Looking at some of the articles in it they seem to have been accepted using the script, but not cleaned. To be clear, I do not think it is a script problem but a problem of speed. The reviewer can be faster than the script, and closes the window or tab too quickly, thus not allowing the script to finish its work (0.9 probability). Please would we all take a few moments longer when we accept a draft to ensure that the script finishes properly? FiddleFaddle17:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify and emphasize: The script runs in your browser, not on the Wikipedia server - that's why you must let it run to completion before closing the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Stampede Wrestling
Draft:Stampede_Wrestling_50th_Anniversary_Show I know less than zero about Stampede Wrestling so I have no idea how to move this draft forward. Does anyone know of a community we can query about this draft? I remember that when it first came to AfC it was a huge article that read like... well, like I would imagine a professional wrestling magazine article might read. The editor has now cut it down, but I'm not sure we're giving the right advice for this genre. Also, this is a new submission so we can't see what went before. Anyway, is there a project that might help us with this? Or does anyone here feel like taking it on? It's been lingering, probably because we just don't know what to do with it. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm ready to delete and salt this one, but wanted to hear if any feels any different. I've already cut the article by about 1/2 but I don't think it is redeemable. This is a self-published author of a handful of books and poems, and an ESL teacher, but who has managed to create a 106K article about himself by going on and on. It's clear he himself writing his article, and from what I can see nothing will stop him. Does anyone disagree with this "solution"? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It takes a while for the search index to be updated with new pages, sometimes as long as a whole day. We have over 5 million articles and around 30 million pages in total, so keeping track of them all is not trivial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
PHP article and references
The draft Draft:PHP_Standard_Recommendation seems fine except that all of the references are to PHP documentation. Is there some exception for software that would allow this to be accepted without third-party sources? Logically, there wouldn't be independent sources for this content. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
MyLocalPitch - block needed
User:MyLocalPitch is creating article Draft:MyLocalPitch. User was warned about username policy violation on January 21 but has continued to edit. In addition, user had created a redirect from the user page to the draft page, which I removed. I added a COI notice but since the username warning went unnoticed I think it's time for a block to get this person's attention. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It might get their attention, but I think it's the user that is more of a problem than the draft, which is a typical AfC SPA for a product. We see scores of these each day. And they don't write themselves. ;-) LaMona (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Your point is well taken, but, if you look at it carefully, the fiction constitutes an attack page, because it has cast a living person as the villain. That is WP:G10. Even sandboxes have a few rules. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. When the admin comes, I don't care whether they delete but do not salt the sandbox, or whether they blank the sandbox with content redacted. I wouldn't have done this if they used a fictional villain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If you have never heard of the villain (and I won't name him here so as not to cause a Streisand effect), then you aren't an American. The villain was an American businessman and politician. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I reviewed two sandbox drafts and tried to move them to Draft space, which failed, saying that they already existed. I viewed the drafts and verified that they did exist (rather than a technical problem preventing the move). I then declined the sandbox drafts as duplicating drafts already in draft space. Another reviewer told me that I should not have done that, because that decline is only for submitted drafts, not for non-submitted drafts. Is that correct? If so, what should I do if a sandbox draft duplicates an old declined not resubmitted draft in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Repeated Resubmissions (again)
We are all familiar with editors who repeatedly resubmit the same inadequate draft. Sometimes they have to be templated for tendentious editing, and sometimes the draft has to be nominated for deletion at MFD. This is a question about a different kind of repeated resubmission. Sometimes when the reviewer moves a draft from the sandbox or a user subpage into draft space, and then declines it, the editor creates a new, almost identical draft, back in the sandbox or user space. Is there some reason having to do with specific misunderstandings of how things work for this, in which case it can be addressed, or is this a matter of stubbornness or ignorance, in which case all that we can do is to decline the additional drafts as duplicates and tell the author to please stop creating multiple drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said earlier today elsewhere, the problem is that the pay-off in SEO is so great that editors who want to get an article into WP have no reason to desist. I'm assuming that these aren't scientific articles, but ones where someone stands to gain. I brought this up before, but we do not have a way to say: no, no more editing is going to help, this article will not go on. I have started writing that in comments to editors, and even then they often do not go away. In fact, they often come back and argue like this. What is their incentive to give up when, if they keep pushing and finally get an article they are assured of showing up on page one of Google searches? That is of unbelievable value. I think we need a way to block the article in draft space. We shouldn't have to go through MfD just to say: don't send this in for another review. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes the article is a promotional article, in which case what LaMona says is correct that they have an incentive to keep trying and no incentive to quit. If they don't have a financial incentive, they might just have too much pride or stubbornness invested. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Draft:Carolyn_Pollack_Jewelry has come back to us many times. I also had a talk page conversation with the creator of the page. The article changes, but does not get better, and some of us have shown doubt about the potential to reach notability. While not egregious in any way, is it time to pull the plug on this one, or do others see some potential? It is pretty clear that the creator/editor is determined to keep trying. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing Articles Whose References Are Not in English
Occasionally, if I request a random draft, I get an article which has multiple references in an Asian language. I can't verify whether the references support notability, because I don't know Japanese (or Chinese or any of various languages). (I don't know Portuguese either, for instance, but if the reference is in Portuguese, I may at least be able to recognize the name of the subject. I can't even recognize the name of the article subject if the reference isn't in the Latin alphabet.) Is there a way that the draft can be listed for the attention of a reviewer who knows the language that the references are in? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I haven't encountered this before. The draft Draft:Brabham BT43 seems to make a pass for me, but Brabham BT43 already exists as a redirect. What should be done? Copy and paste to redirect then flag for draft deletion, or delete redirect and move draft? It doesn't sound right to me either way. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
What I've done is request speedy delete/housekeeping (G6) with an explanation that an article in draft needs to take its place. That usually works. LaMona (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Somewhere I recall seeing that CSD doesn't work for drafts and they must got through MFD. This could, however, be totally inaccurate. I do generally use MfD for drafts for that reason. I don't know if simply blanking it will work, and quite honestly the whole system of redirects based on article moves is quite mysterious. There, I've said my sympathetic but ignorant 2cents. LaMona (talk)
CSD can be used and should be used for certain CSD codes. In particular, it is used for blatant promotion, for attack pages, and for copyright violation. It also can be done in any space for housekeeping, such as removal of redirects that are blocking moves. It is true that many of the CSD reasons are not applicable to drafts, such as no claim of notability, which should be a ground only for a decline. Drafts can be deleted if they are patent nonsense. User sandboxes cannot be deleted for being patent nonsense, because that is a test. Today I declined a draft in a user sandbox that consisted only of non-Roman characters. That is a valid use for a sandbox; it is just not a valid deletion. Drafts can be tagged for CSD for a few reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The AFCH script doesn't detect edit conflicts between two reviewers. Sometimes I am in the process of declining a draft when another reviewer declines it first. That is harmless but a little annoying. Yesterday I declined a draft and another reviewer accepted it at the same time. It is now in article space. Is there some way that these edit conflicts can be detected or minimized? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone help me with this draft? It is in the category of submissions that are 4 weeks old, but when I open it and try to accept it, the AFCH button gives me Submit and Comment buttons, not Accept, Decline, and Comment buttons. Can someone who is an expert with the script advise? (I could try to submit it myself, but that would cause me rather than actual author to get advised of the acceptance.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any rule against one editor submitting to AFC a sandbox or userpage draft of another editor? I saw four articles waiting for review, reviewed them, and declined them. Another editor then stripped my review declines with the note that they had not been submitted by the author. This didn't change the actual status of the drafts, since I had declined them and they remained declined. My question is whether the submission was incorrect, and therefore whether it made sense to strip my declines. Just wondering. Thank you for any comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
AFC Script Doesn't Detect Edit Conflicts
The AFC script doesn't detect edit conflicts. Two editors may be reviewing the same submission. Typically what happens is that one of them actually declines it, and the other one is shown the result of the decline, but it is declined with the other reviewer's notes. Occasionally one reviewer attempts to decline and the other attempts to accept, and one comes in first. In either case, there is a race condition, which is generally recognized by electrical engineers and computer scientists as a type of bug. The most recent example, although this is not important, is Draft: David McBride. I tried to decline it, citing everything that was wrong with it seriously (lack of lede sentence, inadequate sourcing, BLP violation with uncited claims of marriages). Another reviewer declined it as a joke. It probably is a joke, but the race condition should be addressed. The wiki software in general is very quick to detect edit conflicts, but in this case it allows them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This draft may be ready for main space, but it still seems to me to be one-sided -- it is a description of the plan but nearly all of the sources are the state water commission or consultants or other agencies. I was pushing for more pro-con and perhaps some public opinion to increase the NPOV, but I admit I'm not up on how legislation is generally treated. Would like to hear from others. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can't expand some of the references so that they have more than just titles. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I declined Draft:Antoine Suarez without digging in because all of the references used were not about him, but by him. (I left a comment which I hoped would add clarification.) It was an article that I would not otherwise have reviewed because it's so far outside my area of expertise. The editor who submitted the article left a lengthy message on my talk page -- a lot of thought and work went into it -- and although he didn't add references, he added external links which would likely establish notability. Some are in French, some are in German, some are in English, and all are out of my depth. The guy has put extraorinary effort into the article - can someone else take a look at it? I will resubmit on his behalf. Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way to search for a word or phrase only within submitted drafts? So far the best I've found is to search for a word as well as a phrase in the template that is on the article while it is submitted.Naraht (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I reviewed User:Kurtisokc/Iowa Lakes Community College. However, I don’t know what the proper procedure is to follow, because there already is an abandoned stub at Draft: Iowa Lakes Community College. I normally move a submission from sandbox space or use space into draft space, but draft space is occupied. (If I were ready to accept the submission, I would accept it, but in my opinion it is almost ready for acceptance and needs one or two more sources.) If the stub had been submitted to AFC, I would tag it for G13, but it wasn’t submitted for AFC.
The history appears to be that there was an article in mainspace, Iowa Lakes Community College, but it was speedy-deleted as promotional. The author, User:IowaLakes, has been cautioned that they are a promotional-only account, but hasn’t been blocked. They have one visible edit, to create the draft, because their mainspace edits are only visible to admins.
My real question is what is, in the opinions of the few active readers here, is the appropriate procedure for dealing with the stub. (There is endless discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.) Should the user draft be moved on top of the abandoned stub? Should I request a technical move of the user draft onto the abandoned stub? (I will probably do that anyway.)
Robert McClenon - are you trying to move the article from main to draft space? I would tend to ask an admin to delete the draft that is there, just to get it out of the way. There isn't much history there that is worth preserving. Then at least the history would remain (I believe) with the current version of the article. All assuming I've understood your question. LaMona (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I was asking an admin to delete the draft. However, that wasn't necessary. In response to another suggestion, I went ahead and moved the user page draft to article space. I then nominated the abandoned draft for Miscellany for Deletion, because, never having been sent to AFC, it wasn't eligible for G13. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
We have draft about a lawyer who "currently represents a number of male students who have been wrongfully accused of campus assault and denied due process rights". The article goes into some detail on a current court case, and makes many statements like "falsely accused" about others. I looked for advice on how to handle the description of legal cases, but didn't find any. I am uncomfortable that this article appears to make judgments about court cases, but I don't have policy to point the editor to. Any ideas? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Does G12 apply to a draft that duplicates another?
Draft:Miss saHHara was created on 5 May 2016 UTC. User:Phoenixqueen/sandbox was created a few hours ago and is clearly a duplicate of the first draft. Can I validly G12 the new draft as being an unattributed copy? The text of G12 reads Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion, which makes me think that G12 might not be appropriate. If G12 doesn't work here, is it worth MfDing the duplicate draft? Waiting the 6 months for G13? Doing nothing?
I have previously run into the situation where there are two identical drafts waiting to be reviewed at the same time. However, I would just decline them as duplicates without taking any further action. It occurs to me now that I may have been doing it wrong all along. Thanks, /wiae/tlk15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: I don't think G12 would apply since copying within Wikipedia is allowable within the limits of WP:CWW (the minimum requirement is a link in the page history of the duplicate page to the source page), and yes, Wikipedia is free content, which is explicitly exempted from G12. I would instead redirect the sandbox to the original draft, since it appears to be a direct copy-paste. If we are very concerned about the attribution requirements of WP:CWW, then I would save a dummy edit at the duplicate draft with a link to the original draft in the edit summary—that should be enough to resolve copyright issues. Deletion doesn't seem necessary in this case.
Generally, in cases where there are two drafts about the same subject waiting to be reviewed at the same time, I would use editorial judgment. By that I mean literally asking yourself: which one is better? Pick the one that would be best for the encyclopedia and review that one, then leave a friendly note at the other draft, encouraging the author to possibly merge the two or otherwise help contribute to the selected draft. If both drafts are about the same quality, then I would say the one that got submitted first gets priority. I can't recall having to deal with this kind of situation before, so I may be way off the mark here, but this seems like the best thing to do. Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
We've gotten a number of articles that appear to be templates for tennis events that will take place later this year, such as Draft:2016_Topshelf_Open. Have folks been passing those through to main space? They seem harmless and I understand the "getting ready" mentality, even though we don't usually deal in "futures." Thanks, LaMona (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Headings at Bottoms of Drafts
Not infrequently, I see titles of articles at the bottoms of the articles. Is there a "misfeature" of the Article Wizard that does this, or does this just happen randomly? It seems to happen often enough that I am assuming that it isn't just by mistake, but for some reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I think, but I'm not positive, that it has to do with how the "submit" button works on the {{AFC submission/draft}} template: it's like clicking the "New section" tab at the top of a talk page, but with {{subst:submit}} already preloaded in the edit window, so all the user has to do after clicking the submit button is to hit "Save page" and {{subst:submit}} will be automatically appended to the page. However, note that when you use the "New section" tab, there is a field that says "Subject/headline" right above the edit window. Normally, that field should be left blank when submitting an AfC draft, but I think what is happening is editors are seeing the "Subject/headline" field when they hit the submit button, then stating the subject of their article (presumably the title of the article) in that field. As a result, when they save the page to submit the draft, a subject heading appears right above the AfC box with the article title. Later on, when bots and reviewers clean up the draft, they move the AfC template to the top of the page, so what's left is what looks like a random article title section header at the bottom of the page. This could possibly be remedied by changing the preloaded text to urge users to leave the subject/headline field blank while submitting. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That explains that. First, I agree that the preloaded text should be changed. Second, it then is what is known in computing as a "misfeature". It's something undesirable that happens as a result of the way something is designed, as opposed to a bug in the usual sense, which is just a mistake. Third, I think that reviewers should be aware that, if, after work, a draft is otherwise ready for acceptance, the reviewer should manually remove the footings-headings. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
New Article Content
Another annoying item that I often see in submissions that were created with the Article Wizard is "New article content" at the top of the page. Is that also created somehow by the Article Wizard? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I also sometimes see, at the top, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". That is less common, and I have assumed that that was inserted by editors who thought that it was appropriate. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I apologise, I honestly don't know why I screwed that one up. --MorbidEntree-(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Per this help request by CorporateM on my talk page, I have reverted two declines as invalid criteria, and am documenting here why I did.
Draft:Qapital - Created as a draft on 20:01 22 June 2016; declined by MorbidEntree at 08:58 23 June 2016 as "No improvement since last decline" What "last decline"? This draft had just been created.
Draft:Videology - Created as a draft on 20:14 on 22 June 2016; by MorbidEntree at 09:55 23 June 2016 as "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." You only need to read down the list of 28 citations to see how off the mark this was.
I would like to clarify that I understand the "backlog" correctly. Does the backlog consist of all of those pages, whether in user space or draft space, that have been Submitted for AFC review, which are still tagged as pending review? If so, I would infer that the backlog goes up by 1 when an author submits or resubmits a page, regardless of whether it is a sandbox page, some other page in user space, or a draft page. Likewise, I would infer that the backlog goes down by 1 when a reviewer either accepts or declines the draft, or when the draft is deleted, either via any of the CSD criteria or via MFD. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: All of this matches my own understanding. I can confirm that when I take an article out of the backlog, the count decrements by one (when I click Purge in the Pending AfC submissions widget), so any lag time is negligible. Do you think you might have you spotted a discrepancy? —Ringbang (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No. I just wanted to verify that a reviewer reduces the backlog equally by an Accept and a Decline, so that there is no pressure to bias the reviewer one way or the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, any autoconfirmed editor has the right to create a new article, and so any autoconfirmed editor has the right to move a draft into article space. I have seen reviewers move a page back from article space to draft space, but that is generally done as a courtesy to save a page from AFD. If you don't think that the page should be in article space, you can either move it back to draft space or nominate it for deletion. It looks reasonably well-sourced to me and doesn't have any other issues that I see that would warrant its deletion, but that is only my opinion. Either move it back to draft space (but the editor did have the privilege of moving it to article space) or nominate it for deletion or leave it alone. Those are my opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
As a general principle only the editor who submitted a draft to AFC has the "right" to remove it from AFC. The submitter is expecting (and deserves) a proper systematic review by a competent reviewer in accordance with the established AFC workflow. If an editor simply rips the draft out of the review process and dumps it in mainspace in a condition that risks deletion, that is effectively vandalism of the original drafter's work. Such irregular moves should be reverted so that the AFC process can continue. In the above case the editor who moved it to mainspace did actually work on the article content, so it was not a "drive by" move. The editor seems to have been satisfied (correctly imho) that the draft is ready for mainspace. This was a good faith move and must not be confused with bad faith "sabotage" of AFC process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand these responses properly. The "must-have" criteria on the WikiProject's Participants page are just a deterrent. —Ringbang (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ringbang: No, that's not the case. There are two different things going on here. We have strict criteria on the the participants page to control use of the AFCH tool organically. (Someone could always use a similar javascript without permission but we assume that won't happen.) The purpose is to keep ineligible editors from misusing the AFCH tool and accept a bunch of unsatisfactory drafts written by others on behalf of WikiProject AfC. Separately, autoconfirmed users can move a draft they created into the mainspace, or simply create in mainspace to start with. The point of AfC is to corral the new users with acceptance meaning that the draft should survive AfD if nominated. Any new-ish editor that circumvents the process is taking their chances. I, personally, wouldn't revert a move into mainspace as AfC isn't designed as an incubator. I have in the past issued warnings and/or went straight to deletion nomination. The rules for mainspace, in my opinion, exist outside AfC. Once a draft is in mainspace we have to play by mainspace rules. Chris Troutman (talk)19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks for that, Chris. My reply was facetious since I was a bit taken aback by the dismissive responses, and even moreso when that reply attracted no correction. Since templates like Nothanks provide polite, formal ways of addressing a range of policy violations, I assumed there must be something similar for a case like this—especially considering how much Wikipedia seems to value the integrity of this process. —Ringbang (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The community is divided on the question of whether Draft:Embassy of Switzerland in New Zealand is notable. Reviwers Robert McClenon and St170e have both said it is notable. Embassies are not automatically notable; I don't know what notability guideline they feel it meets. It was copied from an earlier version of Embassy of Switzerland in Wellington, which Gbawden turned into a redirect with the comment "don't believe it merits its own article." Reviewer SwisterTwister found that a substantially similar version did not show the subject's notability. Reviewer LaMona said a similar version was an instance of what Wikipedia is not.
The draft's only citations are to the Swiss government. WP:GNG requires multiple sources so that a balanced article can be written that doesn't simply repeat one source's point of view. This is rooted in the neutral point of view policy, which states, "Achieving ... neutrality means ... analyzing a variety of reliable sources." Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of the "Embassy of Switzerland in New Zealand" portion of the Swiss government website.
My own searches found only one example of non-trivial, non-routine coverage, and even it is very thin: "Swiss jazz quartet set to play in city". Manawatu Standard. 5 November 2013.. There is a Google Books search hit on page 11 of New Zealand. Dept. of External Affairs (1962). External Affairs Review. But the snippet doesn't show any of the matched text. It might be trivial or routine coverage, or about a different Embassy of Switzerland. One other title has potential, but I'd have to get it from the library and read it, I can't judge from the Google Books snippets: Helen Baumer (2003). One-way ticket to New Zealand: Swiss immigration after the Second World War. Lang. ISBN978-0-8204-6493-0.
I would decline the draft on the grounds that it does not show that the topic is notable, but don't want AfC to keep giving the submitters mixed signals regarding notability. Can we reach a consensus? Notable or not? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I would say that not all embassies are automatically notable - otherwise we would have every consulate and embassy of every nation in the encyclopedia. WP:NOT & WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here I think. If an embassy gets significant news coverage I would say that then it has met WP:GNG and therefore is notable. An example to me would be the embassy that houses Julian Assange.
Not notable. I can imagine that there are some embassies that are, but for reasons beyond simply being an embassy. (I'm thinking the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Julian Assange has been exiled now for years.) LaMona (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
In this thread: Thoughts, comments, and speculations about more efficient reviewing. If we get some good material together, maybe we can assemble them in an essay for future Wikipidlets. I've got barnstars at the ready for good ideas! —Ringbang (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Avoid the soft rejection
Avoid rejecting articles in a way that encourages fruitless resubmission. Example: Someone submits an unsourced BLP, and the subject is unambiguously non-notable (a garage band that formed yesterday). If we reject it for lack of references, there's a chance the draft-writer will resubmit with refs to Soundcloud, Facebook, etc. If we already know that notability is an unsatisfiable criterion, rejecting for something like tone or lack of references just strings the draft-writer along; if the writer resubmits, then it wastes reviewer time. The reviewer doesn't know that there's another, different basis for rejection around the corner. In a case like this, we should reject on the basis of notability. —Ringbang (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing isn't that easy or simple. I've seen non-notable subjects, done a cursory search only to find nothing, and rejected for notability with a comment about lack of sources. I cannot always categorically rule that the subject is not and never shall be notable. I've submitted articles for AfD after a similar search only to be surprised when someone else finds scads of citations and I end up looking silly. Further, many of the non-notable stuff you'll see is written by partisans with a conflict of interest. They're too close to the forest to see the trees. No amount of rejection will dissuade them from just re-submitting without making any improvements. I agree it wastes editor time. Sadly, there's a perception of profits hanging on Wikipedia and most people simply won't take no for an answer. Finally, as a volunteer project it's easy to make a drive-by rejection for something like "tone" and string along the editor by accident. It's harder to do real research and make a comprehensive review. Regardless I think it's good to exhort reviewers as you describe. Chris Troutman (talk)19:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ringbang, first, we asked here to have the ability to include more than one reason on AfC reviews - I don't remember where that went. It often is the case that there is more than one problem with the article, and by noting only one the editor thinks that fixing that one thing will fix the article. This unfortunately adds a certain "seriality" to the review process where each time editors come back a different problem is noted. I agree with User:Chris troutman that you do not always know if the subject is notable, and it can take a considerable amount of time to make that determination, time reviewers do not always have (especially since I'm noticing that a lot of articles coming in these days are ones that do not rely on English-language sources, making checking even more difficult). The other problem is that even when you deny the article based on notability, it often comes back. We have no way to give a definitive "No, that doens't cut it." That's the other problem that we haven't got a quick answer for, which is that the motivation to get your company/band/boss into WP makes editors very persistent. "Not notable" seems to be just another way to say "try again in a couple of days." The main criticism that I get from editors and other reviewers is sending back articles for CORPs or BLPs that may be notable but that lack sources or are badly formatted. It then becomes a question of: how good does an article have to be to go into main space? I'll give you my take: the more crap we allow in main space, the more crap we will get, because it has become a competition to be in WP (SEO and all of that). Many articles I review have been based on what users see today in WP, and getting people to not say "But hey, lookie here, I based it on XYZ" and the ever present "But XYZ has an article!" but instead to actually read and absorb the policies is a huge hurdle. If they didn't see a bunch of crap articles already in WP they might never get the idea that they, too, could add a crap article to it. (Sorry for the frustration -- the latest round of backlog may have exposed me to more bad writing than I was ready for.) LaMona (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I mostly disagree with the original idea of "avoiding the soft rejection". Sometimes it isn't obvious that a "hard rejection" is appropriate. If reviewers are expected to determine conclusively that the sources don't support notability, it would be a terrible disincentive to editors to be volunteer reviewers. I do think that it should be possible to select more than one reason, and I don't know why this wasn't done. I do think that if a draft has both notability and tone issues, the rejection should include comments to that effect. However, with some editors, especially conflict of interest editors (but also Randy from Boise editors), it is impossible to get the message across to drop it. The reviewer usually doesn't know for a certainty that a hard rejection is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Document an incomplete review
Have you ever checked a source in a draft, but you're not prepared to commit to finishing the review? Write a comment. Do you think that the subject might be notable, but it's somewhat obscure or has no references? Write a comment. Comments or it didn't happen. —Ringbang (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This comes up pretty frequently, but I'd sure like to focus on certain types of materials, and avoid others. I never take the "random draft" option because I want to choose drafts I'm comfortable with, and I guess at those from the title. No, I don't know who will do the categorizing, although I'm willing to add a category to a draft I have opened and decided not to work on. The categories themselves? Well, we could start with the AfD list. It's not perfect, but is a start. LaMona (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@LaMona: It's unclear to me how the AfD categories factor into the matter. A sorting mechanism exists for drafts. As of today about a third of the pending review drafts have been sorted. If one only wants to review drafts related to Video games, say, one can use CatScan to scan Category:Pending AfC submissions for Drafts that have {{WikiProject Video games}} on their talk page. Projects that currently have 4 or more drafts pending review:
90 WikiProject Biography
38 WikiProject Companies
19 WikiProject United States
15 WikiProject Organizations
9 WikiProject Software
8 WikiProject Computing
8 WikiProject Fashion
8 WikiProject Video games
7 WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology
6 WikiProject Canada
6 WikiProject Film
6 WikiProject Websites
5 WikiProject Military history
4 WikiProject Books
4 WikiProject Business
4 WikiProject California
4 WikiProject Computer Security
4 WikiProject Finance
4 WikiProject Medicine
4 WikiProject Professional wrestling
4 WikiProject Rock music
4 WikiProject Telecommunications
4 WikiProject Visual arts
Projects can do the sorting by using AlexNewArtBot to monitor new articles for drafts that might be in their scope, and then adding their project template as appropriate. Otherwise it's likely up to us to do the sorting, manually or with importScript('User:APerson/draft-sorter.js');. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Worldbruce - I had no idea of the script nor the categories, and as someone active in AfC, that means probably many others do not either. A script is only useful when it's used, and this one seems to need more use. I don't run "raw" scripts but if that were added to AFCH or provided as a gadget I'd be happy to categorize drafts that I encounter, and select categories that I am interested in. However, I would prefer a less granular set of categories - the full list of projects is both overly detailed and also uneven. I think a grosser set of categories is what we need. Adding a limited set to AFCH or creating a script gadget aimed at a small set of categories would be my preference. Usability, usability, usability. LaMona (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I figured out how to install this, but one of the projects that I need, Military History, does not show up. Ideas? LaMona (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The list of projects is the same as those that reviewers can add during acceptance of a draft. For Military History to show up as a choice, I believe Theopolisme would have to add a line for it to User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js. Not sure if there was a reason it was omitted when the list was created a few years back. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Use of Blank
Sometimes I encounter a submission that has no substantive content, but that contains space-filler material such as "New article content" that was inserted by the Article Wizard, and headings with nothing below them. I decline them as Blank, noting that there is no actual article content, only space-filler, and the page may have been submitted to AFC by accident. Is Blank the right reason (or a right reason) to decline these, or should they be something else? They aren't really test edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Use blank if it contains only the templates and "boilerplate" text that is automagically included on sandbox drafts, nothing has actually been written by the page creator. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That is an accurate characterization of the drafts about which I was asking. If there is anything more than that, but it isn't possible to figure out what it is meant to be about, I assume that one should guess whether it is a test edit, in which case decline as a test edit, or meant to be something, but incomprehensible, in which case decline as insufficient context. Every now and then it is just impossible to determine what something is supposed to be, in which case I usually try to explain that I really don't know what it is trying to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Use of Context
Thank you for clarifying about the Blank reason for rejection, which is for drafts that have no real editor-provided content. I would like a clarification of the Context decline rationale. It appears that it applies to articles where the reviewer just can't figure out what the subject is, or has had to guess what the subject is. Is that its purpose? I can see that it shouldn't be used very often; it applies to submissions that are in recognizable (even if not perfect) English. Can someone comment on it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I've run into articles that are about a technical topic where I can't even figure out what the topic is because it launches immediately into an advanced discussion using terminology that is unknown to me. That's when I've used the Context decline, and asked the editor to create enough of an introduction that a naive user knows at least whether this is an article about, say, medicine vs. theoretical physics. A good introductory paragraph is often all that is needed. LaMona (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that launching directly into technical detail is problematic. A reader should at least know that the article is about physics and be able to decide whether to read along or to leave it alone. I get quite annoyed with drafts that don't have a proper lede paragraph, but that isn't itself a decline ground, just usually accompanied by notability issues or tone issues, or maybe by inadequate context. Also, sometimes I have made a comment suggesting that the author go to a particular WikiProject, such as WP:WikiProject Computing or WP:WikiProject Physics, for a review. While the active editors there may not be AFC reviewers, they at least can provide their comments that can aid the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ungrammatical Submissions
I would like to verify that my approach to drafts whose English is bad (but whose meaning can be parsed) is correct. I tag them with the copy-edit template and then take whatever action I would take if they were in proper English, usually to decline them for notability (because most submissions are declined for notability), but possibly to comment on them and pass on them. I haven't yet encountered a submission that I wanted to accept but that was in bad English, but if I did, I think that I would go ahead and complete the copy-edit and accept it. Am I correct that submissions that need copy-editing should be tagged, but should not be declined solely because of the bad English? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it depends on how bad is bad. If it's a couple of errors, I usually just fix them if I think the article may be acceptable. If it needs a lot of work, I have at times rejected with the generic reject advising the editor(s) that it needs copy editing before it can be carefully reviewed. I send them to the Teahouse at that point. My thought on this is that we wouldn't want such a poorly worded article to go into main space, and it puts a burden on the new article reviewers. However, the option of accepting it and tagging it with the copy-edit tag also seems reasonable. I have to say, though, that poor writing and other problems usually go together, with the exception of some translated articles. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Aside from translated articles, the one area in which I have sometimes seen poor writing but reasonable subject matter is the history of India, where the authors are writing in the common second language of a country having many languages. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Reviewers often decline a submission because it contains peacock language, but it is unusual for the peacock language actually to compare its subject to a peacock. I declined a submission having the following language:
'She combines the colour and beauty of a butterfly , the lines and poise of a peacock , the unwavering ambition symbolised by the north star and the grace and poise of a Princess '.
I have two comments, not really questions, about the use of the first person plural. First, I sometimes encounter it in article drafts about companies. It generally is characteristic of an article that is making no effort to be a neutral encyclopedic draft, possibly because the author has no clue of what Wikipedia is, and is promotional. That is a signal to me that the draft should be tagged for WP:G11. (Many drafts that have a promotional tone can be fixed. Some, as the comments about G11 note, need to be blown up and started over.) Second, occasionally an editor uses the first person plural, as in "We have revised the draft as you requested." There are two possible explanations. The first, and obvious, is that this is a shared account, which is not permitted. However, second, in my opinion equally likely, is that the single editor is writing that they acted on behalf of their client or employer. They may or may not know that we have rules about conflict of interest, but they need to be asked whether they need to make the disclosure. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In either case, I place a COI template ({{subst:Uw-coi}}) on the user's talk page. It's a fairly gentle statement, does not assume or accuse, but informs the user about COI. Since, in my experience, many who come to AfC to create an article are doing so promotionally and have NO IDEA that this is not the place for that, this information is important. Many stop editing from that moment. I highly recommend that we educate users in this way. LaMona (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Clueless Social Media Profiles
Sometimes I review sandbox drafts that are obviously completely clueless submissions that appear to be meant to be social media profiles, by editors who probably don't know how Wikipedia differs from social media. They may sometimes be reasonable user page drafts, but are submitted as encyclopedic drafts for review, and are nowhere close to the content of BLP stubs. My real question is how to decline them politely. They can be declined either as bio or as ilc (and sometimes as context), but the real question is whether there is some way to advise them that they are in the wrong place completely. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, we need a specific decline for these that includes pointers to guidance about the acceptable use of the user page "about myself as a Wikipedian". The current WP:USERPAGES does not explicitly make a clear distinction between a user's "main" (about myself) user page and pages in userspace in general. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been a significant development about this submission. See this discussion on my talk page where the editor has revealed his motive for writing the draft (COI, PROMO, and NOTGUIDE violations). Given this I'm quite tempted to send the draft to MFD, but I'd appreciate another opinion (or three). Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a question, which is whether a reviewer will more or less automatically get notified if they have accepted an article, possibly a stub article, and the article is then nominated for Articles for Deletion? The reason is that I have occasionally, twice in the past two weeks, accepted an article that I assessed at Stub-Class (not even Start-Class). In both cases, it was an easy decision. In the first case, the article stated, with a newspaper source, that the subject was competing in the 2016 Olympic games. That was a stub, but accepting it was a no-brainer: Olympians are ipso facto notable. In the second case, the article stated, with a state government source, that the subject was a member of the lower house of a US state legislature. That was a stub, but accepting it was a no-brainer: State legislators are ipso facto notable. Maybe that is so obvious that I don't need to worry about defending the acceptance. However, more generally, there are marginal cases where a reviewer has made a reasoned decision that an article should pass a deletion discussion, but there are a few unreasonable deletion nominations. Will the reviewer be aware of the nomination? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I know that typically the move from draft space to mainspace watchlists the article, which will report the deletion tagging, but sometimes I find it necessary to clear most of the AFC remnants from my watchlist. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've had this problem before, too. I'm fairly sure the guidelines for all the deletion processes advise the nominator to notify "major contributors" to the article. Is there some way to get the message out to the deletion crowd that the person who accepted it at AfC should count as a major contributor? Joe Roe (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Another option I've thought of is whether the AfC helper script could be modified to keep a log of a user's accepts (like Twinkle's CSD log), that way you could use RelatedChanges to check up of them without crowding your main watchlist. Joe Roe (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I recently accepted a draft and moved it to mainspace but it was WP:PRODed and later, tagged for speedy deletion by Zefr. However, both were declined by admin. Then the editor removed almost 70% of the article's content. We discussed in talk page but they still seem to disagree. Also see history of my sandbox. I think that editor has WP:COI. I am new to AFC and this is the first draft I accepted. I felt that this article would pass AFD. I want second opinions about the edits made by that editor. Do you think they are acceptable? Thank you Fuortu (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the difficult about AfC is you and the submitter come to think of the accepted draft as been "finished", but of course once it's in mainspace it may be completely rewritten by other editors. Or deleted. Or ignored. That's how Wikipedia works. Once it's out of draft, it's subject to all the normal processes.
What makes you think Zefr has a COI? It seems unlikely, as he as an experienced editor with wide interests. Personally I think he was right to remove that material: unsourced or poorly sourced material is always liable to be removed, and medical information is subject to especially stringent guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source, for obvious reasons. Statements like "They have also been listed as an Austin Business Journal "Best Places to Work" in 2014", "Black Swan Yoga is a community-driven, affordable yoga destination founded in Austin, Texas", etc. are clearly promotional and have no place in an encyclopedia article. (By the way, you will have to be particularly vigilant for this at AfC, as a large proportion of our submissions are written by people who don't really understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and want "a page for" for their company/self/best friend's dog.)
But that's just my two pence. I would say the best thing to do at this stage is to continue to engage with Zefr on the talk page to try and reach a consensus, and if you want a third opinion try venues like WP:3O, WP:MED or WP:DRN. Joe Roe (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that those statements are promotional. He also removed other sentences which were not promotional and sourced with reliable sources. And also that is medical journal, it is not unreliable source. Anyway, thanks for giving your opinion. Fuortu (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: I think that was the right call. I also found this, this, and this so if the standard for AfC is the subject has a 50/50 shot at AfD, this might survive. The sources are either connected to her or it's just a puff piece. There's been discussion about creating an SNG for businesspeople and it would likely aid subjects like this. The problem here is that this was built in a subpage of WikiProject Africa. Ricky81682 moved it to draft space and submitted it as the editor, so now it's on the clock for G13 deletion. I think it should have been left where it was and were it submitted for review it should have been done as the original editor so they know. That's not your problem, though. Chris Troutman (talk)21:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks for the comments. I did notice that the draft's creator and the submitter were two different people, so I left custom-worded notifications on both of their talk pages. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree with the call. I can't find much either. I moved the page as there's a number of drafts there, dozens that were just blank or copyright violations, but the remainder can be reviewed. The advantage of having it here is that someone who tries to create another draft with that name will more easily find the history here than at the WikiAfrica subpage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Very Old Submissions
What causes a submission to go into the Very Old category? I mean what action or process updates the Age? I don't see submissions go into the Very Old category at midnight GMT, but I do see them between one and three hours after midnight GMT. What in particular happens behind the scenes to put them in the category? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
They're sorted into the age categories by the {{AfC submission}} template (specifically {{AfC age category}}). It subtracts the date/time the draft was submitted from the current date/time and works out which category it should be in accordingly. The date/times are recorded to the second, so I think the exact time it becomes 21 days old and tickets over into Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old will vary based on when it was submitted. Joe Roe (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. So it is done to the second. However, I think that Very Old means 30 days and older. Anyway, so it doesn't happen at midnight because it happens to the second. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
About Luis Fernando Correia´s page
Hi! My name is Elis Monteiro, i´m a brazilian journalist and i work to Luis Fernando Correia, a Brazilian physician and health correspondent on radio, TV and Internet. I tried to publish his page here at wikipedia, but the editor didn´t alow it.
Can we talk about the reasons? I tried to use all references i have (a lot of).
First, the article was accepted more than a week ago. As a result, it is not clear to me what the question is. However, second, if you are working for Luis Fernando Correia, as opposed to if you are Luis Fernando Correia, you need to change your user name, because it is that of a living person whom you are not. Third, you have not made the conflict of interest and paid editing disclosures. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Backlog
There is a backlog of approximately 20 pending Articles for Creation submissions that are Very Old (more than 30 days old). Can we try to work off this backlog? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Accepting an article over a redirect
How do you a handle a situation where there's an AfC draft (with a non-trivial page history) ready to be moved to mainspace, but the target article already exists as a redirect with a substantial history?
I've just come across two drafts in this situation and would like to accept them but am scratching my head over how to do it without losing one page history or the other. Joe Roe (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I see a lot of drafts that begin with the words "New Article Content". I am assuming that these words either are supplied by the Article Wizard or are entered cluelessly by users from seeing them displayed as a prompt by the Article Wizard. Which? If they are supplied by the Article Wizard, can something be done to minimize the likelihood of their appearing in drafts? If a draft with the words still in it otherwise calls for acceptance, it will require editing to remove the words. Where do they come from? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate Drafts Due to Reviewer Edit Conflict
Sometimes authors create multiple copies of drafts, which complicates review. However, in this one case, I have evidence that an edit conflict between reviewers created multiple copies of a draft. See User:Landoflizards/Education Unleashed and Draft:Education Unleashed. I moved the draft from user space to draft space, and then declined it. At the same time, it seems that User:Fuortu declined it in place. As a result, it now exists twice. I was about to ask whether someone, such as the developers, can do something, but I have realized that the developers are never going to do anything about the clunky way that Wikipedia deals with edit conflicts. The developers are working at whiz-bang-gee-whiz stuff more than on fixes to the clunky aspects of the existing wiki software. So: Be aware that sometimes multiple copies of drafts happen due to edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Blank submissions
Hello, folks. I recently came across a blank submission. I declined the submission as "blank" and then nominated it for Speedy Deletion. Was this the correct approach? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
User:NewYorkActuary - I wouldn't have tagged it for speedy deletion. What speedy deletion rationale did you use? I would only have declined it, to give the author another chance to enter draft text. I only tag drafts for speedy deletion in a few circumstances, such as really blatant advertising for G11, or G10. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The speedy-deletion criterion that I used was A3 ("no content"). However, I have since received a note on my Talk page from one of the administrators doing speedy deletions, informing me that this criterion is not to be used for User pages. So, I see now that it was not a correct approach. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That should only be used for articles. In fact, any criteria that starts with "A" (short for article) should be used for articles and those which start with "G" (short for general) can be used for any pages. Fuortu (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I will comment that AFC is relatively tolerant of incorrect submissions, which is one of its purposes. In particular, the most common reason for speedy deletion of articles is A7, no credible claim of significance, and drafts in AFC that make no credible claim of significance are simply declined on notability grounds. I will tag a draft for speedy deletion for G4 if I have seen the previously deleted article and the draft is the same as it (but normally I haven't seen the deleted article, because that requires glasses that I don't have). I will tag a draft for G10 as an attack page if it makes unsourced negative statements about a living person (whether or not a bad joke), and I will use judgment as to whether to tag advertising as spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The Ethics of AFC ?
I would just like to share a few thoughts for possible comments by other reviewers about just how much ethical obligation a reviewer has to authors. I think that we all agree that the primary obligation of a reviewer is to Wikipedia, to accept articles that should be accepted and to decline drafts that are not up to standards. (I was about to refer to accepting good articles, but that could be misunderstood, because some reviewers have been criticized for supposedly using a Good Article criterion before accepting a draft, and Good Article is a far higher standard than new articles should be held to. Reviewers should, in my view, always accept C-Class articles, usually Start-Class articles, and should accept Stub-Class articles if there is a reliable source that asserts ipso facto notability, such as the subject competed in the Olympics or held a general's commission.) I would like to verify that other reviewers do not think that a reviewer has an obligation to follow a draft through the approval process. (I have put a statement to that effect on my talk page edit notice.) In particular, I sometimes get asked for help in a situation where I not only don't feel like using my time for that purpose but would don't really have any sympathy. That is in helping a conflict of interest editor improve an article so that it doesn't read promotionally. So, first, do other editors agree that I do not have an obligation in general to help a particular editor follow a draft through the approval process? Second, do other editors agree that there is no obligation for volunteer editors to help an employee editor or paid editor get a corporate article accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
IMHO your criteria for accepting a Stub is too strict - if it passes WP:N and WP:V it should be accepted - "ipso facto notability" is not a reviewing criterion at all. About "obligation to follow a draft", I maintain that we actually should positively avoid following a draft - having a single reviewer repeatedly reviewing a draft runs the risk of skewing the draft content towards that reviewer's preferences and biases. Having different reviewers working on a draft is a strength, not a weakness, as multiple opinions enhances neutrality. Reviewers do have an obligation to assist good faith submitters when requested, until the next reviewer comes along, then the obligation is passed on. However a reviewer can refer a submitter to the AFC Help desk, the Teahouse, or a relevant WikiProject, instead of attempting to help with an issue that is outside of their "comfort zone". AFC is actually tasked with assisting paid/coi editors, we should not discriminate against them, but not those who are WP:NOTHERE - such submitters' drafts would usually be eligible for deletion anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that ipso facto notability is not a reviewing criteria, but notability is a reviewing criterion. It is difficult for me to recall a stub draft that establishes notability, except by establishing that it satisfies a specific notability criterion. (As I wrote that, I now recall that I once wrote and put into article space a stub about a mythological person, and she is still there, just as real as she wasn't two thousand years ago.) I am relieved to hear the "comfort zone" rule, because assisting a COI editor in hiding the COI in their draft, to make an article seem non-promotional when their purpose is promotion, is outside my comfort zone. I am also relieved at your thought that referring the editor to the Teahouse or a WikiProject may be in order, because that is sometimes what I have done and will continue to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Stubs that easily pass GNG are not that rare - I've even written a few myself: Stadium (geometry), Paratriathlon at the Summer Paralympics, Olesya Nurgalieva, Kalahari High, amongst others. Keep in mind that any SNG is by definition a weaker standard than GNG and BTW calling it "ipso facto" notability is actually misrepresenting their status. An SNG is a rule that permits a presumption of notability for certain classes of subjects, as opposed to GNG which requires actual evidence of notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert, for providing the opportunity to discuss these matters. Regarding the standards for accepting a submission, I get the impression that all three of us think the same thing, but just say it differently. For me, my understanding is that a submission is acceptable, regardless of length, provided I believe it is more likely than not to survive an Articles for Deletion nomination. But I don't see any contradiction between that way of viewing it and the ways that you and Roger have expressed it. As for the question of helping promotional editors, allow me to digress for a moment. Although it is a separate notion that needs a separate discussion, I offer here my opinion that AfC could easily become more valuable to the encyclopedia if we devoted a little more attention to the nuts-and-bolts aspects of writing an article. Things like in-article external links, section headings that don't conform to the Manual of Style or (my own pet peeve) bare URL's -- all of these things reduce the overall reputation of the encyclopedia. And the skills needed to avoid them can easily be learned by new editors, if only we would insist on them doing it here at AfC. I mention this as a preface to my response to Robert's question -- I'm quite happy to alert any editor, including the CoI or autobiographical ones, to the ways that they can improve the appearance of their submissions. As for crafting the language itself, I'm with Robert in not wanting to go that far. If confronted with a direct question as to how to make the submission sound less promotional, I'm more inclined to simply point them to an existing well-written article on a similar subject and say "Make it sound more like that one". Beyond that, no, I don't feel any obligation to become the editor's personal reviewer. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that as volunteers we have no obligation to people who submit articles. I review things quite selectively for that reason; I skip over submissions on companies or corporate biographies because, even though they might well be suitable for inclusion, I have no interest in spending my time making that happen. The exceptions are probably when I've been asked directly by someone to help, because I'm too polite to say no, but if you're finding that kind of thing intrusive or onerous I don't see any problem at all in saying "I'm sorry but I don't have the time/inclination to help you with this." Joe Roe (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fine to focus on submissions that interest you. If that interest becomes and agenda, you need to be a bit careful that it does not bend your judgement for accept/reject decisions. But we're human so clouded judgement is going to happen at times. If you're going about it selectively, I think it is better to seek our and accept stuff you like than looking for potentially acceptable stuff you don't like to reject. ~Kvng (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It isn't obvious to me on looking at the draft and the mainspace article that it was a copy-and-paste. They look sufficiently different in the details of their wording that I don't see an attribution issue or a copy-and-paste issue. Maybe someone else will take another look and say that I have missed something and it was a copy-and-paste. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The two look very similar to me. I've left the creator of Reservations (website) a note about how to properly copy within Wikipedia. Also, the entire history of Reservations (website) and most of the history of Draft:Reservations.com will need to be revdeled due to copying from a variety of press releases. I will request the appropriate revdels. Since drafts basically have a six-month shelf life, is placing an attribution note in the history of Reservations (website) sufficient, or do we need a history merge too? (After all, what good is "see this draft page for the rest of the history" when the draft might not exist in six months? Or so goes my thinking.) /wiae/tlk02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt responses. Robert, the main space version underwent changes after being created. The similarities between the Draft and Mainspace version are clearer when comparing the versions that existed at the same time -- Draft in late September and initial Main space version from late September. As for how to proceed, a history merge seems necessary unless the main space version is deleted in its entirety. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that the revision deletions have been done on the Main space version of the article and that the Draft has been deleted (as a copy of the Main space article, if I'm understanding the situation correctly). But it seems that we are still left with the original problem of a copy-paste move without attribution. Don't we still need a history merge, and is that even possible now that the Draft has been deleted? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Wiae When a Draft is correctly moved to mainspace the draft page becomes a redirect to the mainspace page. The entire history of the draft move to mainspace too. It's only when people make a mess of the move that such attribution is required, in that case the draft is manually changed to a redirect and the draft history stays with the redirected draft-space page, so it remains available indefinitely. The six month "lifespan" applies only to drafts that are abandoned by the author and never accepted into mainspace, per the G13 Speedy deletion rule. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so manually redirecting the draft after a cut-and-paste move to mainspace would keep the draft out of the G13 queue? Didn't know that, cool. /wiae/tlk13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Copy-edit tag in draft space
I have sometimes placed the copy-edit tag on a draft that was not in good shape grammatically and then either declined the draft or left it for another reviewer. Recently in one particular instance it was removed by another editor with a comment to the effect that a tag was removed that is applicable to article space. I agree that all of the various notability and verifiability (and sourcing) tags are not applicable to drafts, because notability or verifiability issues are reasons for declining a draft rather than tagging it. However, since it is my understanding that bad grammar and spelling are not a reason for declining a draft, my assumption was that, if the draft was accepted, the tag would stay if it was moved into article space. Is the copy-edit tag applicable in draft space, or should I use an AFC comment only if a draft is in bad shape grammatically (and I haven't decided to accept or decline it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll hold my hands up and admit I am one of those pedantic people who removed clean-up templates from drafts. They should be added after the article has been published in main article space IMO. Anything that isn't addressed in the AfC 'decline' message can be added as reviewer comments underneath. AfC is intende only to prevent the worst problems 'getting through'. Sionk (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, and think that some tags may appropriately be attached to drafts, although notability and verifiability tags should not. Is there or should there be a listing of what tags are applicable in what spaces? Would an RFC be in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Clean-up tags should only be used in mainspace because such tags put the page in a "Articles with xxx issue" which implies that the page is an article, not a draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the categories should work differently, but if that is the way it is, that is the way it is. In that case, it is probably necessary to put such comments into AFC comments, and reviewers who accept an article without working off the comments need to tag the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The backlog is shrinking (too?) fast!
I hope we don't have a rogue reviewer going through the submissions with a flamethrower, because the rate at which the backlog is shrinking is a bit alarming. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone spoken with contributors and sussed out this trend? For a non-Anglosphere country, it strikes me that we get a lot of Thailand draft articles, and actual valid topics like food, folk arts, etc.
Is there some current trend for schools in Thailand to assign Wikipedia projects, or just some cultural trend, or am I over-noting it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't say that I've seen very many recent articles on Thailand, but I haven't seen much of any at all for other countries. As for this being something school-related, the article on Education in Thailand tells us that the semester runs from May to October, but the recent articles appear to have been submitted in September (which strikes me as odd timing if this were school-related). But one thing that I have observed is that the articles do not address history or politics. Instead, they address topics like food, culture and markets -- topics that are conceivably of interest to tourists. This web site might be relevant -- a discussion of the OTOP initiative. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, the vast majority of the Thai articles I've seen have indeed been roughly things tourists care about, like handicrafts, food, locations like markets, etc. Not seeing many dry bios or history pieces. Do you reckon their tourism department has a few staffers busy, or put out some kind of contest or bounty? Nothing crucial, just found it an interesting trend. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I've also dealt with a few Thai "tourist guide" drafts in the last few days. There does indeed seem to be a concerted effort that is producing these drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I've just confirmed with one of the editors that these articles are part of an English-language class assignment from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi. The class is so far undocumented with the Wikipedia:Education program, although the project seems to have been running for a few years now. The past few days have also seen some student editors copying their drafts directly over to the main namespace, bypassing the AfC process, probably due to an upcoming deadline. I've asked a few of the editors to forward my requests for communication, but so far haven't been able to get in contact with the lecturer(s). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Dodger67 - Good question. I have tried inserting comments in all three drafts. I have also mentioned that it is their responsibility to show that whatever is submitted is better than the deleted version. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Very Old Drafts
Earlier this afternoon there were no Very Old drafts. Now there are 80 (and were 84). Where did all of the Very Old drafts come from? Did someone suddenly submit dozens of drafts, or did someone backdate the drafts, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks to be one of life's minor mysteries. My guess -- there's something non-intuitive about the way the system is calculating the age of the submissions. A few random checks revealed that not every submission currently in the "very old" category is actually older than every submission in the "4 weeks old" category. I also found a submission in the "very old" category that was just submitted today -- it was a draft from the summer of 2015 that was submitted today by someone other than the draft's creator. As for your suggested possibilities, I didn't find more than one draft from the same editor, nor did I see any evidence that the time stamps were adjusted (but, frankly, I didn't look too closely for the latter). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic when I suggested that someone suddenly submitted dozens of drafts. I think that I agree that there is something peculiar about the date category algorithm. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The AFC submission template categorises pages according to the submission timestamp. If someone re-opened a submission using a previously placed template, it'll follow the old timestamp (this is probably the cause of the case mentioned by NewYorkActuary). Categorisation via templates also results in delays in updates due to page caching. So for draft pages which see little traffic, it's possible that the categories could take several days or up to a few weeks to be updated. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This article shows up as an AFC submission in article space. I can't find the template in it that causes it to be listed in that way. Can someone please remove the silly template? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - The tags were being transcluded from another template. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ethics of AFC Question (another) - Drafts by SPAs
I have another question about the ethics of AFC. I have been trying to work off the backlog of Very Old drafts, as have some other reviewers (and it is shrinking). However, here is my question. Often a draft is clearly still not ready for article space or will never be ready for article space. Those need declining (sometimes yet again). If I think that a draft is unlikely to be AFD'd, I can accept it. Occasionally I really am in doubt and just pass, and move on to another article. Sometimes there is an issue that doesn't warrant a decline as such, but isn't right, and I insert a comment and move on to another article. Those are not the question. The question is when an article looks reasonable, but, in looking at the history, and the edit contributions of the author, I see that the author's only edits are on this article. I am caught between assume good faith and the facts, which are that single purpose accounts who work only on one article usually have a conflict of interest. Do I have an obligation to ignore my cynicism and assume good faith and accept the draft, or should I do something (decline the article, ask a question in an AFC comment, ask a question on the draft talk page) about my suspicion that this is a COI draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
AFC is basically the only "legitimate" way a COI editor is supposed to create an article, thus it follows that the COI itself is not a valid reason to decline a draft, or even to treat the submitter differently. We are supposed to assist COI editors the same way we help any other contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. Editors with COI are required to declare their COI. The editors in question have not declared COI. Should I ignore my concern that there may be an undeclared COI, or should I do something, such as ask whether there is a COI? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Are we supposed to assume that all single-purpose accounts simply think that creating one article is the best way that they can serve Wikipedia (which we know is a common misconception), and thus help undeclared COI editors, or should we do something? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, there are many paid editors. They will always be around because they have the time and motivation to create articles. But the majority of editors using AfC must surely be either fairly new to the process, or using AfC because they want to get things right. So it's quite likely they will only have limited editing history. I would be inclined to take each draft on its merits, and not fret too much about whether the author has a COI (unless they blatantly/honestly declare it). Sionk (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
To respond to the original question: An SPA (even an obvious CoI editor) is allowed to submit a draft. We ought to accept the draft if it meets our criteria (WP:N, WP:V, etc.). Wikipedia believes everyone should be editing (right or wrong) and it's not within our remit to refuse any class of editor except those that are NOTHERE or are otherwise destructive. While Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, I've never had any problem accepting a reasonable draft. If anything, I think it's easier to negotiate with the one-off author trying to publicize than the sockfarm PAID editors that will stop at nothing. Chris Troutman (talk)20:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Draft copied into Main space
A while back, I had asked about a situation in which Editor A submits a draft to AfC, but Editor B does a copy/paste of that submission into Main space. The prior discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help/2016 1#Draft placed into Main space. That case was complicated by the fact that Editor A had included some copyright-violating material taken from outside Wikipedia. The upshot was that the Main space article had the copyright-violating material rev-del'd, but the remaining material continued to be falsely attributed to Editor B. And frankly, I think that was the wrong outcome.
I'm now seeing a similar situation at Draft:European Alternatives and European Alternatives. But this time, I'm not raising any copyright issues regarding Editor A's work (at least not yet -- I haven't checked for it). It seems to me that the correct approach is to delete the Main space version for its failure to attribute the proper author. Does this make sense to everyone here? And more importantly, is it likely that an administrator would accept this as a valid rationale for deletion? And if so, is the copyright-violation tag for Speedy Deletion the right one to use?
I don't think this is grounds for deleting the mainspace article, no. In terms of copyright attribution it would suffice to ask an admin to do a history merge of the two articles. Joe Roe (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I see your point, but I'm still left feeling that something about that solution is not quite right. Editor A asked for a review of their work, and has not withdrawn that request. And yet, under the proposed solution, the withdrawal of A's request becomes a fait accompli by the actions of Editor B, as well as by our decision to ratify Editor B's actions by deleting Editor A's request. Is this not a valid concern? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well technically once somebody creates a draft they've released that content to the community to do what they want with it, so Editor B did nothing wrong by creating the article, even if it was impolite. I'd probably just contact both editors and figure out what's going on – they might well be the same person, or two people who know each other. Joe Roe (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I continue to see your point, but I continue to be uneasy with allowing the main-space version to exist. I think the essential difference between our views is that what you see as "impolite", I see as "disruptive" and in need of reverting. But I also see that I'm not winning any hearts or minds here, so I'll not belabor the point. Thank you for engaging in discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: Thanks for commenting. I don't dispute the importance of making sure that Editor A gets attribution for their work, nor do I dispute the fact that your proposal will provide that attribution. But I'm still getting stuck on the notion that Editor A's request for a review can be vetoed by Editor B, and that we will side with Editor B every time it happens. The cleanest way to avoid both problems, it seems to me, is to delete Editor B's addition to Main space and then finish up with Editor A's request for a review. But I've already promised not to belabor the point, so ... I won't. Thanks again for commenting. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It is of course usually hard to discern motive, but it could be that Editor B wants the draft deleted but is not willing to wait for due process, so uses a premature move to mainspace to effectively "sabotage" the draft. Thus the move by B could be a bad faith act. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
An old submission is up for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police Inspector Blog where I have nominated a 2011 acceptance for deletion. I believe the discussion would benefit from whatever opinions current reviewers choose to add to it.
I would have notified the accepting reviewer, but they have retired. I am most carefully not soliciting a particular type of opinion. It is your opinion and the eventual outcome that is important, and I believe that the discussion is often more important than the eventual outcome.
