This is the discussion page for the AfC/NPP work group. If you are not a registered work group member, you are welcome to comment but are nevertheless expected to broadly support the tasks at hand and to keep your comments on topic. Irrelevant comments may be folded or even removed.

For general issues concerning the use of the Page Curation Tools please see WT:Page Curation. For general issues concerning New Page Patrol, please see WT:NPP For general issues concerning AfC, please see WT:AfC

Main page	To do	Work group	Work group list

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

/The DGG discussion

I can't find a good heading to put this under, but since it's come up a number of times recently, I would like to get some clarification on what AfC and NPP have in common and how they are fundamentally and irreconcilably different. I see it like this: NPP is triage. The question we address is: Can this article be retained as is, should it be improved and if so, how, or should it be deleted? AfC is a service for people who, for various reasons (IP user, COI, too new), cannot get an article published by writing it in Mainspace themselves. They question at AfC is: Am I willing to publish this on your behalf? While evaluating whether we want to extend our offer to publish, we often use similar criteria to those used at NPP, but that does not make the two equivalent. I have objections to paid editing and I will not accept an article written by a paid editor and publish an article on their behalf. That aspect of AfC should not become part of NPP, so as long as paid editing is tolerated, I would like to see AfC and NPP remain separate. I do see opportunities for sharing resources or tools between the two processes, and I welcome the WMF looking into how they can help by providing improvements to existing tools. Mduvekot ( talk) 23:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC) reply

This has been discussed many times in several places over the past three years. Rather than continue to compare the two processes which are as similar as they are different, what we hope to achieve now are some concrete suggestions for improvement. I think most of the community shares your feelings about paid editing and many, including me, would like to see it banned altogether. Personally, I believe the same stance on Paid Editing should be adopted for both processes; WP:BOGOF explains why and is of particular relevance to AfC. One suggestion is for the two processes to share resources such as a common GUI; another is to elevate the status of AfC to an official process such as NPR, with a formal selection of its reviewer candidates as a software controlled user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I work mostly at AFC, have only occasionally dipped a toe in the NPP pond. I agree with Kudpung that AFC needs to be improved by setting a more definite standard for reviewers - we have far too many spurious declines by reviewers who are not following the workflow properly. The workflow itself, and the decline reasons/messages need a thorough overhaul too. One example; failing WP:V should not be a valid reason to decline, because it directly contradicts WP:N. All too often drafts are declined for not having inline citations, when Notability does not actually require that there be any references at all.

However, AFC has also has a "teach the newbies" function thus the temptation is very strong to show the newbie how to create a "decent" article instead of a bare minimum compliant "mess" that might take a very long time to be tidied up in mainspace (if ever). The other reason AFC is often criticized for being too strict is that a bad accept goes on the reviewer's record - which will be used as a stick to beat him/her at RFA if he/she decides to run that gauntlet. The accepting reviewer's username appears prominently in the AFC Wikiproject template on the article talk page, while the original creator's identity is burried in the page history. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

A Big PLUS 1 to that. Legacypac ( talk) 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thirding. @ Dodger67: I'd also particularly like to get some user logs so that it's easy for an admin/experienced AfC reviewer who finds one poor AfC review to spot whether it's a pattern that needs addressing or just a one-off mistake. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

In short, there's no good way to handle "borderline notability" cases.

Perhaps simply accepting them into mainspace (assuming they have some referencing and some claim of notability) and immediately AfD-ing them is the correct option? Something like Draft:Lex Eisenhardt (declined six times) probably wouldn't survive AfD, but I don't see any specific reason to decline moving it to mainspace. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• We need draft PROD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I was viciously attacked for moving a couple pages to mainspace and subjecting them to AfD. There is a crazy idea that MfD can't consider notability of subjects even though the same editors at MfD consider notability at AfC etc all the time. Legacypac ( talk) 03:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Oppose draft_PROD. Mainspace PROD depends on watchlisters, and to Category:Proposed deletion reviewers. Draft pages do not have watchers, and there is not serious pool of Category:Proposed draft deletion]] reviewers. Draft PROD is therefore de facto speedy deletion with a time delay. Be honest. As de facto speedy deletion, see the CSD new criterion criteria. 1 Objective. 2 Uncontestable. 3 Frequent. 4 Nonredundant. 1 is a big challenge for AfC, its assumptions and workings lack defined objectivity. 2? I find many draft MfD deletion rationales highly contestable. 3. Sure, when the CSD D* are written, the swamp will drain at a huge rate. 4? At MfD, I note a very low appreciation of the applicability of WP:CSD#G11 to everything that is promotion and based entirely on unsuitable sources, being based on unsuitable sources, or not based on reliable sources at all, means that none of the content can be honestly reused. I urge AfC reviewers to review WP:CSD#G11 and consider using it when it applies in preference to any AfC process. Most of the borderline notability cases, certainly most of the disagreeable borderline notability cases, and all of the cases that are suspected Undisclosed Paid Editor product, are promotional, and if it *needs* deletion, G11 usually fits. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

It would just appear in the same category, like File-prod. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Many sysops take a much lenient view of G11 in draftspace and they have quite good rationales behind their stand. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 09:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I often come across first or second person spam pages declined at AFC that for some reason have not been tagged for deletion. It boggles the mind. MER-C 10:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Oppose draft PROD. Best to just let this stuff drift away without drama through G13. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The primary AfC acceptance criteria is: Not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. Most AfC reviewers do not interpret WP:LIKELY using its 50-50 definition and so will not accept borderline drafts. My attempts to encourage myself and others to be more liberal here have not been particularly successful. Other reviewers aren't comfortable lowering their standards and AfD participants are WP:ASTONISHed that AfC would produce borderline material.

There is a proposal to automatically send drafts to AfD for definitive community evaluation after n declines (someone add a link here if you have it) that may be relevant to this discussion.

My own opinion is that we need more AfD activity like a hole in the head. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The idea is to send repeatedly (3 or 4 times) declined Drafts to MfD for discussion. If kept it gets mainspaced, if not, deleted. It will benefit the cue by removing the 5th to 11th resubmit and reevaluates. It will help creators get notable drafts into the sight of more editors who may help and or mainspace the page. So it's not just a deletion push. This report shows the scope of the issue as of March 18 User:JJMC89_bot/report/AfC_decline_counts many of the red links were taken to MfD and deleted. Legacypac ( talk) 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The RfC linked at WP:NMFD is a major hurdle to this idea. Miscellany for deletion is for serious deletion proposals, and in that and previous RfCs the community has been clear that notability is not a reason for deletion. Especially not narrowly failing notability. How about you instead set up Wikipedia:Drafts for discussion, or use the old Wikipedia:Drafts for discussion (proposal). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The wording of the RFC that is cited for WP:NMFD was carefully chosen to get to an agenda. I'm not aware of any previous RfC. Reality is we discuss notability all the time and there is no valid reason not to. We could automatically add the links that AfD has to assist us. We already have CSD for many Drafts, so Mfd naturally gets the edge cases. Would a proposed Discussion forum have the authority to Delete? Would the community support the creation of a Discussion forum that takes almost all the workload off MfD? We need to overturn WP:NMFD not split away most of the MfD work to a new process. Legacypac ( talk) 07:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, notability should be discussed, but not at MfD. Yes, to assist in discussing notability, the AfD links would help, these links are not provided at MfD. DfD should certainly have the option to delete. WP:NMFD was exceptionally well supported, accept it. You could work towards a separate new forum for discussing drafts, but I think AfC first needs better communication when declining submitted drafts. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

A properly phrased question to do away with WP:NMFD would also get wide support. The chances of getting a new Draft for Deletion.Discussion forum is slim to none. Everyone including me will say we should reform MfD instead and there is no reason to turn MfD into a ghost town. Seriously without Drafts MfD would have less than a post a day. Legacypac ( talk) 09:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH at WMF. As part of the follow-up to ACTRIAL, the Community Tech team is going to have some bandwidth over the next couple months to take on an improvement to the AfC process. I've been following along with the conversation on this talk page and elsewhere to learn about the biggest challenges facing AfC and the ideas for improving it.

Though I’m new to this process, I’ve attempted to summarize AfC’s challenges, goals, and ideas for improvement here: AfC Process Improvement May 2018.

Unfortunately, the Community Tech team will only have limited bandwidth to make a focused improvement, but we want to make sure it is valuable. I hope you can all check out the linked page above, help fill in gaps of things I’ve missed, and be part of a conversation of what sort of impact Community Tech can make during April and May. We're hoping to consolidate around some of the top ideas by next week, and then we'll start to scope and narrow down to one together. MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This is amazingly welcome news. Having a look at the linked page it seem to be a very exhaustive and succinct breakdown of the issues and potential solutions, so I have to thank you straight away for that. I'm sure there are other ideas, but it is a great starting point. Before any work starts on tool development I would like to stress that any tools that come out of this process should be user editable (User script based rather than a backend tool like the Page Curation tools). I'd like to avoid another situation like we have with the NPP page curation tools where we can't apply fixes and improvements without the WMF's help (not to say that they aren't useful tools, just that it would be nice to not have to go through the wishlist to get changes to them). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 22:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Insertcleverphrasehere: thank you, and glad to hear it. I understand what you mean about user editable tools, and I'll make sure to bring that up with the engineers on our end for whatever we do end up working on. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 01:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

What the WMF could do

IN his capacity as an envoy from the WMF, MMiller (WMF) has got up to speed with the issues surrounding AfC and will be comparing AfC with NPP in order to obtain the bigger picture. As regular users, we know already, and have done for a long time, what the problems with AfC are. We also know the challenges NPP will continue to face even after the permanent roll out of ACTRIAL. Therefore rather than further analysis that will only duplicate that knowledge, it is time to move forward to examining practical solutions.

Some of these can be addressed at local level, such as the items suggested by Espresso Addict at here. What is absolutely certain however, is that if AC-TRIAL does not become AC-PERMANENT very soon, contrary to the claims of the RfC opposers from the AfC quarter, the number of drafts will double or even triple in a short time and the AfC backlog with become unsurmountable.
Why?
Because the New Page Reviewers will be moving more and more borderline articles to the draft mainspace. It will create more work for AfC, not less.

The archives of this AfC/NPP project contain many discussions about how the two systems can approach each other and achieve both of their goals. Predominant among them are the possibilities of:

1. Deprecating AfC altogether
2. Creating AfC as an officially recognised function with its own software and a proper feed, rather than an informal WikiProject operating on its indispensable Helper Script but which urgently needs bringing in line with today's situation.
3. Merging AfC and NPP into a common user interface that provides both functions.

Why is #3 the ideal solution? Because:

• The Interface exists already but needs a rebuild.
• There is a wish list of urgently needed enhancements at WP:PCSI.
• This could be the opportunity for the WMF to finally agree to take those requirements into consideration, and as Kaldari once suggested, rewrite the code while incorporating the functions of AfC.
• AfC reviewing is inconsistent.
• The AfC reviewers could be upgraded to New Page Reviewers to give them an official status.

Next step: Based on Marshall's findings, DannyH (WMF)'s department should be able calculate its bandwidth capacity, budgets, and time lines for software development in order to examine and compare what the ROI on different solutions would be in real terms for community engagement and maintaining the integrity and reputation of the encyclopedia. What must be avoided however, is a top-down solution from the WMF. It is essential for both sides to collaborate on any developments bearing in mind that knowing what is needed and writing the code for it are very different specialisms. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hmm. In principle merging the AfC & NPP interfaces seems to make sense, but there's a big problem with Foundation developments that aren't properly supported and can't be managed by community volunteers. We can't keep trying to bomb the Community Wishlist Survey annually every time a problem with the AfC/NPP interface needs urgent attention. These are not sexy add-ons that appeal to readers/editors, they are essential QC functions. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kudpung: I'm not sure that combining AfC and NPP is our call... that seems like something that the people working on both workflows have to decide together. Do the AfC folks agree with you? -- DannyH (WMF) ( talk) 01:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

An RfC at appropriate venue in near future should do it (regarding merger). —usernamekiran (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

We don't know that Danny until we know what software solutions the WMF can suggest and what the time frame would be for any such a solution. We have to examine everythiing and the community will decide. At the moment everything is stalemate because the WMF devs won't address the urgent enhancements for the Curation/New Pages Feed system, but is prepared to invest in the minor operation of AfC which could in fact still blunder along without any help from the WMF. Naturally we would all like to see improvements to both systems and if merging them is the most viable software solution, we would have a win-win solution. It was Kaldari who suggested that the code for the Curation/New pages feed system should be rewritten (he was a co-developer of it), so this would be a good opportunity to get it done. The two processes are inextricably correlated. As Espresso Addict says, this back and forth to and from the Wish List for the last 3 years is just passing the parcel. These are major critical issues, not some convenience gadgets and the community does not have the resources to address them locally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I am deeply concerned at Kudpung's characterisation of AfC as a "minor operation" in the context of the almost certain reinstatement of ACTRIAL. Does no-one except me care about the fact that all articles from non(auto)confirmed editors will very shortly be being processed here? Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Whilst K has very valid reasons to be frustrated at WMF's handling of NPP-related software, which hardly gets the desired levels of attention at Phab and their default reply, on being requested to improve the tools or add new features is to either point us towards the Xmas WishList or to ask the volunteers to code for themselves which is irrational, to say the least. But, I wholly agree with Expresso that AFC isn't a minor process and it can perform wonders with some help from WMF's side, which they appear ro be willing to provide. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 06:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The "Page Curation updates long overdue section." on Danny's talk page is ... I don't have a polite word for it. Astonishing, perhaps. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I care very much about it, Espresso Addict, - if you remember, a year or two ago I got the rule made that the reviewers should at least be vetted rather than simply add themselves to the list. The characterisation is realistic - it does not mean for a moment that I belittle its operation or purpose. The point I'm actually making is that AfC will be even more important when AC-TRIAL goes AC-PERMANENT. However, AfC will need to get its ducks in a row and Primefac can't do it alone. One of the ways I am sugesting is to elevate it to an official process from it Wikiproject staus and get some user rights established for its reviewers. The advantage is that an infrastructure already exists to do that in the form of NPP. We need to be taking a serious look at how that could work ather than come up with idalist eason why it should not. What the WMF cannot do is campaign for more reviewers - and that's what it's really all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not being naively idealistic here, and I appreciate what you are doing for NPP & AfC, Kudpung. But we've got to be realistic that AC-PERM is happening in the next 2 or 3 weeks, not at some future date when AfC & NPP can be merged tidily, and until AfC is more powered to handle the resulting influx, a lot of good-faith, decent content is going into an unindexed pit and future contributors are turned into people who never edit again. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not suggesting you were, Espresso Addict, but if you go through the oppose votes at the ACTRIAL RfC you'll get my meaning. What we got done at NPP after I created the user right was to reduce a mamoth backlog of some 26,000 articles down to 3,500 in just over a year. That's pretty amazing, but it didn't happen without a lot of initiative from people like Insertcleverphrasehere, MusicAnimal, and a couple of others. That said, I believe I saw in some recent stats that at least 80% of the submitted drafts are not from people who are going to be regular contributors of appropriate content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Some of the opposes do seem to be from people who've never tried to help out with the influx of new crud. But I don't think the 80% stat has any meaningful basis. Perhaps 80% of drafts did not make it into mainspace, but blind lucky dips into the black hole keep coming up with perfectly viable articles that weren't submitted for review, were wrongly rejected, needed work that the creator couldn't understand how to do.... No-one has the faintest idea what's lurking in draftspace, and most people don't seem to care at all. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

That's why I keep saying AfC needs to get its choir singing from the same page. There used to be a lot of nonsense patrolls made at NPP before we introduced he user right. There are still some occasional odd uses of tags and deletion criteria, but it's actually quite rare now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

As a concrete move to step up the AfC game and move toward making AfC official or merging it with NPR I propose that starting now all new AfC patrollers be required to hold the NPR flag and that by July 31 access to the AfCH script be restricted to NPR flag holders. This is not intended to kick out any existing reviewer - we will go through the list of existing reviewers and submit their names for the NPR flag. This will ensure better alignment between the functions. All AfC reviewers should be encouraged to at least occasionally do some NPR as understanding that process is important to the decision making on AfC drafts. It will also remove the idea that being in AfC is somehow below the requirements to patrol. Legacypac ( talk) 22:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Could @ Primefac: et al. & @ Kudpung: et al. get together to understand what, if any, the difference between their sets of criteria are?

I'd agree with @ Legacypac: that AfC reviewers should be encouraged to at least look at the New Pages feed from time to time. I think the converse would also help, especially if NPP reviewers are being encouraged to move material to draft. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I can't claim this is a new idea, its been discussed a lot, and proposed above by Kudpung yet again. All I did was add a timeline and process to it. I'm willing to go through the AfC list and filter out a list of editors that need NPR. We could then ping them to apply at PERM or maybe bulk nominate them at PERM, with each user judged on their own merits. There is no downside to an established editor having NPR PERM, and since all are already approved for AfC they presumably meet the NPR threshold. Even if someone does not do dedicated NPR they can still mark various pages they encounter as review, which cuts the backlog over time.   Legacypac ( talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Generally in agreement with getting the NPR right applied to all applicable AfC reviewers. Going through the list and nominating appropriate users for the user rights would be my suggestion (you are allowed to nominate others at PERM - though a bit of a backround check would be advised). In terms of making NPR a requirement for AfC, let's see how many don't make the cut first (and why), then make a decision from there. At the very least we will get user rights in the hands of users who can use them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 00:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Primefac and I work fairly closely together and I was most impressed when he took on the job of watching over AfC, but I know how he feels, I did the same thing for nearly 7 years for NPP untill I got the user right for NPR up and running (and it was 100s of hours of work). You won't believe what a relief that was - I even have time now to write some articles. I also know that people like DGG, TonyBallioni and Legacypac toil for hours everyday in the background on both AfC and NPP. The problem is that we are still so busy mopping things up and meeting the latest growing challenge of of COIN and paid editing that we haven't had time yet to get our heads to gether without a lot of background noise - and that's the way things get done before concrete proposals are made to the community for their thoughts and/or consensus. That's how we finally got ACTRIAL through, and that's the way it's done in any properly organised enterprise whether it be a business, open source, crowd compiled, or whatever. That's how projects like Mozilla and phpbb work. And that's why we also need some earnest input from the WMF before we do anything rash which might set us back years again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I think you're going to lose some AfC reviewers if they are forced to meet a NPP requirement. I signed up because AfC requested help at a WikiProject I was involved in, and because I wanted to help reduce submission backlogs in that area so we didn't lose new editors. I've subsequently done quite a bit of ploughing through broader backlogs because I wound up feeling for those outside of my immediate area of interest too. This is a different thing, with people helping for different reasons than new page patrol - I generally keep an eye on new articles in my specific area of interest when I remember but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in being dragged into any broader or formalised role there. I mean, if someone wants to sort out the process I'm happy to have the flag and I'm happy to formally patrol new articles in my area when I come across them - but that's pretty much it. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 09:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

No one will force you to patrol new pages, and I'm sure you will be given the flag. It's handy to click off even project pages and redirects you come across and drafts you approve. Every bit helps. Legacypac ( talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I've long supported getting rid of the checklist for AFCH and making the NPR flag a requirement to use it, but this has faced opposition for those involved in AfC. I think having one user right for both projects makes sense. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I would support that alternative too. ToThAc ( talk) 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'll make and post a list of AfCers without NPR as a first step. Legacypac ( talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• For what it's worth, in March the non-NPR/non-Admins (which also includes Hasteur, who I just added to the list below) did 1726 of the ~5200 reviews of pages that still exist. I'm not saying that we'll automatically lose that 33% of the reviews should we implement a "you must be NPR" requirement to AFC, but it's something to keep in mind. Also, I'm willing (and able) to give just about any stats you'd like regarding AFC participation - I run these numbers automatically every month (i.e. I don't have to go blind looking at lists). All you have to do is ask. Primefac ( talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply) reply

the list

User:Legacypac/AFCNPR is a list of every active user in AFC as of today. Many of the ones without NPR have autoreviewed and other advanced perms that suggest granting NPR would be uncontroversial. The following users 83 users should be evaluated for New Page Reviewer at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions - noting they are already AFC reviewers:

1. User:3family6
2. User:Acebulf  Done
3. User:Adamfinmo  Not done, rejected.
4. User:Alpha Quadrant
5. User:AmericanAir88  Done
6. User:Andrewman327  Not done, rejected.
7. User:Anne drew Andrew and Drew  Done
8. User:AntiCompositeNumber
9. User:Bingobro Application declined in February
10. User:Biochemistry&Love  Done
11. User:Bkissin
12. User:Boghog  Done
13. User:Caorongjin  Done
14. User:Carwil  Done
15. User:CNMall41  Done
16. User:CookieMonster755
17. User:Dan arndt  Done
18. User:DavidWestT
19. User:Davisonio  Done
20. User:Deli nk  Done
21. User:Dial911  Not done, rejected.
22. User:Doctorg
23. User:Eastmain  Done
24. User:Flickerd
25. User:FocalPoint
26. User:Gene93k
27. User:GRuban
28. User:Hammersoft
29. User:Hamtechperson
30. User:Hasteur
31. User:Headbomb  Done
32. User:Heliosxeros  Done
33. User:Jadeslair  Done
34. User:Jamietw
35. User:Jd22292
36. User:Jjjjjjdddddd  Done
37. User:Jllm06
38. User:Jmorrison230582
39. User:Jprg1966
40. User:JSFarman  Done
41. User:Kerry Raymond
42. User:Kiteinthewind
43. User:Kostas20142  Done
44. User:L293D
45. User:Linguist111 (G13) and User:Linguist111
46. User:Luis150902
47. User:LukeSurl  Done
48. User:LynxTufts  Done
49. User:MadeYourReadThis
50. User:Majora
51. User:Matthew hk  Done
52. User:Mortee  Done
53. User:Naraht  Done
54. User:NathanielTheBold
55. User:Neko-chan  Done
56. User:Nizil Shah
57. User:NottNott  Done
58. User:Obaid Raza  Done
59. User:Pbsouthwood  Done
60. User:ProgrammingGeek
61. User:RexxS  Done
62. User:Ringbang
63. User:Sb2001
64. User:Seraphim System  Done and User:SeraphWiki (alt of User:Seraphim System)
65. User:Shadowowl  Not done, rejected.
66. User:Smirkybec  Done
67. User:Smmurphy  Done
68. User:StarryGrandma
69. User:Staszek Lem  Done
70. User:TeriEmbrey  Done
71. User:The Drover's Wife  Done
72. User:The garmine  Not done, rejected.
73. User:TheMesquito
74. User:TheMightyPeanut
75. User:Thsmi002  Done
76. User:Tikuko
77. User:Tomer T  Done
78. User:ToThAc  Done
79. User:Tvx1  Not done, rejected.
80. User:Worldbruce (not requesting see below)
81. User:Zanhe
82. User:Zxcvbnm

Legacypac ( talk) 09:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) updated to add a user. Primefac ( talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

further discussion

The only reason I haven't done more work at NPP yet is because of some drama over being careless about 1RR violations in DS/GS areas I was new too - arguably these shouldn't have been blocks, and I've stuck to 1RR on all articles since then but I don't want to rehash all that. It is frustrating enough that Im not able to contribute at NPP because I actually like helping with new article rescue - it would be doubly frustrating to have to put work at AfC on hold over this as well. Same for SeraphWiki. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 12:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You are auto-patrolled so you clearly understand what makes an acceptable article. You should have no issue getting NPR PERM [[User::Seraphim System]] Anyway this is not yet a requirement for AfCH but there are good reasons to align NPR & AfC and getting everyone NPR PERM is part of that. Legacypac ( talk) 12:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Legacypac: you mean auto-patrolled, right? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, fixed. I just reviewed every AfC member's perms and I'm tired. The actual short mame is autoreviewer though, so I was right. Legacypac ( talk) 13:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Interesting conversation here, and I did (a few years ago) dip into the New Page Feed. As you might have noticed with my activity on AfC, I tend to work in bursts when time allows, but if my time can be directed to a few places where it can be of help when I have it, I'm happy to help out where I can. Smirkybec ( talk) 13:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks Legacypac — I'm willing to peruse through this list later this week. Anyone actually interested should definitely ask at WP:PERM/NPR, or can ask me directly if they like. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I've been a bit less active than usual the past few weeks, but have PERM/NPR on my watchlist and I'll be happy to review anyone who applies from that list to PERM. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I am an active AfC reviewer and willing to help at NPP but nobody would let me. I already have access to Page Curation and tag/edit/fix new articles. Those who want to help are being rejected because of unnecessary gate-keeping on Wikipedia. While on the other hand, steps for aligning NPP and AfC are being discussed. Interesting juxtaposition! Dial911 ( talk) 07:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• ​ ​I could send an invitation out to each of them, inviting them to Apply, but I wonder if we could just get some admins to simply go through the list and just give it to everyone for whom it is appropriate (there may be some who fail the criteria due to blocks etc, but most should pass). I feel like simply giving it to all of them is the best choice. If they don't want it they can ask to have it removed (not much point in that as there isn't any downside or obligation). All these users have already requested the ability to review new pages (drafts) so it isn't a stretch to just also give them the NPR flag if it is appropriate based on that AfC request. If we can get the vast majority of these AfC reviewers on the NPR bandwagon, it would definitely help with having the option to get the two systems working a bit closer together. Note that the template sent out to new NPR's should be tweaked if automatically given out, as the current one would sound like it was demanding that they immediately get to work on a project that they didn't ask for and might not necessarily be interested in helping out (a new template should be prepared indicating that they are welcome, but are not obligated to help out at NPR with the right that they have been given). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 05:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

When I posted the list I attempted to ping everyone but found there is a 50 ping limit. I reposted the second half of the list to re ping but not sure how well it worked. I just tested nominating User:RexxS as it was suggested as one solution and that kind of works, but the user's name needs to be replaced in two places after the nomination, and the bot tells us the nominator is already a flag holder but neither of those are a big deal. We could bulk nominate the entire list or invite them one by one, but that seems unnecessary when there are many admins in this discussion. Is there some reason we or the user needs to run each name thru the PERM board? It would be a nice vote of confidence in our AfC volunteers to just grant the PERM without making them ask. Legacypac ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Many might be reluctant to ask as they might think that they would then be under an obligation to review (they are not). That's why I support just giving them the rights. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 06:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

that is clear from a couple comments. AfC includes a requirement to be active. NPR does not but all will likely mark pages patrolled as they happen across them. I do that on a lot of pages whenever I see the "mark patrolled' link. Legacypac ( talk) 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Between myself and LP we sent out invitations to everyone on the above list. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 06:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'll stop my reviews, then, and just wait. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• I will just point out that when we grandfathered a lot of patrollers into NPR on its creation, despite how carefully we did it based on a set of strict criteria, we made some blunders. I am therefore totally opposed to the blanket creation of new rewiewers, and an that request that come through PERM on my watch will receive the same scrutiny that I give to every request. There is no point in boasting that wen have X-number of reviewers if only 50 - 60 of them are ever going to do the work, which is the current situation. Any project to creates large numbers of user rights must be subject to community consensus first. PERM is overloaded already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Kudpung:, That is your prerogative. Though I would recommend that we be a bit flexible with the activity level requirement, for experienced AfC reviewers anyway.(EDIT: despite being a common decline reason, I just had another read through the NPR criteria and I note that recent activity level isn't one of them). They already hold a similar 'right' (the checklist), that we are proposing be replaced with NPR. If it draws some of them out of retirement/wikibreak/etc to help with the backlog, so much the better for the wiki. In any case I don't intend to "boast" about any number, but we will always have a significant proportion of the NPR base being inactive at one time or another (many permanently), but the larger the number is, the more likely that we will get enough that are active to get the job done. From my experience of inviting people: regardless of who you invite or how 'strict' you are, it isn't really possible to anticipate who will start reviewing like crazy, and who will do nothing at all (or do a couple dozen and realise it isn't to their liking). Spread it out among qualified users, and let them be WP:VOLUNTEERS, if they want. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 13:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Legacypac asked me on my talkpage to apply for the New Page Reviewer right. I have been invited a number of times to become a New Page Reviewer, but have chosen not to. For one thing, there's more than enough of a backlog at AfC to keep me busy. Currently I do not need the New Page Reviewer hat to be an AfC reviewer, and I have no plan to patrol new pages. Because I have no demonstrated need for it, I will not request the permission at this time. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 03:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Worldbruce, You don’t have to always review new pages. You are not bound to. I would suggest having it. However, it is your choice ultimately. Dial911 ( talk) 03:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marking redirects and non-article space reviewed

Side question: Is there any point to marking redirects and non-article space pages as reviewed? Natureium ( talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect review is a core function of NPR. You can sort out redirects. Most are fine, but sometimes you see really stupid ones, and even attack redirects. I click review on the good ones as I see them. Maybe others have more insights. Legacypac ( talk) 00:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Do redirects not show up on the page feed, or are they just reviewed so quickly that I've never seen one? Natureium ( talk) 00:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

There is a box in the filters that you can tick that makes them show up in the New Page Feed, but it mixes them in with unreviewed articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 00:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Wow, enabling that bumps up the number of unreviewed pages up by 10k! Natureium ( talk) 00:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

A trick to get nearly all redirects is to also select "no categories" then it is redirects + new articles without categories. Legacypac ( talk) 00:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah there are a lot of redirects, and it fluctuates a bit but there are a few reviewers who specialise with them and they are relatively quick to process compared to articles (generally just checking the title and target are appropriate and checking the page history for anything fishy). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 01:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

There is also the case where an article gets soft deleted by being turned into a redirect and nobody notices. This action needs to be reviewed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 01:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marking Drafts Patrolled

If we mark a draft patrolled and then it is moved to mainspace does it bypass the NPR que? Legacypac ( talk) 04:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Theoretcally, if the Draft namespace was set up as intended, all drafts moved to mainspace should be appearing as new articles in the New Pages Feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

See m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft#Tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

DannyH (WMF), I think we all very much appreciate your engagement in the issues concerning the AfC project. Just out of curiosity however, I would be interested to know why, where NPP is the major concern and a core Wkipedia process, the WMF is prioritising AfC development while insisting that urgent improvements to the Page Curation/New Pages Feed tool the WMF developed must wait for another year to be discussed even for priority. I ask this, because a major community discussion will soon start regarding combining the the AfC process into the NPP GUI - which many volunteers already agree might be a worthwhile solution. A community consensus will of course decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kudpung: The Community Tech team spent quite a bit of money and time working with the NPP over the last year on the ACTRIAL research. The research showed that making the ACTRIAL change permanent would cause increased burden on the AfC backlog -- and since we hadn't spent any time working with that group, we thought it would be a good idea to give them some support as well. Community Tech does have some discretionary time that they can spend on projects outside the Community Wishlist -- that's why they were able to spend so much time working with NPP on the ACTRIAL research. I think it's fair that they spend some time working with other groups as well. The one way to make sure that you get on Community Tech's agenda for next year is to participate in the Community Wishlist Survey starting in November. -- DannyH (WMF) ( talk) 04:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Danny, the money was a drop in the ocean of the vast WMF funds. The one way for us not to get the upgrade to the tools the WMF developed is to keep insisting that it's low priroty and should be relegated to a popularity poll for sexy gadgets. The slight increase on the workload for AfC is on a local Wikipedia project that doesn't even have an official existence; their only problems are too few active operators, no proper organisation, and inconsistent reviewing. These are subjective issues that can't be resolved with the kind help you are offering them - unless you write a complete software solution for them like you did for NPP in 2012 - which would defy your own claims of limited availability of resources. We're offering them the opportunity to exploit for their benefit the excellent NPP GUI Kaldari developed which just needs ugrading to do it.

Lets's not forget that the WMF only recently got involved in ACTRIAL because we finally decided to go ahead do it ourselves with a local filter - and the WMF 2011 rejection of it has now been proven by yourselves to have been disasterously wrong. The unpaid maintenance volunteers who operate Wikipedia's only firewall against unwanted content, especially COPYVIO which is a Foundation legal responsibility, deserve some respect for their work - if you keep personally blocking these issues, I believe the WMF to be wrong again. (FYI: MER-C). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Evidently there is money for paid "outreach" people who come and oppose common sense solutions to spam and inappropriate impulse creations that ACREQ seeks to stop. Let's focus money on improving the NPP interface to handle Drafts along with Mainspace and Userspace. Legacypac ( talk) 07:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• ACTRIAL should be simply extended to draftspace for exactly the same underlying reasons as in mainspace. Newcomers should not be encouraged to start writing new pages as their first touch. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That is something that I wholly agree with. MER-C 10:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I like that too but it will never fly. What may fly is improving our systems for flushing out bad Drafts. The idea that Draft space is an "anything goes keep the spam and hopeless" needs to be overturned. Legacypac ( talk) 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I do agree on that too; I wouldn't say never, but it'll definitely will have to be after a long time with ACTPERM to even have a fighting chance Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Unfortuntaely one of the very reasons for the creation of the Draft namespace was in anticipation of a possible roll out of ACTRIAL. Even ACTRIAL has a few, but not many, opponents base on purely philosphical reasons based on the mantra 'anyone can edit' which of course anyone, including IPs can. The AfC project, and the much later created Draft space were designed specifically to address those users who cannot otherwise, for whatever reason, create new articles directly in mainspace.

Perhaps more appropriate would be a PROD for Drafts, and perhaps even a set of Draft-specific CSD criteria - but let's get some longer experience with ACPERM first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

MfD should be an advertised PROD for Drafts. If no one objects, it's gone in a week. Legacypac ( talk) 02:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• PROD for drafts is a de facto CSD. Drafts don’t have watchers. DraftProd sounds like a backdoor to get past the requirement for objectivity for new CSDs. I strongly oppose it for that reason, stop being lazy, agree on the criteria. Can I suggest, A11, A7, etc?

Unparticipated MFDs must not be allowed to default to “delete”, even “soft delete”, to avoid turning into a massive de facto PROD system.

New draft CSDs can come with a 7 day delay to deletion, if the delay is what’s wanted. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

As you say, Drafts have few or no watchers. A delayed CSD is not a CSD, itms a PROD. I favor MfD being a form of Advertised PROD as it has watchers. If someone sees merit in a page and wants to fix it, let them object. Otherwise bye bye to the hopeless in a week or so. Much like mainspace PROD. Also I'm not lazy - I favor a A style CSDs but so far no one has been aboe to pass them. Legacypac ( talk) 23:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

A delayed CSD is not a CSD. WP:CSD#F5 is not a CSD?? I think you are slightly off the page as to what CSD is. Perhaps you think “speedy” means “speedy”? Check the csd archives of unending discussion on that. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply