance and structure in the article creation process. The hope being that by providing new editors with more structure around article creation, it will lead to newcomers creating fewer low-quality articles that create work for patrollers who check recent edits and mentors who review newcomers’ drafts.
In 2022, about 28% of newly registered users who completed the Welcome Survey indicated that they opened an account specifically to create a new article (all stats). These newcomers don't yet understand core Wikipedia principles and guidelines around notability, verifiability, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, etc. These newcomers need additional guidance or they end up frustrated and disappointed when their articles get deleted. Because they aren't receiving the proactive guidance they need, they end up creating additional work for content moderators (patrollers, admins, watchlisters…) who need to provide reactive guidance which is rarely well-received or well-understood.
We're committed to shaping the overall plan based on community feedback and needs, while adhering to the following requirements:
The feature will be Community configurable, enabling each community to customize it to meet their unique needs.
The feature will provide guidance and guardrails to help newcomers create higher-quality articles and improve their overall experience.
The feature will be designed to reduce the downstream workload for content moderators.
So, we would love to hear from you:
Do you think this project will help new page patrollers on English Wikipedia?
Do you have any suggestions for improving this idea?
Is there anything about this idea that you find concerning, or you want to ensure we avoid?
Or do you want the Growth team to consider a totally different idea? Keep in mind that the Moderator Tools team and two other teams are also working the shared “improve the experience of editors with extended rights” key result, so there will be other teams approaching this from a less new-editor centric perspective.
I started this idea above with some degree of support, but wanted to actually develop it into a proposal. With the AfC backlog now at over 4 months (and 77 articles, as I write this, being left stale for over 4 months), I think it's high time this gained some proper traction. Consequently, my ideas are to reward the reviewing of older articles (such like those 77), rewarding new reviewers, and rewarding regular participation and reviewing. In more depth, this would look like:
Older reviews: An editor who has reviewed x articles which are over y weeks/months old would receive a barnstar (perhaps a bot to carry out the giving out of the barnstars?). Proposed number would be 5 articles which are over 3 months/12 weeks old, or 10 articles over 1 month/4 weeks old.
New reviewers: A new/probationary reviewer would receive (for example) the Original Barnstar, after their first reviews (with an encouragement to keep going, of course). Proposed number would be 5 reviews, regardless of the timescale.
Regular reviewing: Like streaks, I guess - if an editor reviews a consistent number of articles per week, over the course of (say) a month, they would receive the AfC Barnstar (for example). Proposed rate would be 60 per month (i.e., twice per day).
All discussion and comments welcome. I'm happy to answer questions about how this might work, etc. Mattdaviesfsic (talk)
With all due respect, I have disabled your RFC - this does not need a project-wide discussion, just enough consensus to implement. If you really, really feel strongly otherwise, you are welcome to restore the RFC tag. I will give thoughts on this when I have more time. Primefac (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice idea for promoting editor retention and generally just showing appreciation for others. However, I don't think this process should be done by a bot; it would only be marginally be better than those impersonal "Thanks for your edits!" notification when a certain edit count milestone is met. I think having an actual person give barnstars would be more personal. I don't think a strict criteria is warranted; imo, barnstars should be from person to person with a meaningful appreciation for their work. A criteria would remove that message. Carpimaps (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I have no problems with your thoughts on bot use, because I am one of those people who like things done at a particular time! I wonder if a bot would be able to communicate the fact that X user has made Y reviews - I can't say I have the time to trawl through everyone's AfC logs! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the misaligned incentives in the AfC process is that when an article would probably survive a trip through AFD (=the long-standing goal) but doesn't "look pretty", then the reviewer has a dilemma: Do you decline an article on a notable subject, which is bad, or do you move it to the mainspace, and risk someone yelling at you?
It might be possible to use a reward system to slightly counter this, by recognizing people not for the speed with which they say "needs moar citations", but for the work needed to get articles into the mainspace. That is, only count work on articles that reach the mainspace.
I also like the idea of recognizing people who review the oldest pages. They're often the oldest ones because they require more effort.
As for the mechanism, a bot could create the list, and perhaps simply publishing the list is the key point. But if you wanted to see a different approach, then take a look at s:en:User:WhatamIdoing. That group used userbox-like awards to encourage participation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a way to encourage reviewers, but I don't think giving out barnstars is the way to go. I think a "leaderboard" would help; for example, a review of a one-day-old submission would be worth 1 point, while 3+ month old drafts would be worth ~3, and it would be reset at the end of each month. Displaying the leaderboard on the AfC talk page, along with newsletters and potentially the userbox awards suggested by WhatamIdoing, would go a long way in increasing reviewer motivation. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity - any thoughts on the table I've put at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards? Too complicated to be updated weekly, for instance? I've grouped various time frames together as you'll see, whether 8 points is too much, I don't know. (It would certainly be an incentive though!)
Looks pretty good. I think that 8 points is too much; maybe it could be 1 for <7 days, 2 for 7 days to 1 month, 3 for 1-2 months, 4 for 2-3 months, and 5 for >3 months. I also don't think that we need re-reviews, since it's not a backlog drive. If other people like this idea, I can write the code for a bot to do this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that declining should get the same points as accepting or rejecting (=getting it out of AFC's queue). @Mattdaviesfsic, looking at your contributions on 29 April 2023, you were declining articles at a rate of about one per minute for a while. It's quick and easy, and it's sometimes necessary. But declining just kicks the can (backlog) down the road. It doesn't actually resolve anything. I'd suggest zero points for declining an article.
As for review times: we might want to incentivize getting articles through AFC quickly, in which case the points might have a U-shaped curve: extra points for prompt action, and extra points for tackling the difficult older ones, but few points for the usual average. For example: 2 points for the first week or two, 1 point for the next couple of months, and 4 points for old articles.
@Ingenuity, could you collect the basic statistics, without assigning points? A table that gives accept:decline:reject ratios, something like this:
Editor || New || Average || Old
Matt || 2:9:0 || 2:15:1 || 0:3:0
(for whatever time periods you want) would let us see how many we're talking about in each range, and how many of them resolve the article's status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I agree with @WhatamIdoing on the fact that declining should not have the same value as accepting or rejecting: it's likely the most common action we perform while reviewing drafts (or at least, I often found myself doing so as of late), so giving it the same points as other contributions could risk to undermine the whole meaning of the rewarding system.
Having taken on board these comments, I've updated the system to be a bit less generous with the points, and not counting declines (but still counting rejects). I hope this looks a bit more incentivising now? With some sort of consensus, Ingenuity can get some code going and theoretically we could launch this for June... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with WhatamIdoing, declining does not just "kick the can down the road" and suggests/encourages an overuse of reject. Reject is WP:BITEY and was added just to terminate problem cases such as tedious resubmits and should be used sparingly. Many declines are also very terminal as followed with a speedy delete (G11 and G12 mostly). Historically, accepts run at about 20-25% of submissions - in the last month much worse 13% accept, 82% decline and 5% reject (not including deleted which are mostly declines). Many declines are not resubmitted so also an end, no can kicking. If a subject is notable but not yet shown then decline - they hopefully they improve, resubmit and we accept - without the decline it's just stagnation unless the reviewer improves then accepts. IMHO yes accepts should get more but decline/reject should be the same and I agree that more for the older categories is the correct motivation. Yes most declines happen day 0, but the majority of the old submits waiting are still not accepts (or rejects) and are important to get done, not de-incentivise. Ideally 0 day declines and speedy delete would also get more for removal of spam, copyvios, attack pages from the project, but that would need a bot with admin level to work out. KylieTastic (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic, I don't think that's a full analysis. First, there shouldn't be any G12 declines; copyvios should be immediately deleted, not declined (and that ought to be recorded as a rejection, not as a decline).
Here are the scenarios I'd like to avoid:
Quick decline with no response:
Article submitted. G13 timer starts ticking.
Reviewer glances at it, says "needs moar citations" or "Wikipedia is not for advertising" and declines. G13 timer resets.
Nothing happens.
Article deleted as G13.
Decline for hopeless article:
Article submitted.
Reviewer glances at it, sees that it's a non-notable subject (e.g., an autobiography from a teenager), says "needs moar citations" or "Wikipedia is not for advertising", and declines.
Editor changes something and re-submits.
Reviewer glances at it, clicks the same button in the AFCH script as the previous round, and declines again.
Repeat steps 3 and 4 until someone gives up.
Decline for notable subject:
Article submitted.
Reviewer glances at it, knows that it's notable, is convinced that it would pass AFD, ...and thinks about how unpleasant it is to have editors yell at you for permitting "sub-standard" or "embarrassing" articles, so instead of accepting it, says "needs moar citations" or "Wikipedia is not for advertising" and declines.
IMO we need to put our thumb on the scale to say that the first isn't helpful (it just delays the inevitable), the second should be rejected, and the third should be accepted.
What I'd like to see more of is:
Article submitted.
Reviewer spends 10 minutes looking it over in detail, checks a couple of the sources, determines that the subject is notable, is convinced that it would pass AFD ...and moves it to the mainspace, decorated with as many maintenance templates as seem appropriate, because the lousy article about a notable subject is statistically more likely to get improved if it's in the mainspace than if it's left in the draftspace.
First, there shouldn't be any G12 declines - yes, there absolutely should be cv declines. Users need to know why their draft was declined, and it is not always the case where a G12-tagged draft is deleted as a copyvio, so tagging without declining just means the draft has to get re-reviewed anyway. Primefac (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you decline it as a copyvio, and it doesn't get deleted because it's not a copyvio, then it has to be re-reviewed anyway.
But more generally, I think that if the reason (should it prove to be valid) results in mandatory deletion, that should be considered instances of rejection, not merely declining the current version. Users can be told why their draft was rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts everyone (and KylieTastic) - with response to the thoughts on declines, I've updated the table at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards once again. Now the declines are worth half of accepts and rejects, and the maths is made easier (?) by adding together the outcome total and the time-based total. Is this too difficult, or is this much better? Please let me know! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now the declines are worth half of accepts and rejects. I think incentivizing rejects over declines is not a good idea. Most non-accepts should be declines. For example I almost never reject. In fact, I think incentivizing accepts is also not a good idea. Accept, decline, and reject should have equal weight in any awards system, so that reviewers give a true and objective assessment, and are not nudged towards one or the other to get awards or points. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given it makes things more complicated to work out, and on the basis of good argument here, I have removed the different points for the outcome to focus wholly on the time of which the article has been waiting.
I think that accepting is more work, and therefore deserves more points.
I also think we have existing incentives to avoid acceptance (if someone [anyone, not just someone who knows what they're talking about] things you are too generous, they will yell at you for permitting the pollution of the mainspace with notable subjects whose current version is "embarrassing"), and that therefore we need something to counterbalance those incentives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against your first point; as I am going through my mental "checklist", whether the draft ticks the final "box" or not I have still done all the prior work. Filling in some additional fields for mainspace-moving is about as much effort as writing a thoughtful decline rationale (sometimes less). Putting in extra incentives to get a draft accepted will only skew the numbers towards acceptance as those who want to be at the top of the list will accept more than they should. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really do the whole checklist each time? Let's say that you can tell at a glance that the page is a BLP that cites no sources. Do you then proceed through the full multi-point checklist anyway? Or just decline with "needs sources" and move on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. I was saying that if I am going to accept a draft, I have already done just as much work as if it was a narrow decline where I was "not checking the final box". Obviously, there are drafts that are quick-failed, but I tend to work at the back of the queue where it's not as easy to do that. As implied elsewhere by others, I think every one of my reviews takes at least 10-15 minutes. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if someone wanted to get a lot of points, they could go through the entire category and click decline them all with a request for more sources or because it feels promotional at a rate of a several drafts per minute. Editors won't do that for accepting articles, but they could do that for declining them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing - the premise is that editors will see it as fun, rather than a way to 'beat the system'. This situation could happen - I'm not doubting that (and editors like myself will admit to straight-out declines even without a backlog drive) - but (1) we must remind ourselves that the WP:ONUS is on the submitter to find sources, and (2) we're working on an assume good faith principle that editors will take as much time and care as usual over each draft they review. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, @Mattdaviesfsic. Also, generally if a reviewer is mass declining without valid reasoning, we get questions at the help desk. We actually had something similar happen a couple months ago. Concerns about the reviewer were brought here and they were removed. We have also had instances where a reviewer is blocked for UPE so samplings of re-reviews were conducted. These are things that do not happen often though, at least with my AfC experience thus far. S0091 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Providing a "valid reason" for declining is not incompatible with quickly declining a large number of articles.
Here's what I'm seeing:
When I look through his contributions, Matt actually did decline a somewhat large articles at a rate of about one per minute. I believe that every one of those declines was deserved. My point isn't whether he was correct; my point is that it's a quick and easy activity.
But in this discussion, reviewers are claiming that they frequently spend a really long time looking at articles before declining them.
To put it another way:
In 20 minutes, you could decline 10 articles (90% quick declines and one that takes careful review first), or you could accept 2 (10 minutes each). But this project proposes to treat them all the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third possibility - you spend 20 minutes reviewing and decline all of two articles. Which happens to me fairly regularly. The point of this venture is not to make it a competition, it is to provide some measure of feedback and thanks for those who are doing a lot of work. If people are gaming the system (hurray for cheating to win "internet points"?), we will deal with it in the ways described in this subthread. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can spend a couple minutes and accept a couple articles. I am not sure why @WhatamIdoing thinks accepts always take longer. They don't. Just now I accepted Scream (2022 soundtrack) which took me all of a minute to review and accept. Its is difficult to tell this by looking at someone's logs because most are declines so you are generally not going to see a series of back-to-back accepts like you do declines. That is not to say there are not super quick declines; there are and those are most often in the very front of the feed but then starting even a day or so back, it begins to average out about the same in my experience. S0091 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, take a look at @Bkissin (log) as they have a high acceptance rate with back-to-accepts and back-to-back declines so might make a good case study. S0091 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the day if I was really motivated (and had time) I'd do 5-10 reviews all at once, then bomb through and decline/accept them all in succession (rather than do one at a time) so I can see how that's possible. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that declining is less time consuming than accepting. Either outcome takes time to review. Some may be easy declines or accepts so only take a minute while others can take few minutes. I have certainly spent 20-30 minutes reviewing a draft I ended up declining. In addition to what Primefac notes, declines also lead to getting questions from the submitter which require thoughtful answers. I don't think I ever have gotten a question from a submitter whose draft I accepted. S0091 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's not incentivize rejects. It looks like we can get consensus for equal weighting for any disposition. Also higher weighting for reviewing older stuff. Looks like that's where it has landed. ~Kvng (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also created a userbox to use (e.g., for June), as seen on the linked page above. I don't do a lot of stuff with userboxes, so more than happy for someone to design something newer! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattdaviesfsic It looks good to me, thank you for creating it!
Ingenuity - would you be able to write the code for your bot to update a leaderboard like the one at User:Mattdaviesfsic/AfC awards? (Obviously rejects would need to be counted before deletion.) I could write a message to send to AfC'ers (and possibly NPP'ers, depending on when their permissions are added here) and we could potentially get started on one for June? I would suggest a leaderboard be hosted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Leaderboards/2023/June and then so on monthly and annually, as it would be easier to keep track of each month. I could then see who to award userboxes (etc) to at then end of each month. Could the bot update the leaderboard, say, every 2 or 3 hours, do you think? I've no experience with bot running so not my area of expertise! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to write the code sometime in the next few days. I can use a lot of the code from the stuff I wrote for the backlog drive, but it'll need some changes to do this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR Rejection is not permanent for all time. If something has fundamentally changed about a rejected draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider that addresses the reason for rejection, a user should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. If that fails, or the reviewer is not available, the matter may be brought to WP:AFCHD. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rejection usually means the draft should not be worked on further. It means a reviewer has determined that there is a fundamental, unsolvable problem with the draft such as notability or WP:NOT. Feel free to link the draft here for a second opinion, but in general, rejection is the end of the line. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the specifics. I'm not going to submit the draft now, since it's not mine, but it was rejected for being non-notable. It now has fourteen sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I agree it looks pretty good, I'll reverse the rejection and replace with the AFC pending template. It's up to the author, or you if you wish, to submit it. - RichT|C|E-Mail17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would better to change the bullet points into a numbered list of participants. This would make it easier to see how many people are participating in the Articles for creation. Carpimapstalk to me!13:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: That hypothetical number would not be accurate anyway, since administrators can use AFCH without being on the list, and soon NPRs will be able to as well. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question, maybe for User:Primefac, about whether a history merge is required. I reviewed Draft:Sajjad Jani about a week ago. A stub had been created at Sajjad Jani two months after the draft was created. I tagged the draft to be merged into the article. I considered whether to tag the article for a history merge as a copy-paste from the draft, but concluded that the wording of the article was different from the wording of the draft, so that it was not a copy-paste, although it looked like an "almost copy-paste". The originator of the draft, User:HMGelani, has asked for another look. It appears to me that the originator of the stub just barely managed to get credit for the stub, and that HMGelani should merge their additional content into the article. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the published article would probably not be accepted through the AfC process. The refs on the published article can be added to the draft (as external links, say), the published article deleted, and the authors of both the draft and the published article can work on the draft.
@Robert McClenon: Looking at this page comparison, the amount of verbatim text that is reused suggests is was copy/pasted and then expanded and slightly copy-edited before publishing to main space. Seems like something a history merge would be used for (notability questions aside). -2pou (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this draft while reviewing today. I fairly quickly rejected it, because a quick background search pulls up 0 google results for "Skill Broughtner" in quotes and the mentioned twitter account the article is focused on has 2 followers, but it also looks like it was written by AI. I can't tell if this really qualifies under any CSD criteria; can this be nominated under anything, or should it just be left there until G13?
(I vaguely remember rejecting a draft on first submission was discouraged at some point as well, but this falls under the criteria at WP:AFC/RI, so I figured it was fine; is it not fine, and/or is there anything else I should be aware of when rejecting submissions?) Skarmory(talk •contribs)03:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and tagged it {{AI-generated}}. If you want to CSD it, G3 blatant hoax is usually the one that applies to AI. But letting it sit until G13 also sounds reasonable. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a hoax, necessarily, since the twitter account mentioned does exist and there are no falsified sources (can't have falsified sources if your article is unsourced!); I don't know how admins are treating G3 when it's exclusively because it looks like it was written by AI. I think it's best to just let it G13 because there's no real harm to doing that, and the {{AI-generated}} tag will let anyone more involved with the LLM stuff find it if it needs to be deleted sooner for any reason. Thanks! Skarmory(talk •contribs)07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Articles for creation helper script
I propose we rename "Yet another Articles for creation helper script" to "Articles for creation helper script". The "Yet another" part is a bit verbose, and in practice I don't think many people call it that. Any objections? cc Enterprisey –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the quirky nostalgia of it, but I am not opposed if there are boring people who are fun haters that want it to more accurately reflect its current status as the One True ScriptTM. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha. Sorry, that tickled me...not a comment about the suggestion although I do appreciate the "Yet another...". S0091 (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a question raised as to whether we should have the "Automatically open the review panel on AfC submissions" option enabled by default (i.e. you have to opt-out of having it show up) or keep it as the current status where it is in the "More" dropdown by default (opt-in to auto-open). Personally, since we have just had a script update that allows NPR to use AFCH (assuming they have the gadget turned on) I would think that not having it automatically display would be a better option (since it's just one more thing to pop up if one is randomly viewing drafts). Thoughts and comments appreciated. Primefac (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if it's on by default, but personally I would turn it off again and that should still be an option. One issue could be I know i missed the "preferences" option and I know others have so maybe that needs a change - however I don't know how as once I noticed it seemed obvious! Also if on by default maybe make it a tad smaller vertically it seems unnecessarily big. KylieTastic (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, the change can be made in such a way that if a reviewer has ever enabled or disabled that preference, then they should see no difference from before. It should affect only reviewers who have recently enabled the gadget. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is more that one shouldn't need to turn it off if they are not expecting it. But, that's why we discuss these sorts of things - if folks think it would be more beneficial to have it always on by default, then that's what we'll do. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was looking for a little gear icon in the corner or something, and missed the link right in the middle of the page. – bradv13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another example of how the how the preference hides in plain sight! Maybe it's because the primary green and red with huge font just demand attention but it's still a very odd mental trick. KylieTastic (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another additional option is if the user has not saved any preferences (i.e. no "userjs-afch-preferences" exists in the account data) the preference form is shown. Ideally it would be tweaked to say "This is your first use of AFCH tool please check your preferences" and the "Cancel" changes to "Accept defaults" and saved, so it only ever happens the first time. KylieTastic (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this option. Have it display by default when viewing a draft, but make the preference form pop up at first visit so people like me can't miss it. – bradv20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are articles for creation categories so strange?
I've notices they are quite strange and arbitrary. For example we have Politics of the United Kingdom and History of Poland but no other individual country politics or history tags. This makes it hard to add the appropriate projects to a lot of AFC submissions. Can we fix them to make every wikiproject available or similar? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian)21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you don't mean categories, but WikiProject templates that are to be added to the new article's talk page. In that case, these would be restricted to WikiProjects that have separate templates; many don't. Many (most?) wikiprojects are added via their parent project's template params. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red - June 2023
Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
Moving drafts into article namespace without reviewer approval
As I've been thinking, The Nervous Set (which I created as a draft) was moved to mainspace several years ago by non-reviewer Moxy soon after Curb Safe Charmer rejected one of draft revisions. I didn't feel like bringing it up at the time because I created the draft and I just wanted to feel pleased to see the draft being in the mainspace. Two more examples are Policy Man, moved into mainspace by PigeonChickenFish after S0091's rejection, and Eleazar (painter), moved into mainspace by Netherzone without AFC review.
No offense to those who moved those drafts, but I just have concerns about such un-reviewed moves. I know that AFC has backlog issues, but are they excuses for those users to move them without awaiting an AFC reviewer? I mean, I wonder whether such practice is okay. I honestly don't have much confidence with using my notability skills for articles that I created, so I have had to use the AFC process, despite its agonizingly slow process. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho, You are welcome to move Eleazar (painter) back to draft space. I was helping out with a project to improve and save some drafts from a deceased Wikipedian.[1] I didn't realize it should go thru AfC since I did not create the original draft. Sorry if I made a mistake in doing so. Netherzone (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is an editing restriction in place, it is not mandatory for a draft to go through the AFC process. Just because a page declined (or even rejected) does not mean that it cannot be moved by someone else to the article space; clearly the 2017 move of The Nervous Set was acceptable, since it was never subsequently nominated for deletion (by any means). Moving a draft back to the draft space purely because it was not accepted through AFC is disruptive more than anything. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho I moved the Policy Man article after clean up effort and the addition of new RS sources, as per the AFC rejection. Understanding WP notability is a skill set for all of us here (not just people moving articles). I am sorry if this article move offended you, or someone else, as it wasn’t personal. Would you like me to do something specific? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from your edit summaries those moves back to draft space were because you felt the pages were not acceptable. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho a couple other things to keep in mind is articles are still reviewed by NPP unless the editor is autopatrolled so if deemed inappropriate for mainspace NPP will handle it (or the community at large). If the editor is autopatrolled like @PigeonChickenFish that generally means they are experienced with creating unproblematic articles. Also, AfC reviewers do make mistakes or may not have all the relevant information as usually determinations are made based on what is presented, not what is available. In my view, using Policy Man as an example, PigeonChickenFish rectified my error/uninformed decision. S0091 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho, in the case of Eleazar (painter), there was a discussion between several editors what to do about DGG's drafts in user space as you can see HERE after he passed away. I was pinged by admin Star Mississippi on 11 April 2023 to see if I could help with these, since we had helped to clean up another deceased editor User:Possibly's drafts before his drafts expired, which I did (help out with).
If you look at the Eleazar (painter) article history, you will see that it was originally created as an unacceptable autobiography by editor User:Eleazar1954 in 2009. There was back and forth re: the AfD tag and DGG userified it to his own user space. I didn't know the draft existed until I was pinged, and I offered to help with the draft since I am quite familiar with notability criteria for visual artists. I then made improvements to bring it up to WP standards. According to article history, you tagged the draft as a user space draft on 13 May 2023, then User:CNMall41 moved it from User:DGG/Eleazar (painter) to Draft:Eleazar (painter) where I continued to work on it. On 30 May 2023 I moved it to article space (knowing that several other editors and admins were aware of the draft and it's longer history).
I did this in good faith to help out with David's drafts and did not think I did anything inappropriate by moving it to article space; moving it didn't seem like a "big deal" to me. I don't believe David (DGG) would have userfied the draft in the first place if he had not seen its potential, given his vast experience. I did not mean to step on your toes, and if I did, again, I apologize for that. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No new articles have been added to Wikipedia:AfC sorting since 25 May. Usually it comes back in a short while, but it's been 5 days now, and I can't see any discussion about it. Anyone know what's up, or point me to a discussion? Greenman (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Patch written. 
Patch merged to master branch (IngenuityWP or Enterprisey or SD0001 have this button. I have the button too but in general self-merging is frowned upon) 
Done. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I believe the subject is notable per WP:NN
I have no problems with your thoughts on bot use, because I am one of those people who like things done at a particular time! I wonder if a bot would be able to communicate the fact that X user has made Y reviews - I can't say I have the time to trawl through everyone's AfC logs! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done: That hypothetical number would not be accurate anyway, since administrators can use AFCH without being on the list, and soon NPRs will be able to as well. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
