Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kilopi (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 25 July 2013 (→Another discussion: The elusive "Draft:" namespace: !vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Currently, AfC exists as "informal" and "not required", but there's no specific policy and/or guideline for responding to new users wishing to create articles. Some people choose to respond by only telling them how to use AfC without telling them about mainspace (if registered), where others tell them how to create it in mainspace, and others are in between. The solutions I see are:

  1. Require new users to use Articles for Creation for new articles, to the point of a policy change that would make it against policy to create new articles directly for new users.
  2. Strongly suggest, to the point of the Article Wizard going straight to AfC and potentially other methods, that new users use Articles for Creation for new articles.
  3. Recommend, but do not make it the only option, that new users use AfC to create new articles.
  4. Remain indifferent, presenting both options and not suggesting one method or the other.
  5. Recommend mainspace for creation of new articles by new users, with an {{unreviewed}} similar template.
  6. Strongly suggest, to the point of making it the only option in the Wizard and potentially other methods, that new editors create articles in mainspace (with a similar stipulation as above).
  7. Require, to the point of a policy change, that new users create in mainspace and mark as unreviewed by default.

As currently, it looks like the current status quo (before an earlier change I made to WP:WIZGO) is "Strongly suggest, to the point of the Article Wizard going straight to AfC, that new users use Articles for Creation for new articles", but not outright requiring it through penalty of deletion and/or warning. I'd appreciate the community's view on what should be done with this.

Assuming a "Require" or "strongly suggest" gains consensus, most likely "new editor" will need to be defined somehow.

Thanks for your input ~Charmlet -talk- 02:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Option 1 (Require AfC)

"Require new users to use Articles for Creation for new articles, to the point of a policy change that would make it against policy to create new articles directly for new users."

Support

  • Strong, strong support The entire point of AfC is to have a peer review process for (sometimes) low-quality articles by new contributors. If AfC is kept informal, it's not fulfilling its purpose. I normally support the WMF and its decisions, but I can't see the reasoning behind its refusal to mandate the AfC process. It's a debacle. theonesean 04:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my opinion, this is a better approach than #7, and half-measures buys us the worst of both worlds. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a new page patroller I sometimes admit to being unintentionally WP:BITEY to the newbies who create poorly sourced articles, by speedy tagging for CSD A7. (I also commonly end up tagging for A1 and G11). Some of them are very offended because no one told them what to do, and they're being punished for it. Many new articles created by newbies end up being CSD'd anyway, (I've noticed lots of new editors asking "why did you delete my article? it was good!" etc.) and this would prevent large amounts of articles flooding into mainspace only to be deleted later. Also, at least if someone goes to AfC, then people will teach them how to and how not to write articles, instead of being deleted and having to start over, and not really learning anything so that they write better articles. Someone in the other section proposed userspace drafts, but I think a lot of new editors fail to realize how much of an important option that can be. In addition, while the article wizard is helpful, I see a number of new editors also leaving in the "subject of my article" is... in the section. If we don't require them to use AfC, at least require them to use article wizard - it automatically tags with new, unreviewed article and will help maintain a bit of coherency. For the purposes of this support, a new user is defined as a non-autoconfirmed user: at least get some editing done so you're familiar with Wikipedia, and new page advertisers are deterred. If they're so eager to create a new article, they can use AfC. There's my long two cents, kikichugirl inquire 07:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Strong oppose. Almost every person I've spoken to on Wikipedia presently started out by creating a new article themselves. For many, their article was subsequently deleted because it was rubbish. For example, I never would've been active on Wikipedia had this proposal been enacted before I joined, as I joined Wikipedia by creating a trash article. This openness is exactly how we attract new editors. If we further restrict this, we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot with any serious and credible effort to tackle editor retention. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With the exception of a change in policy, this mirrors the status quo and I don't believe it will achieve anything except create another layer of bureaucracy to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. It will waste editor and admin time trying to police the inevitable policy breaches. Pol430 talk to me 18:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I haven't been overly active in awhile, but I was a pretty active new-page patroller some ways back. My experience leads me to echo the same concerns of the two above. Jd027 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Too bitey, and also would be messy for secondary accounts etc. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We already put to many hurdles in front of new editors. This is antithetical to the ethos of Wikipedia. I teach people to edit Wikipedia. I teach them to do it well. I see no reason why my students should be forced through this unnecessary process. the "secondary account" point above is also well made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. Warden (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AfC reviews are too unreliable. When they aren't accepting junk, they're turning something down because of minor faults. As most people turned down never return, we'd lose too many article. If we ever have an afc process that finds some way to limit comments to the people who would actually know enough to be help and care enough to give specific advice, it might be different. The comments about secondary accounts and other people who might as well work directly in mainspace are also relevant.. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - I've never used AfC, for the simple reason that I don't trust it. Almost everything I write is in userspace, and then moved into mainspace when it is ready, bar for a few tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, AfC is targeted at new and inexperienced users, so you're not really the target audience for AfC. I share your lack of trust in it, though. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm not the intended target audience for AfC - but I wrote my first ever articles directly into mainspace, before I knew I could move them, and this is back when I only had a few hundred edits. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I thought you meant that you don't use it now. My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, glad that this is sorted out :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • This seems to be just a rehash of WP:ACTRIAL. I don't think this is an idea even worth discussing... Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, pending being told otherwise by someone from the WMF, a policy change (i.e. not a technical removal of ability) would be perfectly within the consensus formed by editors. i.e. if consensus stands with this proposal, it can't be implemented technically (by removing createpage), but could be implemented by one or more of: a new A## WP:CSD for articles not going through AfC, removing all references to mainspace creation from WP:YFA WP:WIZARD and other pages, among other things. Those details could be worked out in a subsection if/when/after this gains consensus. ~Charmlet -talk- 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is so similar to the trial that was accepted by a healthy community consensus at WP:ACTRIAL and summarily rejected by the Foundation, that it would almost certainly not fly. Apparently, the Foundation can, and will exercise control over what the individual Wikipedia communities want, especially where they hold the keys to the servers, and while they are not helping very much to find solutions, the WMF will be quick to intervene if they see things developing that do not conform to the personal opinions and policies of senior members of the staff or the Foundation's global initiatives, e.g., increasing the statistical number of 'article' creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 (Strongly suggest AfC)

"Strongly suggest, to the point of the Article Wizard going straight to AfC, that new users use Articles for Creation for new articles."

Support

  • Support "New user" is a bit too nebulous, and the idea of requiring someone to use the AFC process seems extreme. Still, despite the proposer's apparent bias, I consider it to be a good thing that articles are rejected for not having inline citations and similar infractions. Our tolerance of these things is due to the necessity of grandfathering in old content, and need not extend to new articles.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think AfC should be required, but making it the only well-advertised process will ensure that those who need AfC the most will get it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

@Kww: I don't remember saying anything about those rejections being bad. Maybe you confused me with someone else? I agree with everything you said, not the other way around :-) ~Charmlet -talk- 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be the author of #Additional proposal : Make AfC reviewing a requestable permission, then.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The only things I authored were the wording at the top, the list of 7, and the discussion signed by me. The proposal at the bottom was added by User:Ritchie333. If you or anyone else has further proposals to add, feel free to do so :) ~Charmlet -talk- 01:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (Suggest AfC)

"Recommend, but do not make it the only option, that new users use AfC to create new articles."

Support

Oppose

  • Not even this. I would suggest it only for those people with COI or who lack confidence, or have problems in writing directly, I'd advise anyone else to stay clear of it, and go directly to the Teahouse for assistance if they need it. If anyone who supports using afc wants to strengthen the case for it, the first step is to increase the quality of the reviews, and the second, improve the mechanics of the process. So far, I see no signs of either. The most difficult problem with new editors, beyond that of giving them proper advice, is to persuade them to actually return to fix the problems, and neither NPP nor afc are any good at that. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Option 4 (Either way)

"Remain indifferent, presenting both options and not suggesting one method or the other."

Support

Oppose

Discussion

  • Hmm, this option is food for thought. In the article wizard, we could present two options to editors. One button will directly publish to mainspace, while the other button submits it to the AfC namespace to "await review from a more experienced editor". Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5 (Suggest mainspace)

"Recommend mainspace for creation of new articles by new users, with an {{unreviewed}} similar template."

Support

  • Support - There have been many recent statements to the effect that AFC is broken. Part of the problem appears to be AFC reviewers who are themselves relatively new editors, and who reject drafts based on misunderstanding of policy. I don't see any movement to rework AFC, and so any change to make it more important will just discourage new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to raise an eyebrow in regards to the above statement. Any article placed directly in the main article space is immediately subject to a combination of deletion rationales and templates (CSD, AFD, PROD and its counterpart BLPPROD). These deletion tags are often placed within a few moments after the article is created, and i have seen more then a few placed by editors who quite frankly didn't have a clue as far as deletion rationales go.
AFC is not perfect by any stretch of the word, but at the very least it provides (new) users some leeway by giving them a safe space to work on their draft, along with feedback on how to proceed. At the same rate there will always be a difference between reviewers in terms of review quantity regardless of whether they are performing AFC reviews or newpage patrol. Reviewing can be a complex trade to learn though and I have committed my own share of mistakes when i just started out. Even so, it might be a good idea to include some form of new reviewer patrol. The AFC backlog drives specifically ask reviewers to review other reviewers reviews. It should be technically possible to generate a list of reviews made by new editors and not previously seen AFC reviewers. That list could be checked and editors could be given a nudge if they seem to make (to many) mistakes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The new editor can, and probably will, just remove the ungainly template from their shiny new article, thus removing the page from the unreviewed category and the process falls apart. Pol430 talk to me 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Option 6 (Strongly suggest mainspace)

"Strongly suggest, to the point of making it the only option in the Wizard and potentially other methods, that new editors create articles in mainspace (with a similar stipulation as above)."

Support

  • Support. I think this option has been under-rated thus far. "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." I personally think a more vibrant content-editing community will result from increased interaction with the mainspace on the part of new users, with the happy consequence that perhaps we will see a reduction in the backlog at WP:AfC. I support Option 6, not 7, on the grounds that an absolute mandate would probably divert attention to enforcement of that mandate and away from more worthwhile endeavors. Jd027 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Procedural oppose. Would break the process for IP editors who are initially encouraged by the existence of the Article Wizard, only to find it's a dead-end that asks them to perform a function they cannot technically perform. Pol430 talk to me 19:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Option 7 (Require mainspace)

"Require, to the point of a policy change, that new users create in mainspace and mark as unreviewed by default."

Support

Oppose

  • Not feasible The term 'new users' presumably encompasses new IP users who are technically unable to create main space pages and the reason AfC exists. Pol430 talk to me 19:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd obviously have to change that. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really Much as I dislike afc, it is needed for people with COI, and should be an option. I wouldn't recommend it in other cases until it improves, but it has the potential for improvement. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Although the restrictions suggested in WP:ACTRIAL were met with a healthy consensus after a well subscribed RfC, it was disallowed by the Foundation. I'm not arguing here whether or not the WMF or those who opposed the scheme were right or wrong, but in the aftermath of this and the continuing absence of a proper landing page for new users, be they registered or IPs, and from my experience from patrolling new pages (and the quality of the patrolling), and my recent investigations of AfC, opening the creation of new pages in mainspace even further, would spell disaster. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Defining "new user" for the purposes of this guideline

Other discussion

  • This RFC seems to have missed that there is a third option: userspace drafts. This is a way for any user to work on an article and get to know the rules without subjecting to any form of immediate review, provided it is not blatant spam or a copyright violation. This option is explicitly mentioned in various templates that new users may be exposed to. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, this is even less controllable than afc. We could presumably develop tools to find them, but I don;t see as how it would be an improvement. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we get yet another duplicate of our good friend WP:ACTRIAL. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 05:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said, this isn't meant to be "disallow new users from page creation" at all. It's meant to have the community input into what side of the spectrum it wants between two (really almost three as Beeblebrox points out above) methods of new users creating articles, each with it's own pros. The only option out of the 7 that would end in an ACTRIAL similar ending would be option 1 (requiring new users to use AfC). And that one is highly unlikely to get much support in my humble-before-anyone-actually-comments opinion. ~Charmlet -talk- 13:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't advise anyone to use AfC, because there is a good chance that it will be reviewed by someone totally ignorant of what topics belong in an encyclopedia and how an article should be written. Unless we have some process to only allow people who have demonstrated that they know what they are doing to review articles then the process is next to useless. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other options not mentioned. Some would require technical changes. For example: If a page has been in "mainspace" less than 14 days and either 1) the page had not been "reviewed" by someone with "reviewer" privileges or 2) the page was tagged for deletion, the page would be marked "noindex," displayed with a "new, un-reviewed article" template/banner, and put in a maintenance-category "new articles requesting immediate review" and/or "new pages tagged for possible deletion." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfC's use of noindex, as well as its use above, isn't enough. Nearly every copyright violation, BLP attack, and promotional article we leave sitting festering in "Declined AfC drafts" is noindexed *but* indexed at any number of Wikimirrors, most often http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/ . As much as I'm fond of, and have done some work at AfC, the inability of Wikipedians to craft a workable response to the publishing of copyrights, attacks, and ads via ages-old declined AfC submissions leaves me wondering if it would be better to chuck the process entirely. (It's my opinion that G13 isn't working, something I can expand on if people wish.) Before I give an opinion on this RfC, does anyone have a constructive suggestion for how to deal with this negative side-effect of AfC? --j⚛e deckertalk 21:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make the G13 not some ridiculous amount of time? My opinion is that it should be 2 weeks after a decline and no editing, or 4 weeks of no editing altogether (before submission) and it's deleted. Warn author a week before, and a day before deletion if possible. ~Charmlet -talk- 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing G13 like this would be very bitey for occasional users that edit on weekends/holidays/vacations etc. 64.40.54.29 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The G13 time frame isn't the issue, I agree that dropping the time limit much below 6 months would come with some unacceptable costs.
The problem is that someone has to manually evaluate 50,000-100,000 drafts, on top of the additional AfC review, and on top of the review done by the deleting administrator. Nobody is willing to do enough of this to make the whole process work, that is, even make progress at whittling down that pile. So the pile continues to fester and grow. THAT is the problem. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to point out that we cannot control what wiki mirrors have on their sites. Also, BLP violations, copyvios, etc. can be in any namespace (i.e. user, talk, template, etc.). So AfC space is not something different from any other namespace that isn't frequented too often. We have many tools at our disposal to check for these problems and they work equally well in AfC and all our namespaces. Cheers. 64.40.54.29 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree. The density of copyright violations and other speediable problems is much, much higher in the declined AfC pile than in any other area of the encyclopedia. I encourage you to, as I did, use Catscan or one of it's variants to work up a list of the few hundred oldest "declined as promotional" AfC drafts, and to sort through them, appling G3, G10, G11, G12 and/or G13 as appropriate. When you've done that, come back and we can have a discussion. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: do you edit under another name? --j⚛e deckertalk 18:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. ;) 64.40.54.109 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Cool, thanks--I'll try and skip the "overexplaining" part then.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 15:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 64.40.54.134 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional proposal : Make AfC reviewing a requestable permission

I'm not sure if this belongs in a separate RFC, or whether I can bolt it onto this one, but on recent discussions on WT:WER#AFC, I expressed concern that some new and inexperienced AfC reviewers lack the required judgement on reviewing submissions, and decline articles for spurious and irrelevant reasons such as no inline cites or bad formatting, plus we have evidence of tag team spammers bulk approving articles with no evidence of notability that subsequently cause extra work at CSD / AfD. With this in mind, I would like to propose an "AfC reviewer" permission that is requested at WP:RPE. The permission would be granted to those who have shown understanding of our notability and verifiability policies, and would be similar to autopatrolled. I appreciate there are technical issues with implementing this, which could be solved by slightly modifying the permission to allow moves from project talk space to article space, or (even better) creating a completely separate AFC namespace.

I don't see why not (and hopefully that will also address Tazerdadog's concerns too) - I just picked autopatrolled as the closest permission I can think of, but since PC uses a permission called "reviewer", that makes even more sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. It's an idea, but I would prefer this permission be significantly looser than you have described here. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-ish I was pretty surprised by one of the recent abuse incidents, and reviewing power for AfCs is at least as much a concern for abuse as reviewing power for PC. I don't think it has to be as limited as autopatrolled (you can learn a lot about our policies before hitting 50 article creations), but I do think that being able to demonstrate a clear understanding of our most common notability/verifiability/copyright/etc. guidelines would be a sensible minimum bar. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reviewer permission would be a good fit to avoid adding a new permission level. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As has been seen at here, new users come along constantly and use the system to their advantages, and we are always getting inexperienced reviewers. I feel that an AFCH whitelist won't do, as it is possible to do it without the right. Mdann52 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I support the idea itself, but I don't think it is technically feasible nor desirable to include another permission specifically for this. Technically speaking AFC is just a set of talk pages that are used for another purpose. At the same time these talk pages must be freely editable by anyone, so one cannot restrict people from reviewing (Which is just a change to the template's parameters). Besides this, Project-specific permissions aren't something you wish to code into an application.
What we can do is limit the usage of the AFCH helper script. We could create a protected page that lists the editors that are allowed to use the script - Anyone not on that list wouldn't be able to load the script (It could just generate a popup that states the user has no access in that case). This does not restrict manual reviews and neither will it prevent anyone from adapting the script itself to circumvent the check. Having said that manual reviews are much slower, and adapting the script in such a manner screams bad faith (we could create a policy regarding this matter as well) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I add my voice to the "Creating a whitelist for the AFCH is a bad idea". Yes we've had some rather bright lights focused on AfC due to black hat users leveraging AFCH to give credence to questionable submissions. The solution is to warn them off from the AfC process and encourage them to go contribute productively elsewhere. Personally, I'd much rather prefer that users be required to use the AFCH when reviewing as it cleans up a lot of problems (such as unsigned/undated reviews, not leaving a message for the submitter, organizing the AFC submission templates/comments, etc.) that can occur when someone manually declines. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose A new user rights is not the solution to every problems and I can't see any upside to giving out a new bauble. Detaching move page from autoconfirmed isn't going to happen anytime soon due to the fact that AfC isn't the only time people move pages from one namespace to another. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While your general principle is correct, can you think of another good example where an editor would want to move a page specifically from project talk space to article space? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support having having come across a lot of extremely poor reviewing and some disturbing blatant abuse of the process. How this control can be physically achieved however, needs further examination; I do not strictly believe in creating new user rights which would be a boon for the hat collectors (all maintenance areas are a magnet young and/or inexperienced editors), besides which, if a site software tweak is required there is the chance that the Foundation would simply refuse to do it anyway. Nevertheless, if access to the AfC reviewer templates/tools could be restricted in some other way, I would suggest making an application to use them at WP:PERM/RV, they could be asked to make the application there and we could accord them the 'Reviewer' flag and monitor their AfC participation manually and ask them to stop if required. Probably everyone who reviews pages has read the instructions, so if those instructions start with a threshold of minimum experience and a requirement for users to register themselves here, it would be possible to monitor their performance before it gets out of hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The main issue I see is with AFC Helper, which allows fast reviewing of many articles, that is where a lot of damage comes from. One such instance is here. I think we have to ensure that the people who are reviewing are experienced enough, but short of making a permission, restricting the damage they can do in a short period of time will help. I have mentioned autopatrolled as an option to use AFCH in the past (with which I have been met with much disagreement), however I would suggest that if we were to us AP, we could change the criteria to 50 articles or 50 (or more) successful (read: approved) manual AfC reviews (as with 50 successful reviews you should know what an article should look like). --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only guessing, but as far as I can see from patrolling pages, those with autopatrolled status are not necessarily editors who have an interest in doing back-room work. I think requiring Atopatrolled status would be setting the bar far too high and would exclude the wrong people from reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page Creation != Evaluating notability/referencing/viability of a proposed article. To use a case in point: I don't have autopatrolled. I know the ins and outs of the rules, but I haven't really made a whole lot of created pages. I'm much more interested in gnomish activities than writing articles that are enduring, yet with your proposed change, I would be excluded from AfC reviewing because I don't have expertiese that isn't already covered by existing articles. I do agree there needs to be a minimum competence and oversight in the the AfC process, but locking down the tool only serves to make more work for those of us who do the gnoming activities (including adding declining user/declined timestamp). Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasteur: Reviewer, instead of autopatrolled? Still too much? Closer? --j⚛e deckertalk 18:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been on Wikipedia for many years and been an admin for several. I even do some of the more complicated tasks. However, even I find the AfC review system extremely complicated, and it baffles me how some of the users are able to handle it. That said, I still think that Autopatrolled would be to set the bar far too high, and also does not necessary demonstrate a knowledge of some of the more complex features of Wikipedia outside creating straightforward articles. I would go with the threshold required for PC reviewer (which is deliberately low - lower in fact even than Rollbacker), and keep a close eye on all new AfC reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think several people have got confused over my mention of "autopatrolled". I mentioned autopatrolled as a well known example of a permission editors request regularly at WP:RPE. I wasn't suggesting the "AFC reviewer" permission was at the same level of it at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Reviewer seems to be a good bar for new AfC reviewers. Most administrators haven't even written 50 articles. Obviously, we will have to consider changing the permission guidelines because right now Reviewing is mostly a counter-vandalism permission rather than one focused on notability. Passing this would probably raise the bar for the reviewer right. You have to know about vandalism and BLP in addition to knowing notability and article standards, which may just as well be a good thing as I've seen lots of complaints now about how reviewer could have been set higher. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Very strong support this is basically what is needed. People who understand what is needed for an article can work within any structure; while people who are still only beginning to learn will do similar damage at AfC orany other system. What we will need in any case is a way to teach them. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'll Support a restructuring of the Reviewer rights to raise its bar so as to include AFC reviewer requirements for all practical purposes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Reviewer. The effect of a rejected PC and a rejected AfC are similar enough. Both keep content hidden from the public-facing parts of the site, while keeping it visible to all in (page history | WT namespace) for further review. Anyone trusted to do either can be trusted to do both. Kilopi (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion: The elusive "Draft:" namespace

There have been many discussions about draft namespaces in the past. I would like to combine them all with this simple proposal:

There have been many AfC reform proposals recently. I'd like to show you guys mine. I propose a new namespace, a "Draft:" namespace. ALL new articles from non-autopatrolled users would enter this namespace first. A reviewer would check the article, and if it looked good, it would be moved to mainspace. Those reviewers would need to have the reviewer user right. "Draft:"s would remain available for six months without any edits, and then would be deleted. Remember that the new users can request WP:REFUND if they return. The existing tools we have (WP:NPT and WP:AFCH) can be repurposed. Remember, never say something can't be implemented because of a codebase. If the codebase doesn't work, change it.

It's short, simple, and gets right to the point. Since the days of WP:ACTRIAL, I have wanted to see something like this implemented. Comments? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the namespace - With Flow coming down the road for all talk spaces, our continuing reliance on Wikipedia Talk: for AfC drafts is going to have to end. User space is not a replacement--IP editors lack their own User namespace. While it might be possible to hack around the upcoming collision of our use of WT: with the oncoming train of Flow, I believe there are also a number of ways in which being able to tailor or protections, filters, and limits on a Drafts namespace would allow us to better manage both the AfC process and the larger process of protecting the encyclopedia. I'm still thinking out the implications of the other parts of this, but I feel we really need the "Draft namespace" part of this proposal whether or not we accept the rest. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I completely forgot about Flow. That's going to cause more problems. I wish the WMF would go ahead and acknowledge that we exist and help us with software issues like this and stop pretending we are unofficial hackers. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support. By far the best suggestion in this entire RfC; also, one which the WMF have already had tabled to them and given an approving nod to -- except perhaps the auto-patrolled bit. Pol430 talk to me 19:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other benefits of the Draft: namespace would be that all potential BLP vios. copyvios and all other forms of vanispamcruftisement would be in one area as opposed to spread all over in user pages/AfC/Incubator/etc., so it would be easy to check for problems. A bot like CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) could check for copyvios. An adminbot could delete pages automatically after a set period of time. Blah, blah, blah. I won't list all the benefits since you get the idea. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidating all drafts into one namespace is a great idea. I don't know how many copyvios there are in userspace, and I'm not sure if anybody bothers checking. Will the A CSDs apply to this namespace? MER-C 07:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a quite good idea, although steps must be taken to ensure that it doesn't become the incubator round 2.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per everyone else. I have explained elsewhere why a new namespace would help get around technical bodge jobs, and improve usability as, unlike now, users will have an actual talk page to talk about the draft. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a great idea. It would be much more helpful the Project talk namespace. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a creation of such a namespace, even if only to replace the hackishness of using Wikipedia talk for AFC drafts. No opinion on requiring all new articles to go through Draft space before mainspace.— This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I stated above, the same steps would be taken as they are now to make sure the new namespace wouldn't become clogged. Addionally, autopatrolled users would be the only users who could directly create to mainspace, at least in my proposal. The existing reviewer right would be the ONLY right required to review drafts (though I suppose this could cause issues with people reviewing their own articles, perhaps add a technical prevention on own article reviewing?). --Nathan2055talk - contribs 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was one of the major initiators and proponents of WP:ACTRIAL. This current proposal seems to be so similar that I doubt it would fly. FWIW, be it reminded, ACTRIAL was only to be a trial in order to prove or disprove the idea and gather some stats, but it was shot down by the Foundation, and in an extremely impolite manner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A draft namespace sounds like a very appropriate place to direct newer editors to work on articles. It could help resolve redundancy between userpages, AfC draft pages and other related drafts (Article incubator immediately comes to mind) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support namespace. Agree with TT&O on technical merits over WT:AFC. Kilopi (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_2013&oldid=565693454"